Johnny Skeptic

I am not impressed with Eusebius: Consider the following from the Britannica Deluxe Edition 2003:

[Eusebius] flourished 4th century, Caesarea Palestinae, Palestine

also called Eusebius Pamphili bishop, exegete, polemicist, and historian whose account of the first centuries of Christianity, in his Ecclesiastical History, is a landmark in Christian historiography.

Eusebius was baptized and ordained at Caesarea, where he was taught by the learned presbyter Pamphilus, to whom he was bound by ties of respect and affection and from whom he derived the name “Eusebius Pamphili” (the son or servant of Pamphilus). Pamphilus came to be persecuted for his beliefs by the Romans and died in martyrdom in 310. Eusebius may himself have been imprisoned by the Roman authorities at Caesarea, and he was taunted many years later with having escaped by performing some act of submission.

The work of the scholars of the Christian school at Caesarea extended into all fields of Christian writing. Eusebius himself wrote voluminously as apologist, chronographer, historian, exegete, and controversialist, but his vast erudition is not matched by clarity of thought or attractiveness of presentation. His fame rests on his Ecclesiastical History, which he probably began to write during the Roman persecutions and revised several times between 312 and 324. In this work Eusebius produced what may be called, at best, a fully documented history of the Christian church, and, at worst, collections of passages from his sources. In the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius constantly quotes or paraphrases his sources, and he thus preserved portions of earlier works that are no longer extant. He had already compiled his Chronicle, which was an outline of world history, and he carried this annalistic method over into his Ecclesiastical History, constantly interrupting his narrative of the church's history to insert the accession of Roman emperors and of the bishops of the four great sees (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome). He enlarged his work in successive editions to cover events down to 324, the year before the Council of Nicaea. Eusebius, however, was not a great historian. His treatment of heresy, for example, is inadequate, and he knew next to nothing about the Western church. His historical works are really apologetic, showing by facts how the church had vindicated itself against heretics and heathens.

Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea (in Palestine) about 313. When about 318 the theological views of Arius, a priest of Alexandria, became the subject of controversy because he taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, Eusebius was soon involved. Expelled from Alexandria for heresy, Arius sought and found sympathy at Caesarea, and, in fact, he proclaimed Eusebius as a leading supporter. Eusebius did not fully support either Arius or Alexander, bishop of Alexandria from 313 to 328, whose views appeared to tend toward Sabellianism (a heresy that taught that God was manifested in progressive modes). Eusebius wrote to Alexander, claiming that Arius had been misrepresented, and he also urged Arius to return to communion with his bishop.But events were moving fast, and at a strongly anti-Arian synod at Antioch, about January 325, Eusebius and two of his allies, Theodotus of Laodicea and Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, were provisionally excommunicated for Arian views. When the Council of Nicaea, called by the Roman emperor Constantine I, met later in the year, Eusebius had to explain himself and was exonerated with the explicit approval of the emperor.

In the years following the Council of Nicaea, the emperor was bent on achieving unity within the church, and so the supporters of the Nicene Creed in its extreme form soon found themselves forced into the position of dissidents. Eusebius took part in the expulsion of Athanasius of Alexandria (335), Marcellus of Ancyra (c. 336), and Eustathius of Antioch (c. 337). Eusebius remained in the emperor's favour, and, after Constantine's death in 337, he wrote his Life of Constantine, a panegyric that possesses some historical value, chiefly because of its use of primary sources. Throughout his life Eusebius also wrote apologetic works, commentaries on the Bible, and works explaining the parallels and discrepancies in the Gospels.

Johnny: As Elaine Pagel's has aptly said, "The victors rewrote history, 'their way'", and with the help of Constantine's military power I might add.

Ruhan

Ehrman has also hinted towards a distrust of Eusebius in a few of his publications.

The reason I initially referred to him was because we have no record that canonization was achieved during the council of Nicea and that Eusebius' list of acceptable books is the only piece of literature describing something close to a canon coming from this period.

Ruhan

James Madison

Good day Ruhan:

Our disagreement concerns the question of how a "canon" becomes "settled". The following excerpt adequately illuminates your undestanding in regards to this query.

You claimed Eusebius "created a canon" and I am quite simply disputing this fact, which necessarily makes it an issue. All I need to do is demonstrate Eusebius was relying upon someone else's work in compiling a list of acceptable books which preceded the Eusebius prose you claim he used to "create a canon".

It is entirely inconsequential if the entire christian community or church community had reached a consensus on a canon. A "settled canon" can exist in the absence of such agreement. The best contemporary illustration of this fact are the Catholics and Mormons. The Catholics and Mormons have a "settled canon" which is different from the Assemblies of God canon, the canon for the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Protestants, and Apostolics.

To be sure each of these denominations possess a "settled canon" in accordance to their church traditions. Are all the canons identical? No. Does there exist disagreement as to which books are genuine and true? You bet. Does this translate into the non-existence of a settled canon? No. For each church, for each denomination, there exists a "settled canon". A settled canon does not necessarily suggest unanimous agreement among the churches, nor a consensus. Rather, a "settled canon" also suggest a church, or a conglomeration of churches not necessarily constituting a majority, etcetera, has reached agreement according to their traditions and methods as to which books are genuine and true.

I am certain this is the manner in which I was using the word "settled" by virtue of the fact I emphasized the following example in my post. It does demonstrate, however, there existed a settled canon, by some number of churches, which Eusebius was relying upon. Let X=Some number of churches (maybe all, most, a few) and Y=some number of books. Eusebius is asserting X has recognized Y as being genuine and true according to X's tradition, which is essentially X has created a canon by asserting Y are genuine and true in accordance to their tradition. Hence, Eusebius is relying upon X's canon.
Isn't it a true statement X has a settled canon? Yes, this is a true statement. It does not matter if Z=some number of churches with a different canon. In such a situation it would be accurate to assert there exists a difference among settled canons but completely inaccurate to state there does not exist a settled canon at all. Once a church, or some number of churches, the number really is irrelevant, has compiled a collection of "books" they render as "acceptable" for their congregation under the auspices they are "true and genuine" then this church has a "settled canon". The fact the church next door disagrees has a different assorted list of books does not mean the prior church does not have a "settled canon". In such a situation there exists different "settled canons," which it is fair to say there may not be a "universally agreed upon canon".

Now relating all of this to Eusebius' prose. I think Eusebius' own words demonstrates he is relying upon a "settled canon". This does not mean, however, there existed a "universal canon" but only that some church, a church, 2 churches, 3 churches, 4 churches, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, perhaps 10-20 out of 40 churches in existence, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, hundreds, millions, billions, or zillions of churches in existence, had agreed upon a "canon" in accordance to their "traditions".

I think you understand this to be the point I am making since you make one very close to it when you said the following.

Okay, well a "settled canon" can indeed exist in the absence of a collective body establishing an "authoritative" or "universal" canon. Indeed, the "settled canon" will be unique to the individual church, congregation, denomination, but nevertheless a "settled canon" would still be in existence.

I am stating Eusebius was relying upon not necessarily a universal/authoritative canon, but rather a "settled canon" in accordance to some church/number of churches. In other words, some church or number of churches had a "settled canon" and Eusebius was relying upon it and referencing it in his prose.

Well this is a strawman argument. It misconstrues entirely how my argument uses the phrase "settled canon". My contention is some church or number of churches, the number is really irrelevant, had agreed upon a "settled canon" for the purposes of its own congregation. Is it really your contention that no church had a "settled canon" for its own congregation?

As I said previously you are making strawman arguments. I never made the following suggetion of, "To suggest that all the churches and church fathers respected the same books is incorrect as we know that there was disagreement amongst them.
. The manner of my use of the phrase "settled canon" was rather explicit when I gave a context defining its use. I said, "It does demonstrate, however, there existed a settled canon, by some number of churches, which Eusebius was relying upon. Let X=Some number of churches (maybe all, most, a few) and Y=some number of books. Eusebius is asserting X has recognized Y as being genuine and true according to X's tradition, which is essentially X has created a canon by asserting Y are genuine and true in accordance to their tradition. Hence, Eusebius is relying upon X's canon.


Okay, and this "spectrum of books" was agreed upon by some number of the churches and according to their tradition the books were genuine and true. In does not matter if Eusebius was talking about a single church, fifty churches, only the churches located in Italy, only the churches located in some obscure European town, it is entirely irrelevant; the fact is Eusebius was relying upon and deferring to a "settled canon" some number of churches agreed upon. Which if this is true, then Eusebius was not "creating a canon" in his prose. Of course, I think it is true based on the text itself. Which, by your own admission, Eusebius was relying upon a canon in his prose.

Great! Well if he is referring to a larger canon of books, and this canon was established by someone other than Eusebius, then he is not "creating a canon" in his text at all but citing a canon.

I don't care what Cyril did two decades later. It is entirely irrelevant what books were accepted or rejected later on. This is a complete red herring. If Eusebius' first group of books constituted a settled canon, then this is it, end of story, dialogue is concluded as he did not "create a canon" and it is of no relevance or consequence what Cyril did two decades later. This consideration has no relevance to the issue of whether or not Eusebius "created a canon" in this prose. None. Which, by the way, I do consider Eusebius' first category of books to be a "settled canon" which was not compiled by himself but the tradition of the church, a church, churches, who cares how many. Which necessarily means he did not "create a canon".

Ruhan

The fact that Eusebius seeks to differentiate between these books that form part of a larger canon (which are not accepted by all orthodox church fathers) shows that he is in fact categorizing them into a new order, which in my view would be a new canon. In other words he has created a summary of the views held by a collection of church fathers.

All we know from this quote by Eusebius is that different church fathers preferred different canons. Thus you are you correct in saying that different canons existed before this time. That is not disputable, however the early orthodox did not have a settled canon based on the fact that some books were still disputed by church fathers while other accepted them.

I was also referring to the final canon which was accepted much later on as that was the context in which the OP asked his question. There were of course different canons before and after Eusebius, which were supported by different church groups.

My point was that Eusebius played a primary role in categorizing and helping form the orthodox canon.

Why is this a strawman argument? Of course different churches had their own "settled canons" but we are discussing this in the context of the orthodox (Catholic) church which has a much more formal process for authorising doctrines, ceremonies and canons.

When I referred to a "settled canon" I was doing so in the context of the orthodox church, not individual community churches.

Once again we are comparing apples and oranges. I am not talking about a "settled canon" in a single or a number of churches, but all orthodox churches. Coptic churches and other smaller groups continued to have their own canons. Some still do have these today.

This is limited to the orthodox canon, which became the canon used by the Catholic and Protestant churches today.


His categorization of books into his three catogories played a huge role in moving the church towards formal canonization. We know how influencial Eusebius was in the early church and it brought all these church father's canons into a single canon. Is an amalgamation of different canons simply an older canon or a brand new canon in and of itself?

It's very relevant what Cyril did if we are talking about a formal orthodox canon adopted by Constantine's church. This canon required formal approval by the church council and had to be adopted by all the church's within the Catholic church. The fact that Cyril deviated from Eusebius showed that there still was no consensus amongst the leaders of the church regarding the authorised canon even after Eusebius. It was certainly not settled.

Regards,

Ruhan

James Madison

There is a difference between "playing a role" in the formation of an orthodox and universally recognized canon and "creating a canon". Which position are you taking? Because quite simpy I see no point in addressing your most recent post if you are asserting the former as opposed to the latter.

Ruhan

James,

You obviously misunderstood where I was coming from in my initial post and I can see how you could have reached that conclusion.

His amalgamation of previously preferred canons has to be considered as a new canon in and of itself. If you can find a single record in Church history before Eusebius where this precise canon is listed, then please present it.

This is really semantics but Eusebius' canon did play a role in the eventual Catholic canon which was formalised at the Synod of Laodicea in 363 CE. This raises some interesting questions such as why were Hermas and Bernabas excluded whilst the Petrine letters were included. What shift took place in Catholic thinking in this 30 year period which would have radically changed the face of the canon? This could be another topic all together.

My original point was simply that Eusebius' list is the only discussion in regards to canonization during this period and that the Council of Nicea did not produce a canon. This was the question by the OP.

Regards,

Ruhan

mountainman

What is a canon but a list of the orthodox and a list of the exceptions?
Is it not usual to reference each historical mention of any such list?
In this instance, the canon is simply a list of books by category.
Nothing more.

Any author who picks up a pen and makes said list is essentially listing
the canonised (or otherwise) books of the NT. Historians of the NT
have recognised that in Eusebius' listing of the canon circa 324 CE
in his monumental Ecclesiastical History, and expression of this list
at that time, at that place, and by that author.

That author happens to have also been personally responsible for
the preparation of the entire matrix of historicity associated with
all earlier manuscripts, documents and literature. Through this author
Eusebius, we are told of the earlier listing of the M-Canon. We may
either infer that this earlier canon existed, or that Eusebius was
fraudulently representing his own fiction as history.

I believe that his prime motivation was the direction from Constantine
to provide a mass of history for the new and strange Roman religious
order which was to be implemented with effect from Constantine's
securement of supreme imperial power in the ROman empire.

And so Constantine capitalised on the new technology of literature
which in those days was represented dominantly by the writings
of the Second Sophistic, praising the ancient glory of the Hellenic
traditions. Constantine destroyed the old religious order, by the
creation and popularisation of a new Roman religious order.

The Eusebian canon, was obviously used by Eusebius to bind the
new and strange fabrication of the Galilaeans, to the OT writings,
emminently available in the greek, thanks to Origen, the library of
Caesarea, and the desire of Constantine to seek something ancient
upon which to graft something new (and fictitious).

The argument that the guts of both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
have descended directly from Eusebius, via one or more of these
50 Constantine bibles, has not been refuted, as far as I know.
For those interested, here is a reference:
http://kjv.benabraham.com/html/section_-_v.html


Pete Brown

judge

Well we know that christians to the East were using a different canon before 350 C.E.
They used a canon of 22 books excluding 2&3 John, Jude, 2 Peter and revelation

Ruhan

They did but they were a splinter group from the orthodox Catholic church. That canon still exists today in Eastern churches.

The change I was referring to was limited to the Catholic church. Why would their canon change so significantly in a 30 year period?

Ruhan

James Madison

Ruhan:

First of all, your assumption he is relying upon more than one canon needs some evidentiary support. Nothing in his prose supports this assumption. The most which can be inferred from his prose is Eusebius did rely upon some previously existing "canon" but how many cannot be inferred from the passage.

Second, let's assume he is relying upon more than one canon. Does this allow the deduction he "create a new one" by compiling them? Not if the several canons were identical, especially in regards to the "first category" of books, i.e. those books not construed as spurious/disputed. In this situation Eusebius can hardly be characterized as "creating a new canon" since he has relied upon several canons in agreement regarding the "Gospels". Indeed there is support in the prose itself which supports the proposition that IF Eusebius was relying upon multiple canons ALL of them were in agreement regarding the Gospels. At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels As was previously said and reiterated here, it appears if Eusebius was relying upon more than one canon, they were in "agreement" regarding the Gospels. In this instance, Eusebius can hardly be characterized as "creating a new canon" if all he has done is rely upon several canons already in agreement as to the Gospels.

Nor can it be said he is "creating a new canon" by listing disputed/spurious books found in the multiple canons but in which there is lacking sufficient agreement among the different churches and their canon as to the validity of these questionable books. He simply says nothing about their validity and leaves to someone else the task of discerning which of these books, if any, are true and genuine.

Quite simply, I really fail to see ANY language in Eusebius' prose to support your proposition he is "creating a new canon". Perhaps if you actually cited more to the passage and what language you believe supports your view he "created a new canon" this dialogue can progress because I see no language to support such an inference.