Ruhan

Eusebius was talking about all the books which had been read in churches by the early church. Some were more respected than others and different communities revered different books. We know that the Gospels and Paul's Epistles were universally accepted by the Orthodox communities, however there was still vast disagreement in regards to the rest of the books. Revelation, I & II Peter, I, II & III John and the book Hebrews were still being excluded by many of the church fathers, whilst the books by Hermas and Barnabas were included. I fail to see how you can suggest that we had a settled canon at this stage.

This catogarization of books by Eusebius is a clear attempt to identify which of these should be accepted.

We also have to consider Eusebius' position in Constantine's church. By Eusebius making this statement he is in essence making a formal move towards canonization. Previously the church had developed a tradition which included certain books, however this was in no way a formal and approved canon.

Regards,

Ruhan

James Madison

Yeah this may be true but it demonstrates he did not "create a canon" but was rather referring to books rendered acceptable by the Church. It is apparent the Church then had compiled a list of acceptable books, in other words a "canon" and Eusebius is deferential to this canon as opposed to "creating his own".

Your assumption the agreed upon books do not constitute as a "settled canon" is problematic don't you think? I can state there existed a settled canon by virtue of the fact there was agreement in regards to some books. Eusebius is acknowledging he is relying upon this Church agreement with the remarks, ""distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized. Ergo, it follows then those books which were rendered as true and genuine according to Church tradition constituted as a "settled canon". This does not mean there was only "1" canon or all were identical to the one relied upon Eusebius.

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.

Now there is a difference between "settled" canon and "permanent" canon. I am not asserting the latter existed but the former and Eusebius' own words demonstrate or allow for the very strong inference the former was in existence and he was citing it and relying upon it.

Well to an extent yes but this is way too broad of a statement to be exactly applied to Eusebius' prose. Eusebius already acknowledges some books are "accepted" and does not dispute the validity of them or their acceptance. 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, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (2) After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul....(3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. He says nothing disparaging about these books acceptance or validity. So your statement is not at all applicable here.

Where you statement does possess utility is in regards to the disputed books. However, even in regards to the disputed books your statement is too broad to accurately characterize what Eusebius is doing.

Eusebius takes no position as to the validity of these books or whether they are to be included in the first category of books which were agreed upon by Church tradition as "true and genuine". Eusebius merely mentions them and leaves to someone else the task of determining their "genuiness" and "truth". He passes no judgment on the validity of these books and neither asserts or denies they are to be a part of the "canon" already established by Church tradition.

Where your statement has any application is in regards to the closing remarks he makes. also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. (7) Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not even to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious

These are the only books he unequivocally rejects. In fact, these are the only books in which he impugnes the integrity and validity of the document. It is here where your statement has any applicability as it certainly does not describe what he says or does in the prose preceding these lines.

I do not see how this claim follows from the facts. Eusebius is clearly deferring to a canon agreed upon by Church tradition to be "genuine and true". As for the disputed/spurious books he passes no judgment on their validity. How on earth can he be said to be moving towards creating a canon when he relies upon one already compiled by the traditions of the church and takes no position as to the inclusion or exclusion of the suprious/disputed books?

Well whether or not this is "factually" true is irrelevant. What matters here is Eusebius apparently believed the Church tradition had clearly established some books as "genuine and true". He tells us this with his own words of, ""distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized. Eusebius is clearly indicating he is relying upon a "canon," or referencing books in existence which have been established as "true and genuine" by the Church.

Not quite sure what is meant by a "formal" and "approved" canon. However many informally or formally existed as "approved" is not really an issue. The fact is Eusebius is undoubtedly talking about SOME books which the Church has by tradition declared "genuine and true" and this is the "canon" he is relying upon.

Roger Pearse

It will certainly be interesting to see any quotation in which Tatian talks about canonicity, but I don't know of one. His extant works are on other subjects.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

That there was any canon whatsover in existence prior to the
fourth century, which was gleaned from research into the scanty
records from the preceeding 300 years, is an assertion by Eusebius
alone, and the evidence for the existence of any such canon, is
reliant implicitly upon the writings of this Eusebius.

He obviously was in a good position to sort out what was to be
considered true orthodoxy and the forgeries of heretics, or such
is his claim. To this extent, his statement of the books of the NT
in his Ecclesiastical History, must represent the Eusebian Canon.

Constantine asks Eusebius directly to physically deliver 50 books,
which would have had to have been in accordance and harmony
with the most recent re-assessment of canon. This re-statement
being as per the Eusebian HE quote provided. Many theological
sites on the net list the "Eusebian Canon" in the list of canons,
so to attempt a refutation that Eusebius never promoted his own
Canon is rather head-in-sand.





Pete Brown

Ruhan

Roger,

Tatian does list the books which are to be read in church in his Diatessaron. I refer to Carrier for more on this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...Tcanon.html#IX

Regards,

Ruhan

Ruhan

Good evening James,

Eusebius was indeed referring to a larger canon of books which were accepted by different groups within the church. We have no evidence that the church as a collective body had developed an authoritative canon. We have different church fathers whom had proposed their own preferred books but none of this constitutes a formal orthodox canon. This is evident in Eusebius' criteria for books which are accepted by some but not all of the church fathers.

BTW a formal canon would have to be authorised by the orthodox church and this was only done for the first time by Bishop Cyril circa 350 CE who was the first senior ranking church official to make a statement about canonization. Why would he (or Eusebius) have to make a statement about the canon if this was a settled issue???

I think your last paragraph contians the source for our disagreement. I don't see the difference between a "settled" and "permanent" canon. The canon only became settled in its' current form much later on.

How can you suggest that this is a settled canon when two thirds of the books in his list are either suspicious or dismissed? In addition, some of his accepted books were rejected by the church less than 20 years later by Cyril.

I do agree that he passes no judgement on these but his view of a canon seems to be different from ours in that he lists books which are suspect and rejected alongside those that are accepted. The modern church rejects these other books.

What I find intriguing about your position is that we have no evidence from any other church father before Eusebius that we have a semi-settled canon at this stage, which was my original point.

Where is this compiled? I would like to see some evidence for this.

In my view he simply listed a spectrum books which were read in churches. To suggest that all the churches and church fathers respected the same books is incorrect as we know that there was disagreement amongst them.

It's not irrelevant. We have no record of a formal canon, which has been authorised by a senior church official.

If you consider Eusebius' first group of books as a settled canon, then there are other problems to discuss as it's so different from the version Cyril adopted two decades later. Why would he dump Hermas and Barnabas from the list when they were widely accepted and seen to be part of the canon for 200 years?

A formal and approved canon is one authorised by a senior member of the church. Not anyone could just decide what should be included in the canon.

Regards,

Ruhan

flyspray

I don't quite understand what you mean to know. Are you trying to trace the conversion to one specific time and place? History tells us that Christianity replaced Paganism over a long period, from Constantius up unto Justinian and beyond. Many people converted simply to get a silver piece and a new cloak. Many converted due to the threat of death. It was a long and drawn out process.

andrewcriddle

This is interesting information about what writers a century or more after Tatian thought was in Tatian's New Testament.

It may well be mostly accurate but it does not seem to be explicitly confirmed by Tatian's surviving works.

Andrew Criddle

Ruhan

Andrew,

I agree, but it's all we have. My original point was that we have very little evidence for any canon listed by an orthodox writer before Eusebius. If all we have is a record from 100 years later, then we don't have much at all.

Regards,

Ruhan

Roger Pearse

The "Teaching of Addai" is the reference offered. Interestingly it is also the text which contains the letters of Jesus to Abgar, from which Eusebius translated them into Greek and published in his "Church History". Cureton's preface and translation of the work can be found here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse