Ruhan

James,

The clue comes in another quote from Eusebius where he is discussing the respectability of Hebrews and Hermas' The Shepherd:

... Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.

But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable , especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith.

So we see here that this was not a unanimously rejected list but that some Church fathers actually accepted some of the books in his list of rejected books.

We have to simply refer to this list as Eusebius' canon as it is uniqiue in its' categorization and there is no other canon like it before him.

Regards,

Ruhan

James Madison

When was this composed? The date?

Well of course it is not a unanimously rejected list by virtue of the fact he compiled the list based on the fact some books were "accepted" by a number of churches. In other words, Eusebius does not attempt to obscure the fact his list of spurious/disputed books is derived from those churches which finds them acceptable along with the fact some churches are adverse to embracing them. Those churches which already considered the books "acceptable" are not going to reject the Eusebius' list quite simply because he relied upon their pre-existing list and it is those chuches which rendered those books as "genuine and true". I fail to see how this fact demonstrates he "created a new canon".

Furthermore, let's use proper characterization. To call these books a list of "rejected" ones is a misnomer.

This conclusion does not follow. If Eusebius is relying upon lists from different churches, where there is vast agreement if not unanimous in regards to the "Gospels," then it can hardly be said Eusebius' canon is "unique" in its categorization. The fact is, it is not unique at all because most or a lot of churches already reached agreement as to the "Gospels".

Can we characterize Eusebius' list as "unique" in its categorization of spurious/disputed books as to constitute a "canon"? No. Why? He is not arguing the disputed/spurious books are genuine and true and therefore, should be included. Eusebius is leaving it to someone else to determine the authenticity of the disputed/spurious books and makes no effort to expunge them or accept them.

Even the very language you rely upon defeats your proposition. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.

But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable , especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith.


There is no language here suggesting these works are authentic and therefore, worthy of inclusion. Eusebius is not asserting these works should be included. Mentioning or making a list of "disputed books" is not creating a "canon". Yet, this is ALL Eusebius is doing. He is mentioning some of the books which are "disputed" and simply doing so does not constitute as "creating a new canon". Making a list of disputed books for the purpose of bringing to everyone's attention these books are disputed/spurious and therefore, some decision needs to be made as to their authenticity and leaving this decision making to someone else does not qualify as making a canon. I am simply mystified as to WHAT language you see in EITHER prose that allows you to make such a claim.

Let's use a hypothetical. Most people are familiar with the federalist papers. Those articles composed by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay advocating for the ratification of the newly proposed constitution. Let's suppose a lot of these letters are in circulation. Let's further imagine some agreement has been reached as to the "genuiness" authenticity of some of the letters in circulation. There is disagreement as to the veracity of other letters.

A gentleman, call him historian X, decides to catalogue the articles. He begins by first discussing those letters in which there is vast agreement they are authentic, perhaps even unanimous agreement. (Eusebius did the same thing with the Gospels). Historian X can hardly be accused of having created a "canon" in regards to these specific letters and the same is true for Eusebius.

Historian X then proceeds to mention the books which are accepted by some authorities, person, states, as authentic but rejected by others as frauds. He did not feel obliged to pass judgment upon the authenticity of these contested letters but rather merely mentioned those letters which are perceived as valid by some but fraudulent by others. In this scenario, historian X can hardly be attributed with having created a new canon of "Federalist Papers". Rather, he merely mentioned those letters which are accepted and those which are contested without passing judgment on either category. Citing books already accepted is not creating a new canon but relying upon which was already established and in existence. Citing books which are accepted by some but rejected by others does not qualify as creating a new canon of Federalist Papers. To create a canon requires one pass judgment upon the veracity of the books included in the canon and in the absence of doing so, one is not creating a canon by merely listing books which are disputed but passing no judgment on their authenticity. Ergo, historian X is not creating a new canon of Federalist Papers and Eusebius was not creating a new canon by merely mentioning disputed/spurious books in the absence of passing judgment upon their veracity.

Ruhan

This is from Eusebius' Church History and the fifth and final revision was completed in 327 CE.

It's not obvious as you asked for a quote which showed that not all churches rejected these. Unless I misunderstood your earlier objection.

Rejected by some and accepted by others would be more apt.

This is a ridiculous statement as all early canons included some similar books, however not all canons were similar in their entirety. The Gospels and Paul's epistles were found in most early canons.


Only the Gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles are agreed upon by all the churches, however we do not find a list like this which includes books which are "rejected by some and accepted by others" anywhere else in early Christian literature that is similar to Eusebius.

As such it is a unique list, unless you can provide evidence for the contrary?

The problem with this whole hypothesis is that you are excluding the authoritative role of the church itself.

Up until the 4th century the "Christian church" consisted of a series of communities. There was some unity and order amongst the orthodox churches but we have no formal edicts, councils or canons issued which had to be submitted to by the other communities.

This all changed when Christianity became a state religion. The church became funded by the state and the church's leadership reported to Constantine himself. Church edicts, councils and canons carried the authority of the crown as was witnessed during the persecution of the Donatists.

This is the first list compiled under this new order and it was done so by someone who was trusted by Constantine himself.

When considering the definition of a canon in the context of Ecclesiastical history, it's not simply a case of a church or a number of churches making up their preferred lists. Eusebius took a step towards having the first official list but it was not until 30 years later when the Church's official canon was announced which had to be adopted by all Catholic churches.

James Madison

Well, apparently you did not carefully examine the thought I expressed. Otherwise you would have saved yourself the embarassment of making this remark.

I said the following:This conclusion does not follow. If Eusebius is relying upon lists from different churches, where there is vast agreement if not unanimous in regards to the "Gospels," then it can hardly be said Eusebius' canon is "unique" in its categorization. The fact is, it is not unique at all because most or a lot of churches already reached agreement as to the "Gospels".


Pay careful attention to the fact I was rather conspicuously referring to the "Gospels". Eusebius cannot possibly be said to have created a "unique" canon in regards to the Gospels IF those pre-existing canons were in agreement in regards to the Gospels.

Which you concur quite nicely with the following language. Great. My previous statement then, which you so hastily adjudged to be "ridiculous," is one which you apparently have no inclination of disagreement. If most early canons were in agreement in regards to the Gospels, then Eusebius can hardly be credited with "creating a new/unique canon" in regards to them. Tell me, do you periodically make statements in agreement with propositions you decree as ridiculous?

So what. Making this type of list hardly constitutes as "creating a canon".

Making this list does not constitute as creating a canon much less a new one. Despite your attestations, my hypothetical involving the Federalist papers remains a viable one. Eusebius was not providing Constantine with a "canon" or a "new canon" but rather a list of books which were "candidates". Merely providing a list of "candidates" hardly qualifies as "creating a new canon."

The "list" in and of itself is not a "canon" nor is it a "new canon". Hence, it cannot be said Eusebius created a new canon or a canon at all because making the "list" he made does not qualify as a "canon". Eusebius left it to some other entity to make the decision whether or not the spurious/disputed books, the CANDIDATE BOOKS, were to be accepted or rejected. Eusebius passed no judgment on their validity and in the absence of doing so, cannot be attributed as having creating a "canon" or a "new canon".

Taking a step towards a goal and actually being responsible for the attainment of the goal are two different things. Staking a step towards creating a new canon and creating one are two different things. Eusebius did not create a new canon by merely listing candidate books for acceptance or rejection. Eusebius did not create a new canon by simply bringing to everyone's attention the spurious/disputed books. The act of making a list of candidate books for the purpose of facilitating another entity's task of deciding which are genuine and true as opposed to fabrications and the conduct of making a list to bring to people's attention which books are spurious/disputed does not constitute as "creating a new canon". To create a new canon necessitates Eusebius to have actually rendered which of those spurious/disputed books were genuine and true and in absence of doing so cannot be attributed the act of creating a new canon.

All Eusebius did was to make a list of candidate books and bring to their attention the books which are spurious/disputed and this is vastly different from creating a new canon or a canon at all.

Ruhan

No, I understood what you implied, however it is a ridiculous point to make. No one is arguing that there were some books which were supported by earlier churches. Of course he is not creating a unique list with his list gospels. He is creating a unique canon with his entire list of categories which is unique in addition to his office within the church which adds a certain level of authority to it.

This is like saying Marcion's canon is not unique in his use of Luke as all other canons included it. That's why your statement is ridiculous. A canon has to be considered in its' entirety and there is no categorization of a list of sacred literature by anyone as senior as Eusebius at any time before him.

Unless you can provide evidence for it?

I am dumbfounded as to why you are even making this point. It's obvious.

You totally ignored my last point regarding the role of formal canonization in the early Catholic church and why Euesebius' list would be considered as unique.

Even if a thousand churches had adopted the exact same list as Eusebius, then these lists would still not qualify as a authoritative canons as they carried no stamp of approval by the leadership of the church. You seem to ignore how canons were approved of in the early church as this was the first canon produced by an influential member of Constantine's Church. I mentioned Bishop Cyril earlier on and once again you ignored his involvement. Cyril went one step further, not necessarily in the composition of his list (which is different) but rather in the fact that he was one of the most senior members of the church.

Regards,

Ruhan

James Madison

No, what is ridiculous is you missed the careful qualification of my claim. But this is a digression.

No I considered it and to be honest it is irrelevant and not at all dispositive to the question of whether or not Eusebius "created a unique canon".

More irrelevant facts. Yes I ignore irrelevant facts. These facts are irrelevant. Why do you keep referencing irrelevant facts? Below I explain "why" these facts are ultimately irrelevant so before hastily replying I suggest you exercise some patience and prudent discretion by reading the follow up remarks below to understand "why" they are at this time irrelevant and then reply.

Among the irrelevant facts you rely upon you decide to characterize some in such a manner as to beg the question. Here, you assume as true for the purposes of making the statement above Eusebius did create a canon. He did nothing of the sort and you have not provided ANY evidence to indicate Eusebius created a canon.

The prose from Eusebius which you have relied upon does not demonstrate Eusebius "created a unique canon". Nothing Eusebius has said or done in either prose you rely upon demonstrates he "created a unique canon". In an effort to make this claim you then decide to provide some loosely, ad hoc historical account of how "canons" came into existence citing no evidence to support your contention it is "historically accurate" and then based on this methodology somehow reach the conclusion Eusebius created a unique canon; ALL THE WHILE making NO LINK between your alleged "historical account of how canons were made" and Eusebius prose.

For example: You said the following. these lists would still not qualify as a authoritative canons as they carried no stamp of approval by the leadership of the church.

Great! Why is it even relevant???? Did Eusebius lists carry a stamp of approval by the leadership of the church? Did Eusebius obtain a stamp of approval from the leadership of the church before making his prose/list public? Which "leadership of the church" would he need? "WHO" constitutes as the leadership of the church? How many "churches" does this "leadership" of the church represent? How is its "authority" derived? How is its "legitimacy" asserted? Yes I make a habit of ignoring facts which are so tenuously related to the issue as to necessitate explication of their exact rational relationship and in the absence of such rationalization and demonstration of a link ultimately irrelevant and unuseful.

Yes I did because it is irrelevant to resolving the question of whether or not Eusebius "created a unique canon".

Are there any relevant facts you want to disclose or perhaps some other prose by Eusebius which more lucidly demonstrates he "created a unique canon"? Or are you goint to continue with the monotony of relying upon prose which does not help your argument and invoke facts which do nothing to prove "Eusebius created a new/unique canon".

However, my analogy is still operative even with the addition of your irrelevant facts. For a particular letter to be authoritatively attributed to Madison, Hamilton, or Jay it must obtain a "stamp of approval" by some governing entities of the time. One such governing body, we will call it the Historical Society of Massachusetts, petitions historian X, renown member of the educated elite, for some help. X then compiles a list of ALL the letters which have been approved and agreed upon and THEN notes ALL the letters which have been accepted by some but rejected by others (Eusebius' spurious/disputed books) and finally notes those letters which absolutely cannot be attributed to anyone of the Framers (Eusebius' list of fraudulent books). Historian X, like Eusebius, passes no judgment on the contested letters, as Eusebius made no value judgment in regards to the spurious/disputed books. Historian X then submits his list to the Historical Society and then THIS BODY examines the list and DETERMINES which are authentic and which are not.

In this example, Historian X CANNOT be attributed as having created a "canon" by merely making a list for another governing body to examine for authenticity/veracity and similarly, Eusebius merely making a list of contested books for another body to determine the genuiness and authenticity of each book is not creating a unique canon but the body MAKING THE DECISION as to which books are authentic or not is creating the canon.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You quite simply are extrapolating claims which far exceed the boundaries of the facts. Not that this is inherently bad but I prefer to stay within the confines the facts themselves create.

mountainman

Eusebius sat at the right hand of the supreme emperor Constantine
during the Council of Nicaea, and delivered an opening address. His
church history is regarded as "virgin ground", and survived in its
transmission to attest the stamp of approval by the leadership of
the church until this very day.

There was no empire-wide christian church before Constantine
created it physically out of the summoned membership to the
council of Nicaea, and sponsored Eusebius as his editorial level
literacist.



The premise that Eusebius is an historian is wanting
further consideration.



Pete Brown