Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXV.—The Divine
Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.778
| 778 This chapter is the only place in which Eusebius attempts to treat
the canon systematically, and in it he is speaking purely as an
historian, not as a critic. He is endeavoring to give an accurate
statement of the general opinion of the orthodox Church of his day in
regard to the number and names of its sacred books. He does not, in
this passage, apply to the various works any criterion of canonicity
further than their acceptance as canonical by the orthodox Church. He
simply records the state of the canon; he does not endeavor to form a
canon. He has nothing to do, therefore, with the nature and origin of
the books which the church accepts. As remarked by Weiss (Einleitung
in das N. T., p. 96), the influence of Eusebius in the formation of
the canon is very commonly overestimated. He contributed himself very
little; his office was to record the usage of the church of his age,
not to mould it.
The church whose judgment he
takes is, in the main, the church of the Orient, and in that church at
this time all the works which we now call canonical (and only those)
were already commonly accepted, or were becoming more and more widely
accepted as such. From the standpoint, then, of canonicity, Eusebius
divided the works which he mentions in this chapter into two classes:
the canonical (including the Homologoumena and the
Antilogomena) and the uncanonical (including the νόθοι and the ἀναπλ€σματα
αὶρετικῶν
ἀνδρῶν). But
the νόθοι he
connects much more closely with the Homologoumena and
Antilegomena than with the heretical works, which are, in fact,
separated from all the rest and placed in a class by themselves. What,
then, is the relation of the Homologoumena, Antilegomena,
and νόθοι to each
other, as Eusebius classifies them? The crucial point is the relation
of the νόθοι to
the ἀντιλεγόμενα. Lücke (Ueber den N. T. Kanon des Eusebius, p.
11 sq.) identified the two, but such identification is impossible in
this passage. The passages which he cites to confirm his view prove
only that the word Antilegomena is commonly employed by Eusebius
in a general sense to include all disputed works, and therefore, of
course, the νόθοι also; that
is, the term Antilegomena is ordinarily used, not as identical
with νόθοι, but as
inclusive of it. This, however, establishes nothing as to
Eusebius’ technical use of the words in the present passage,
where he is endeavoring to draw close distinctions. Various views have
been taken since Lücke’s time upon the relation of these
terms to each other in this connection; but, to me at least, none of
them seem satisfactory, and I have been led to adopt the following
simple explanation. The Antilegomena, in the narrower sense
peculiar to this summary, were works which, in Eusebius’ day,
were, as he believed, commonly accepted by the Eastern Church as
canonical, but which, nevertheless, as he well knew, had not always
been thus accepted, and, indeed, were not even then universally
accepted as such. The tendency, however, was distinctly in the
direction of their ever-wider acceptance. On the other hand, the
νόθοι were works which, although they had been used by the Fathers
and were quoted as γραφὴ by some of
them, were, at this time, not acknowledged as canonical. Although
perhaps not universally rejected from the canon, yet they were commonly
so rejected, and the tendency was distinctly in the direction of their
ever-wider rejection. Whatever their merit, and whatever their
antiquity and their claims to authenticity, Eusebius could not place
them among the canonical books. The term νόθοι, then, in
this passage, must not be taken, as it commonly is, to mean spurious or
unauthentic, but to mean uncanonical. It is in this sense, as against
the canonical Homologoumena and Antilegomena, that
Eusebius, as I believe, uses it here, and his use of it in this sense
is perfectly legitimate. In using it he passes no judgment upon the
authenticity of the works referred to; that, in the present case, is
not his concern. As an historian he observed tendencies, and judged
accordingly. He saw that the authority of the Antilegomena was
on the increase, that of the νόθοι on the
decrease, and already he could draw a sharp distinction between them,
as Clement of Alexandria could not do a century before. The distinction
drawn has no relation to the authenticity or original authority of the
works of the two classes, but only to their canonicity or uncanonicity
at the time Eusebius wrote.
This interpretation will help us
to understand the peculiar way in which Eusebius treats the Apocalypse,
and thus his treatment of it becomes an argument in favor of the
interpretation. He puts it, first among the Homologoumena with
an εἴγε
φανείη, and then
among the νόθοι with
an εἴ
φανείη. No one,
so far as I know, has explained why it should be put among the
νόθοι as an alternative to the Homologoumena, instead of
among the Antilegomena, which, on the common interpretation of
the relation of the classes, might be naturally expected. If the view
presented is correct, the reason is clear. The Antilegomena were
those works which had been disputed, but were becoming more and more
widely accepted as canonical. The Apocalypse could not under any
circumstances fall into this class, for the doubts raised against it in
the orthodox Church were of recent date. It occupied, in fact, a
peculiar position, for there was no other work which, while accepted as
canonical, was doubted in the present more than in the past. Eusebius
then must either put it into a special class or put it conditionally
into two different classes, as he does. If the doubts should become so
widespread as to destroy its canonicity, it would fall naturally into
the νόθοι, for then
it would hold the same position as the other works of that class. As an
historian, Eusebius sees the tendency and undoubtedly has the idea that
the Apocalypse may eventually, like the other Christian works of the
same class (the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), become one of
the νόθοι, one of
the works which, formerly accepted, is at length commonly denied to be
canonical: and so, as an historian, he presents the alternative. The
Apocalypse was the only work in regard to which any doubt could
exist.
Eusebius’ failure to
mention explicitly in this passage the Epistle to the Hebrews, has
caused considerable misunderstanding. The explanation, if the view
presented be adopted, is simple. Eusebius included it, I believe, among
the epistles of Paul, and did not especially mention it, simply because
there was no dispute about its canonicity. Its Pauline authorship had
been widely disputed as Eusebius informs us elsewhere, and various
theories had been proposed to account for it; but its canonicity had
not been doubted in the orthodox Church, and therefore doubts as to the
authorship of it did not in the least endanger its place among the
Homologoumena, as used here in a technical sense; and since
Eusebius was simply stating the works of each class, not discussing the
nature and origin of those works, he could, in perfect fairness,
include it in Paul’s epistles (where he himself believed it
belonged) without entering upon any discussion of it.
Another noticeable omission is
that of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. All efforts to find
a satisfactory reason for this are fruitless. It should have been
placed among the νόθοι with the
Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as Eusebius’ treatment of it in other
passages shows. It must be assumed, with Holtzmann, that the omission
of it was nothing more nor less than an oversight.
Eusebius, then, classifies the
works mentioned in this chapter upon two principles: first, in relation
to canonicity, into the canonical and the uncanonical; and secondly, in
relation to character, into the orthodox (Homologoumena,
Antilegomena, which are canonical, and νόθοι,
which are uncanonical), and heterodox (which are not, and never have
been, canonical, never have been accepted as of use or authority). The
Homologoumena and Antilegomena, then, are both canonical
and orthodox, the ἀναπλ€σματα
αἱρετικῶν
ἀνδρῶν are
neither canonical nor orthodox, while the νόθοι occupy a
peculiar position, being orthodox but not canonical. The last-named are
much more closely related to the canonical than to the heterodox works,
because when the canon was a less concrete and exact thing than it had
at length become, they were associated with the other orthodox works
as, like them, useful for edification and instruction. With the
heretical works they had never been associated, and possessed in common
with them only the negative characteristic of non-canonicity. Eusebius
naturally connects them closely with the former, and severs them
completely from the latter. The only reason for mentioning the latter
at all was the fact that they bore the names of apostles, and thus
might be supposed, as they often had been—by Christians, as well
as by unbelievers—to be sacred books like the rest. The statement
of the canon gives Eusebius an opportunity to warn his readers against
them.
Upon Eusebius’ New
Testament Canon, see especially the work of Lücke referred to
above, also Westcott’s Canon of the New Testament, 5th
ed., p. 414 sq., Harnack’s Lehre der Zwölf Apostel,
p. 6 sq., Holtzmann’s Einleitung in das N.T., p. 154 sq.,
and Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 92 sq.
The greater part of the
present note was read before the American Society of Church History in
December, 1888, and is printed in Vol. I. of that Society’s
papers, New York, 1889, p. 251 sq. |
1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum
up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned.
First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;779
| 779 On
Matthew, see the previous chapter, note 5; on Mark, Bk. II. chap. 15,
note 4; on Luke, Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15; on John, the
previous chapter, note 1. | following them the Acts of the
Apostles.780
| 780 See
above, chap. 4, note 14. |
2. After this must be reckoned
the epistles of Paul;781
| 781 See chap. 3, note 16. Eusebius evidently means to include the
Epistle to the Hebrews among Paul’s epistles at this point, for
he mentions it nowhere else in this chapter (see above, note
1). | next in
order the extant
former epistle of John,782
| 782 See the previous chapter, note 18. | and likewise
the epistle of Peter,783
must be
maintained.784
After them is to be placed, if it
really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John,785
| 785 See the previous chapter, note 20. Upon Eusebius’ treatment
in this chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note 1,
above. |
concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper
time.786
| 786 Compare the previous chapter, note 21. | These then belong among the accepted
writings.787
3. Among the disputed
writings,788
which are nevertheless
recognized789
by many, are extant the so-called
epistle of James790
| 790 See
Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46. | and that of Jude,791
also the second epistle of Peter,792
| 792 See
above, chap. 3, note 4. | and those that are called the second and
third of John,793
| 793 See the previous chapter, note 19. | whether they belong to the
evangelist or to another person of the same name.
4. Among the rejected writings794
must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,795
| 795 See
above, chap. 3, note 20. | and the so-called Shepherd,796
and the Apocalypse of Peter,797
and in addition to these the extant
epistle of Barnabas,798
| 798 The author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is unknown. No
name appears in the epistle itself, and no hints are given which enable
us to ascribe it to any known writer. External testimony, without a
dissenting voice, ascribes it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. But
this testimony, although unanimous, is neither very strong nor very
extensive. The first to use the epistle is Clement of Alexandria, who
expressly and frequently ascribes it to Barnabas the companion of Paul.
Origen quotes from the epistle twice, calling it the Epistle of
Barnabas, but without expressing any judgment as to its authenticity,
and without defining its author more closely. Jerome (de vir.
ill. 6) evidently did not doubt its authenticity, but placed it
nevertheless among the Apocrypha, and his opinion prevailed down to the
seventeenth century. It is difficult to decide what Eusebius thought in
regard to its authorship. His putting it among the νόθοι here does not prove that he considered it unauthentic (see note 1,
above); nor, on the other hand, does his classing it among the
Antilegomena just below prove that he considered it authentic,
but non-apostolic, as some have claimed. Although, therefore, the
direct external testimony which we have is in favor of the apostolic
Barnabas as its author, it is to be noticed that there must have
existed a widespread doubt as to its authenticity, during the first
three centuries, to have caused its complete rejection from the canon
before the time of Eusebius. That this rejection arose from the fact
that Barnabas was not himself one of the twelve apostles cannot be. For
apostolic authorship was not the sole test of canonicity, and Barnabas
stood in close enough relation to the apostles to have secured his work
a place in the canon, during the period of its gradual formation, had
its authenticity been undoubted. We may therefore set this inference
over against the direct external testimony for Barnabas’
authorship. When we come to internal testimony, the arguments are
conclusive against “the Levite Barnabas” as the author of
the epistle. These arguments have been well stated by Donaldson, in his
History of Christian Literature, I. p. 204 sqq. Milligan, in
Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., endeavors to
break the force of these arguments, and concludes that the authenticity
of the epistle is highly probable; but his positions are far from
conclusive, and he may be said to stand almost alone among modern
scholars. Especially during the last few years, the verdict against the
epistle’s authenticity has become practically unanimous. Some
have supposed the author to have been an unknown man by the name of
Barnabas: but this is pure conjecture. That the author lived in
Alexandria is apparently the ruling opinion, and is quite probable. It
is certain that the epistle was written between the destruction of
Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and the time of Clement of
Alexandria: almost certain that it was written before the building of
Ælia Capitolina; and probable that it was written between 100 and
120, though dates ranging all the way from the beginning of
Vespasian’s reign to the end of Hadrian’s have been, and
are still, defended by able scholars. The epistle is still extant in a
corrupt Greek original and in an ancient Latin translation. It is
contained in all the editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially
Gebhardt and Harnack’s second edition, 1876, and
Hilgenfeld’s edition of 1877). An English translation is given in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 133 sqq. For the most
important literature, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 671 sqq., and
Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition, p. xl. sqq. | and the
so-called Teachings of the Apostles;799
| 799 τῶν
ἀποστόλων αἰ
λεγόμεναι
διδαχαί.
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Διδαχὴ τῶν
δώδεκα
ἀποστόλων, a brief document in sixteen chapters, was published in
1884 by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, from a ms. discovered by him in the Jerusalem convent in
Constantinople in 1873. The discovery threw the whole theological world
into a state of excitement, and the books and articles upon the subject
from America and from every nation in Europe have appeared by the
hundred. No such important find has been made for many years. The light
which the little document has thrown upon early Church history is very
great, while at the same time the questions which it has opened are
numerous and weighty. Although many points in regard to its origin and
nature are still undecided, the following general positions may be
accepted as practically established. It is composed of two parts, of
which the former (chaps. 1–6) is a redaction of an independent
moral treatise, probably of Jewish origin, entitled the Two
Ways, which was known and used in Alexandria, and there formed the
basis of other writings (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, chaps.
18–21, and the Ecclesiastical Canons) which were at first
supposed to have been based upon the Teaching itself.
(Bryennios, Harnack, and others supposed that the Teaching was based
upon Barnabas, but this view has never been widely accepted.) This
(Jewish) Two Ways which was in existence certainly before the
end of the first century (how much earlier we do not know) was early in
the second century (if not before) made a part of a primitive church
manual, viz. our present Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The
Two Ways, both before and at the time of (perhaps after) its
incorporation into the Teaching, received important additions,
partly of a Christian character. The completed Teaching dates
from Syria, though this is denied by many writers (e.g. by Harnack),
who prefer, upon what seem to me insufficient grounds, Egypt as the
place of composition. The completed Teaching formed the basis of
a part of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which
originated in Syria in the fourth century. The most complete and useful
edition is that of Schaff (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
3d ed., New York, 1889), which contains the Greek text with English
translation and a very full discussion of the work itself and of the
various questions which are affected by its discovery. Harnack’s
important edition Die Lehre der zwölff Apostel (Texte
und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., II. 1 and 2,
1884) is still the standard German work upon the subject, though it
represents many positions in regard to the origin and history of the
work which have since been proved incorrect, and which he himself has
given up. His article in Herzog, 2d ed., XVII. 656 sqq. and his Die
Apostel-Lehre und die jüdischen Beiden Wege, 1886, should
therefore be compared with his original work. Schaff’s book
contains a very complete digest of the literature down to the close of
1888. As to the position which the Teaching occupied in the
canon we know very little, on account of the very sparing use of it
made by the early Fathers. Clement of Alexandria cites it once as
Scripture (γραφή), but no
other writer before the time of Eusebius treats it in the same way, and
yet Eusebius’ mention of it among the νόθοι shows that it must have enjoyed a wide circulation at some time
and have been accepted by at least a portion of the Church as a book
worthy to be read in divine service, and thus in a certain sense as a
part of the canon. In Eusebius’ time, however, its canonicity had
been denied (though according to Athanasius Fest. Ep. 39, it was
still used in catechetical instruction), and he was therefore obliged
to relegate it to a position among the νόθοι. Upon
Eusebius’ use of the plural διδαχαί, see the writer’s article in the Andover Review,
April, 1886, p. 439 sq. | and besides,
as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I
said, reject,800
| 800 ἀθετοῦσιν. See the previous chapter, note 20. | but which others class with the
accepted books.801
| 801 τοῖς
ὁμολογουμένοις. See note 1, above. |
5. And among these some have
placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews,802
| 802 This
Gospel, probably composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), is no longer extant, but
we possess a few fragments of it in Greek and Latin which are collected
by Grabe, Spic. I. 15–31, and by Hilgenfeld, N. T.
Extra Can. rec. II. The existing material upon which to base a
judgment as to the nature of the lost Gospel and as to its relation to
our canonical gospels is very limited. It is certain, however, that it
cannot in its original form have been a working over of our canonical
Matthew (as many have thought); it contains too many little marks of
originality over against our Greek Matthew to admit of such a
supposition. That it was, on the other hand, the original of which our
Greek Matthew is the translation is also impossible; a comparison of
its fragments with our Matthew is sufficient to prove this. That it was
the original source from which Matthew and Luke derived their common
matter is possible—more cannot be said. Lipsius (Dict. of
Christ. Biog. II. 709–712) and Westcott (Hist. of the
Canon, p. 515 sqq.) give the various quotations which are supposed
to have been made from it. How many of them are actually to be traced
back to it as their source is not certain. It is possible, but not
certain, that Papias had seen it (see chap. 39, note 28), possible also
that Ignatius had, but the passage relied on to establish the fact
fails to do so (see chap. 36, note 14). It was probably used by Justin
(see Westcott, ibid. p. 516, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 712),
undoubtedly by Hegesippus (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22), and was
perhaps known to Pantænus (see below, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 8).
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 9) and Origen (in
Johan. II. 6 and often) are the first to bear explicit testimony to
the existence of such a gospel. Eusebius also was personally acquainted
with it, as may be gathered from his references to it in III. 39 and
IV. 22, and from his quotation in (the Syriac version of) his
Theophany, IV. 13 (Lee’s trans. p. 234), and in the Greek
Theophany, §22 (Migne, VI. 685). The latter also shows the
high respect in which he held the work. Jerome’s testimony in
regard to it is very important, but it must be kept in mind that the
gospel had undergone extensive alterations and additions before his
time, and as known to him was very different from the original form
(cf. Lipsius, ibid. p. 711), and therefore what he predicates of
it cannot be applied to the original without limitation. Epiphanius has
a good deal to say about it, but he evidently had not himself seen it,
and his reports of it are very confused and misleading. The statement
of Lipsius, that according to Eusebius the gospel was reckoned by many
among the Homologoumena, is incorrect; ἐν
τούτοις refers rather to the νόθοι among
which its earlier acceptance by a large part of the Church, but present
uncanonicity, places it by right. Irenæus expressly states that
there were but four canonical gospels (Adv. Hær. III. 2,
8), so also Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV. 5), while Clement of
Alexandria cites the gospel with the same formula which he uses for the
Scriptures in general, and evidently looked upon it as, if not quite,
at least almost, on a par with the other four Gospels. Origen on the
other hand (in Johan. II. 6, Hom. in Jer. XV. 4, and
often) clearly places it upon a footing lower than that of the four
canonical Gospels. Upon the use of the gospel by the Ebionites and upon
its relation to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, see chap. 27, note
8.
The literature upon the
Gospel according to the Hebrews is very extensive. Among recent
discussions the most important are by Hilgenfeld, in his Evangelien
nach ihrer Entstehung (1854); in the Zeitschrift f. wiss.
Theol., 1863, p. 345 sqq.; in his N. T. extra Canon. rec.
(2d ed. 1884); and in his Einleitung z. N. T. (1875); by
Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879); and
finally, a very thorough discussion of the subject, which reached me
after the composition of the above note, by Handmann, Das
Hebräer-Evangelium (Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und
Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3, Leipzig, 1888). This work gives the
older literature of the subject with great fullness. Still more
recently Resch’s Agrapha (ibid. V. 4, Leipzig,
1889) has come to hand. It discusses the Gospel on p. 322
sq. | with which those of the Hebrews that have
accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned
among the disputed books.803
6. But we have nevertheless felt
compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works
which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and
commonly accepted,804
from those others
which, although not canonical but disputed,805
| 805 οὐκ
ἐνδιαθήκους
μὲν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἀντιλεγομένας. Eusebius, in this clause, refers to the νόθοι, which, of course, while distinguished from the canonical
Antilegomena, yet are, like them, disputed, and hence belong as
truly as they to the more general class of Antilegomena. This,
of course, explains how, in so many places in his History, he can use
the words νόθοι and
ἀντιλεγόμενα
interchangeably (as e.g. in chap. 31, §6). In the
present passage the νόθοι, as both
uncanonical and disputed, are distinguished from the canonical
writings,—including both the universally accepted and the
disputed,—which are here thrown together without distinction. The
point to be emphasized is that he is separating here the uncanonical
from the canonical, without regard to the character of the individual
writings within the latter class. | are
yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers—we have
felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to
know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under
the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the
Gospels of Peter,806
of Thomas,807
| 807 The
Gospel of Thomas is of Gnostic origin and thoroughly Docetic. It was
written probably in the second century. The original Gnostic form is no
longer extant, but we have fragmentary Catholic recensions of it in
both Latin and Greek, from which heretical traits are expunged with
more or less care. The gospel contained many very fabulous stories
about the childhood of Jesus. It is mentioned frequently by the Fathers
from Origen down, but always as an heretical work. The Greek text is
given by Tischendorf, p. 36 sqq., and an English translation is
contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 395–405. See
Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p.
703–705. | of Matthias,808
| 808 This gospel is mentioned by Origen (Hom. in Lucam I.), by
Jerome (Præf. in Matt.), and by other later writers. The
gospel is no longer extant, though some fragments have been preserved
by Clement of Alexandria, e.g. in Strom. II. 9, Strom.
III. 4 (quoted below in chap. 30), and Strom. VII. 13, which
show that it had a high moral tone and emphasized asceticism. We know
very little about it, but Lipsius conjectures that it was
“identical with the παραδόσεις
Ματθίου which were in high esteem in Gnostic circles, and especially among
the Basilidæans.” See Lipsius, ibid. p.
716. |
or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew809
| 809 Eusebius so far as we know is the first writer to refer to these
Acts. But they are mentioned after him by Epiphanius, Philaster, and
Augustine (see Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apoc. p. xl.).
The Acts of Andrew (Acta Andrææ) were of Gnostic
origin and circulated among that sect in numerous editions. The oldest
extant portions (both in Greek and somewhat fragmentary) are the
Acts of Andrew and Matthew (translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VIII. 517–525) and the Acts of Peter and
Andrew (ibid. 526–527). The Acts and Martyrdom of
the Holy Apostle Andrew (ibid. 511–516), or the
so-called Epistle of the Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning
the Passion of Andrew, is a later work, still extant in a Catholic
recension in both Greek and Latin. The fragments of these three are
given by Tischendorf in his Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 105 sqq. and
132 sqq., and in his Apocal. Apoc. p. 161 sq. See Lipsius in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 30. | and John810
| 810 Eusebius is likewise, so far as we know, the first writer to refer
to these Acts. But they are afterward mentioned by Epiphanius, Photius,
Augustine, Philaster, &c. (see Tischendorf, ibid. p.
lxxiii.). They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few fragments
(collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. Johannis a Leucio Charino
conscriptorum, Halle, 1847). A Catholic extract very much abridged,
but containing clear Gnostic traits, is still extant and is given by
Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 266 sq. (translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 560–564).
The last two works
mentioned belong to a collection of apocryphal Acts which were commonly
ascribed to Leucius, a fictitious character who stands as the legendary
author of the whole of this class of Gnostic literature. From the
fourth century on, frequent reference is made to various Gnostic Acts
whose number must have been enormous. Although no direct references are
made to them before the time of Eusebius, yet apparent traces of them
are found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, &c., which
make it probable that these writers were acquainted with them, and it
may at any rate be assumed as established that many of them date from
the third century and some of them even from the second century. See
Salmon’s article Leucius in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. III. 703–707, and Lipsius’ article in the same
work, I. 28. | and the other
apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical
writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
7. And further, the character of
the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts
and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so
completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show
themselves to be the fictions of heretics.811
| 811 αἱρετικῶν
ἀνδρῶν
ἀναπλ€σματα |
Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected812
writings, but are all of them to be cast
aside as absurd and impious.
Let us now proceed with our
history.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
