Eusebius Witness to the Written Word

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340), a Christian apologist and early church historian, has contributed much to our understanding of the canonization of the New Testament. In his Ecclesiastical History, he classifies the writing into three groups: undisputed or genuine, disputed, and spurious. As we look at this in more detail, we will give rather lengthy quotations from his writings. Hopefully, many readers will find his writing valuable.

Eusebius wrote that of the twelve apostles, the seventy and other disciples,

Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, understood it from necessity. Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrews, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writings in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them, by his writings. But after Mark and Luke had already published their gospels, they say, that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it . . . on the following occasion. These gospels previously written, having been distributed among all, and also handed to him; they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, among the first of his deeds, and at the commencement of the gospel.

Earlier Eusebius wrote about Luke: "But Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician, being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us two inspired books. . . . One of these is his gospel. . . . It is also said, that Paul usually referred to his gospel, whenever, in his epistles he spoke of some particular gospel of his own, saying, 'according to my gospel.'" In his introduction he stated he wanted "to free us from the uncertain suppositions of others, in his own gospel, he delivered the certain account of those things, that he himself had fully received from his intimacy and stay with Paul, and also, his intercourse with the other apostles."

Eusebius connected Mark to Peter:

So greatly, however, did the splendour of piety enlighten that mind of Peter's hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of the gospel of God, but they persevered in every variety of entreaties, to solicit Mark as the companion of Peter, and whose gospel we have, that he should leave them a monument of the doctrine thus orally communicated, in writing. Nor did they cease their solicitations until they had prevailed with the man, and thus become the means of that history which is called the Gospel according to Mark. They say also, that the apostle [Peter], having ascertained what was done by the revelation of the spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardour expressed by these men, and that, the history obtained his authority for the purpose of being read in the churches.

Some other of Eusebius remarks follow:

The early church was certain about Paul's writings: "The epistles of Paul are fourteen, all well known and beyond doubt."

The Book of Hebrews was disputed: "that some have set aside the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was disputed, as not being one of St. Paul's epistles."

He wrote that John's "first epistle is acknowledged without dispute, both by those of the present day, and also by the ancients."

"Among the disputed books, although they are well known and approved by many, is reputed, that call the Epistle of James and Jude. Also the 'Second Epistle of Peter,' and those called 'The Second and Third of John,' whether they are of the evangelist or of some other of the same name." "The opinions respecting the Revelation are still greatly divided."

The spurious writings (according to Bruce this term "means little more uncanonical. . . . The 'spurious' books were not generally included in the cannon, yet they were known and esteemed by many churchmen. If not canonical, they were at least orthodox.") stand in sharp contrast to the disputed. It is one thing for brethren to dispute among themselves about minor points of a writing, but it is another to recognize a writing as obviously forged, deceitful, and wrong.

Eusebius listed among the spurious writing "The Acts of Paul," "Pastor," "The Revelations of Peter," "The Epistle of Barnabas," and the "Institutions of the Apostles." He also denounced and rejected such books as "those that are adduced by the Heretics under the name of the apostles, such, viz., as compose the gospel of Peter, Thomas, and Matthew, and others beside them, or such as others the Acts of the Apostles, by Andrew, and John, and others, of which no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has condescended to make any mention in his works; and indeed, the character of the style itself is very different from the apostles, and the sentiments, and the purport of those things that are advanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound orthodoxy, evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical men; whence they are to be ranked not among the spurious writings, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious."

Some earlier church leaders occasionally quoted from some of these books, but this does not mean they accepted them as Scripture. Several New Testament writers quoted non-Biblical sources to illustrate their own writings. Heathen poets are quoted, such as Aratus in Acts 17:28, Menander in I Corinthians 15:33, and Epimenides in Titus 1:12. Some Old Testament writers also quoted Gentiles. The important point to recognize is that none of the above quotations are preceded with the authoritative "it is written" or "the scripture says"; therefore these quotations do not mean they were considered Scripture.

We can also have added confidence in the New Testament when we compare its books to other early church writings that were not received into the canon. The New Testament books stand together as a group of the highest quality, with doctrinal value and without doctrinal peculiarities. There are no questions about their superiority; we have no doubt that the right books were chosen to be in the canon.

As Schaff wrote, "The hand of God has drawn a bold line of demarcation between the century of miracles and the succeeding ages, to show, by abrupt transition and the striking contrast, the difference between the works of God and the work of men, and to impress us the more deeply with the supernatural origin of Christianity and the incomparable value of the New Testament."

Some of the rejected books, "the gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthew, and other besides them, or such as contain the Acts of the Apostles, by Andrew, and John, and others," as the early church historian Eusebius wrote,

no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has condescended to make any mention in his works; and indeed, the character of the style itself is very different from that of the apostles, and the sentiments, and the purport of those that are advanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound orthodoxy, evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical men.

These were not to be ranked among the spurious writings but were totally "rejected as altogether absurd and impious." They were written to support peculiar heretical teachings clearly without New Testament support or to give information about Jesus Christ's childhood and the apostles' lives. They often contained mythical and fictional details.

You are welcome to make copies of the above article provided you show the copyright information and bibleviews.com source.

We welcome your comments and suggestions. Send them to the Webmaster.

This page is presented by:

Bible Teachings
63100 County Road 111
Goshen, IN 46526
Phone: 574-875-8007

Return to Home Page

May God's grace and peace be with you as you study His Word.