Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (340 A.D.), divided the books of the New Testament into three classes, the "acknowledged," the "disputed," and the "heretical" (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iii. 25). The "acknowledged" books included the Four Gospels , the Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul (omitting Hebrews), First John, and First Peter. They were the books concerning which there was no controversy. The "disputed" books he divided into two subordinate classes; the "generally known and recognized by most," namely, James, Jude, Second Peter, Second John, and Third John., none of which are disputed now, so far as the laity ever hears; and the "spurious," including the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Revelation of John, which last is in the Bible today, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The "heretical" books included the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Matthew (not the one now in the Bible), the Acts of the Apostles by Andrew, and the Acts of the Apostles by John. The Epistle of James, which is not in the Bible and which he here classes as generally recognized, in another place he calls "spurious" (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., ii. 25), and of Revelation he says that possibly it should be among the acknowledged books, but that some rejected it. The idea as to what composed the Bible was in the minds of the Fathers vague and indefinite. Such a strict and unalterable rule as we now have they did not possess. Eusebius was a bishop of the Eastern church, and the reader will observe as we progress that the church uniformly discarded Revelation.
Cyril, the Bishop of Jerusalem (356 A.D.), is a member of the Eastern church, made a catalogue which included the books now in our New Testament except Revelation, and he adds, "But let all the rest be excluded. And all the books which are not read in the churches, neither do thou read by thyself" (Catech. Lect., iv. 35).
More than three hundred and fifty years passed away, and it became apparent that the Fathers could not agree as to what books should be in the Bible, and councils began to deal with the matter. The first Christian assembly at which the canon was made the subject of a special ordinance was held at Laodicea in 365 A.D. Tertullian indeed mentions the fact that synods had acted upon the canonicity of books in his time (Dr. Pudic, 10), but their authority much have been local and not general. Jerome also says that the council of Nicea included Judith in a list which it adopted (Pref. In Judith, i. p. 1169, Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 171), but I can find no good evidence that the council of Nicea acted on the canon at all, although there is a very general impression that it did. The current tradition is that the books were placed under a table at Nicea, and that after prayer the canonical ones leaped out from under, and the others remained behind. It is said that this story is told by Pappus, a Lutheran divine (1549-1601) in his "Epitome Historiae Ecclesiasticae de Conversionibus Gentium," etc. It is, of course, fabulous, and probably originated from the fact that at the council of Chalcedon the Gospels were placed in the midst of the assembly (Westcott, Canon, 426).
The synod of Laodicea was not a general council of the church, but its list was afterwards adopted by the church, so that virtually that was the first general action on the contents of the Bible. It was a gathering of twenty-four to thirty-two (the number is variously stated) of the clergy of Lydia and Phrygia. Whatever the number, the so-called heretics had a majority of the votes present (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 173). Its decree was as follows:
"Psalms composed by private men must not be read in the church, nor uncanonical books, but only the canonical books of the New and Old Testament. How many books must be read::
Then follows the list as we have it today, except the omission of Revelation. This council is of importance because for the first time the tone of authority as to what much and must not be read is established.
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, (365 A.D.), was at enmity with Eusebius and the clergy of Laodicea (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 234), and when Laodicea declared that Revelation was not in the Bible, Athanasius immediately promulgated a list in which he declared that it was. In his canon he names, he says, the books in which alone were proclaimed the doctrines of godliness, and which no man must take from, and no man add to. Yet he omitted Esther, which the church as since added, and he also inserted Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, which the church has since taken away (Athanasius, Festal Epistle XXXIX, Liberty Of The Fathers, Oxford, 1954). He expressly declare that Esther was not a part of the Bible, and place it on a level with the Pastor Of Hermas, and a book called The Doctrine of the Apostles. He closed by saying: "Let there be no mention of apocryphal writings." He had become tired of the controversy.
Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium (365 A.D.), in his New Testament, accepts the Four Gospels, Acts, and fourteen Epistles of Paul, and adds, "But some maintain that the Epistle to the Hebrews is spurious; not speaking well, for the grace is genuine. To proceed: What remains? Of the Catholic Epistles some maintain that we ought to receive seven, and others three only, one of James, and one of Peter, and one of John…The Revelation of John again some reckon among (the scriptures); but still the majority say that it is spurious. This will be the most truthful canon of the inspired scriptures" (Lambi ad Seleucam). One cannot decide from the above what he considered "the most truthful canon," but it shows again how entirely unsettled was the question as to what was to be considered the New Testament and what was not, and that the question was purely a matter of individual opinion. His closing words show that in his time no list was universally accepted.
Opatatus of Mela omitted Hebrews (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible,p. 193)
Gregory of Nazianzus (389 A.D.), gave as the New Testament the Four Gospels, the Acts, fourteen Epistles of Paul, and the seven Catholic Epistles, and he adds, "In these you have all the inspired books; if there be any book besides these, it is not among the genuine (scriptures)" (Carm., xii. 31). He belonged to the Eastern church, and he likewise rejected the book of Revelation.
By the "seven Catholic Epistles" is meant always James, First Peter, Second Peter, First John, Second John, Third John, and Jude. Why they are called Catholic Epistles no one knows (Kitto, Cyclo. Bio. Literature, "Epistles, Catholic,"). Any explanation of the name is an assumption.
St. Augustine's New Testament was the same as ours today. Now we begin to see conformity. The influence of St. Augustine in establishing the Bible was greater probably than any other Father or than any council. People now attribute to God what was really the work of one man. While councils decided upon the canon, and their decision became embodied sentiment of the entire church, the expression was really that of but one man, the leader in the council, and when doubts arose as to the authority of a book, scholarship was not involved to decide it, for the members possessed almost none. They simply asked: "What did the Early Fathers say of it?" Prof. Davidson says:
"In relation to the New Testament, the synods which drew up lists of the sacred books show the opinion of some leading Father like Augustine, along with what custom had sanctioned. In this department no member of the synod exercised his critical faculty; a number together would decide such questions summarily. Bishops proceeded in the track of tradition or authority" (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 172).
In 393 A.D. a council met in Hippo, in Africa, discussed the canon, and adopted St. Augustine's list. St. Augustine himself was present, and was the ruling spirit.
In 397 A.D. was held the third council of Carthage. St. Augustine was again present. It adopted a decree as follows:
"It was also determined that besides the canonical scriptures, nothing be read in the church under the title of Divine Scriptures. The Canonical scriptures are these:"
Then follow the names of the books of the Bible as we have them now, except some variations in the order
Didymus of Alexandria tells us that Second Peter in his time was accounted spurious and was not in the canon, yet it was publicly read (Westcott, Canon, 444). In the early days books were read in the churches which were known at the time to be spurious and which were not in the canon. In time most of these books were to find their way into the New Testament. Today Second Peter is not only read in the churches, but is accounted genuine and is in the Bible. And if any modern orthodox minister, believing as the ancients did, that it was spurious, desired to say so, he would not dare to, since it would "unsettle the faith of his congregation." For this he would be dismissed, and his livelihood would cease as a minister and the support of his family through the ministry would stop. It is thus that ecclesiasticism compels men to play the hypocrite, and teach as true that they believe to be false. The same is done today; many times ministers know more than they let one and for the sake of their "check" play the party-line.
Let us continue.