Books at the fringes of the New Testament Canon

[Premo316]

I am starting to become interested in the formation of the Canon of the New Testament.

What I would like to know is which books were at the fringes of the Canon, both those books that were eventually recognized and those that were eventually rejected.

Also what were some reasons for rejecting/accepting books into the Canon?

[One Bad Pig]

The 4 gospels and Acts, as well as the Pauline epistles, seem to have been universally accepted by the end of the first century. 1st John and 1st Peter were also quickly accepted. The rest of the canonical NT was accepted more often than not, with the Revelation taking the longest to gain full acceptance. Some books that gained limited acceptance were the Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas, and 1st Clement. Books were accepted or rejected based on their apostolicity and use throughout Christendom.

[Abelard]

Good summary by One Bad Pig. There are books written about this, and they are good reading.

The reason a NT canon was required was when Christianity became a State religion, there was a need for a civic liturgy. The books selected for the canon were almost all agreed upon by the three major centers of the church long before the formal canonization.

[ZackMartin]

I posted this in another thread recently, but I'll post it here again with some expansion:

There was substantial resistance to the NT Antilegomena in the early Church. The Antilegomena were those books that were widely, but not universally, accepted in the early Church, and there was substantial dispute over whether to accept them - some of the Antilegomena were eventually accepted as canonical - James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Revelations, Hebrews - others in the end were not accepted - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The dispute over the Antilegomena was still raging in the fourth century (see Eusebius), and the Syriac churches did not accept 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation until the 7th century. The Armenian church did not accept Revelation until the 12th or 13th centuries. Luther in the 16th century supported the removal of Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation from the canon, although in the end the Lutheran church did not follow him in this idea. Arguably, there is an NT protocanon of around 20 books, which were universally accepted very early, and rarely challenged hence; and then there is an NT deuterocanon, composed of 7 further books now near universally accepted, but whose acceptance was a long time coming, and which came under debate again around the time of the Protestant Reformation; and to the NT deuterocanon also arguably belongs several other books which few churches accept today, but which were close also-rans widely accepted in the first few centuries of Christianity.

As well as those books - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache - I mentioned as being part of the NT Antilegomena but not eventually accepted as canonical, I'd add the following: 1 and 2 Clement were accepted by some churches as part of the NT (see e.g. the Codex Alexandrinus) - most didn't accept them as such, but still esteemed them as part of the works of the Church Fathers. 3 Corinthians appears to have been accepted by some of the Syriac church in the 4th century, but was later rejected; it was accepted by the Armenian Church up to the 17th century, but it no long forms part of their Bible. The broader canon of Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes, in the NT, eight additional books: two Books of the Covenant, four Books of Sinodos, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was widely rejected as a forgery even in ancient times; however, the frequency with which it was included in texts of the Vulgate suggests that some Christians may have thought differently about it.

[One Bad Pig]

As well as those books - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache - I mentioned as being part of the NT Antilegomena but not eventually accepted as canonical, I'd add the following: 1 and 2 Clement were accepted by some churches as part of the NT (see e.g. the Codex Alexandrinus) - most didn't accept them as such, but still esteemed them as part of the works of the Church Fathers. 3 Corinthians appears to have been accepted by some of the Syriac church in the 4th century, but was later rejected; it was accepted by the Armenian Church up to the 17th century, but it no long forms part of their Bible. The broader canon of Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes, in the NT, eight additional books: two Books of the Covenant, four Books of Sinodos, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was widely rejected as a forgery even in ancient times; however, the frequency with which it was included in texts of the Vulgate suggests that some Christians may have thought differently about it.

The term "antilegomena" appears to be generally limited to those books that were once disputed, but were eventually accepted by the church as a whole. Eusebius classified the other disputed writings as "nothoi" (spurious). I recall seeing a table comparing lists of accepted NT books found in writings of the early centuries, and there was quite a noticeable distinction between the two sets of books; the antilegomena were accepted much more frequently than the others.

[ZackMartin]

The term "antilegomena" appears to be generally limited to those books that were once disputed, but were eventually accepted by the church as a whole. Eusebius classified the other disputed writings as "nothoi" (spurious).

The passage in Eusebius (Church History, 3.25), if you read it, is actually pretty confusing (English Translation Greek Text). He talks about several different categories. Firstly, the "accepted writings" (ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις) in 3.25.2, then the "disputed writings" (τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων) in 3.25.3, then the "rejected writings" (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις) in 3.25.4, then in 3.25.6-7 he introduces another category beneath the "rejected writings", which is heretical works. So it looks like he is proposing a four level classification - "accepted writings" (ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις), "disputed writings" (τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων), "rejected writings" (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις), heretical works.

However, on closer examination, there are some problems with this fourfold scheme. In 3.25.2 he classifies the book of Revelation as falling under the "accepted writings", but then in 3.25.4 he classifies the book of Revelation as falling under the "rejected writings" as well. Then in 3.25.5, he mentions the Gospel of Hebrews, but it is not very clear which category it falls under. Since it immediately follows the discussion of "rejected writings", one might think it falls under that category. But the next sentence then says "And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books" (τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων) - does he therefore mean to say that the Gospel of Hebrews falls under the "disputed writings" instead? Yet "and all these" implies, not just the Gospel of Hebrews, but also the "rejected writings" mentioned in 3.25.4. So it seems then, that "rejected writings" is possibly a subcategory of "disputed writings", to which the book of Revelation may belong. This is also supported given that 4 begins with "Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also...", the word "also" implying that something already mentioned falls into "rejected writings", which suggests that the "disputed writings" are the "rejected writings".

All this taken together seems to suggest one of two conclusions:
(1) "rejected writings" (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις) is a subcategory of "disputed writings" (τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων) - thus all ἐν τοῖς νόθοις are τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων, but not all τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων are ἐν τοῖς νόθοις
(2) "rejected writings" (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις) and "disputed writings" (τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων) are synonyms

So this argues, rather than for a fourfold classification of accepted-disputed-rejected-heretical, instead for a threefold classification of accepted-disputed/rejected-heretical. The threefold classification makes sense in terms of the purposes of the text - to distinguish between, (1) those books accepted by the whole of the church, (2) those books which only some of the church accepts, but which are not heretical, (3) those books which are heretical, and thus those who accept them are outside the church.

(I readily admit that my knowledge of Greek is very limited, although I did try to look at the original text, so someone whose Greek is better than mine may have a different argument. I mainly relied on the English translation in developing the above argument, although I checked it against the Greek insofar as I could make sense of it.)

[One Bad Pig]

I wasn't just leaning on Eusebius. "Antilegomena" today is generally taken to refer only to the books that were disputed, but eventually accepted. And even if you tried to fold 'nothoi' under 'antilegomena' he still makes a clear distinction between them. The only exception is Revelation - which he has a clear bias against, yet he admits that many accept it.