Eusebius’ “Lists”
Eusebius’ “Lists”
The next “list” is Eusebius. However, he never gives his own Old Testament list. Instead, he copied lists he read from others. And unfortunately, Eusebius is not as reliable as moderns wish he had been.
Far too much nonsense is written about Eusebius for several reasons. One, while he only provided his own New Testament canon lists, people often include his opinions and comments about the Old Testament in a discussion of canon lists. But that is not treating the evidence fairly. Eusebius’ comments are not in list form. One should not exclude everyone else’s comments on the grounds that they are not in list form, yet include Eusebius’ comments. It really should be all or none—and, of course, I say it should be all.
Secondly, way too many authors confuse what Eusebius says and what he is quoting from. For example, my chosen canon list website quotes an old passage from Westcott (1896) where Westcott confuses Eusebius quoting Origen for Eusebius’ own words.[1]
Thirdly, the canons that Eusebius cites differ. From Gallagher and Meade:
In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius recorded three lists of OT books, those of Josephus (3.10.1-5), Melito of Sardis (4.26.12-14), and Origen (6.25.1-2), all more or less agreeing in content. (p. 99).
“Agreeing in content” is their view (their spin, their bias), and in one sense, they are right (the lists agree on most of the 39 Books of the Protestant canon, which are accepted by Catholics as well). However, obsessed as we are with only the Apocrypha, the real point is that the lists still differ, and nowhere does Eusebius discuss that aspect or clearly express what that means.
He apparently intended readers to understand that these lists, despite their minor disagreements, represented the OT canon of the church. … his introduction to Melito’s list describes it as a list of the recognized scriptures of the Old Testament’ (4.26.12), and before quoting Origen’s list he says that it is the catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament (6.25.1). Eusebius seems to have thought that the OT canon was settled. (p. 99).
Settled yes, but how, exactly? One could see it to be that the points of agreement are all canon, or that anything mentioned on any list is canon. The core is settled either way, but the edges are what we are concerned with here.
Eusebius never expresses any personal judgment against the individual Books of the Apocrypha. The worst thing he ever says about the Apocrypha is that they are disputed, which he himself seems to indicate might mean that something is still accepted as canon.
And I think it could be argued that Eusebius is giving his support to lists (and Origen’s letter) that would include Susanna, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees (i.e., all the Apocrypha). If we are just going to guess about what “he really meant,” then I think that is a fair reading of every time Eusebius shows his approval for Origen’s letter, Origen’s list, Clement’s list, Melito’s list, etc.
Of course, such a guess is also directly 100% contrary to the usual guesses made (that he only approved of the 39 Protestant Books, which is the Gallagher and Meade view). That is what happens when we are only guessing. But if someone quotes many things with approval, it is just as fair to accept all the differences as to exclude all the differences.
But actually, my guess for Wisdom, Baruch, and Susanna is not much of a guess at all. I am the one abiding by what Eusebius himself clearly said; it is others who believe that the lists he copied override his own words about his own view:
When clearly speaking for himself, in his treatise “The Preparation of the Gospel,” Eusebius cites to the Book of Wisdom more than a dozen times as one of the “Oracles of the Hebrews” and asserts that it is Divine prophecy fulfilled by Christ.[2]
In addition, Eusebius cites to Baruch as inspired prophecy, e.g.: “It is prophesied that the God of the Prophets…will some Day afterwards be seen on Earth, and mingle among Men. I need add nothing to these inspired words, which so clearly support my argument.” (Baruch 3:29-37). [3]
Moreover, Eusebius noted that: “There is extant an epistle [from Africanus] to Origen, expressing doubts of the story of Susannah in Daniel, as being spurious and fictitious. Origen answered this very fully.”[4]
(And I note, by the way, that Wisdom, Baruch, and Susanna are the same three Books that Irenaeus and Melito may also accept, and this reinforces Irenaeus’ claim that Baruch was, indeed, Apostolic preaching.)
Lastly, Eusebius articulated a system of categories for considering New Testament Books: (1) unanimously agreed, (2) disputed (as long as “most” accept them) and (3) heretical works, with category (2) divided between “spurious” works (those which were not universally recognized as written by a particular author, e.g., Revelations and Hebrews) and those which are not spurious (the named author was accepted as the true author) but still disputed. One can spend a lot of pages discussing such things (as Gallagher and Meade do, since they have a wider scope for their work), but the point for us is that none of that was applied by Eusebius himself to the Old Testament. Hence, it is just a distraction when discussing the Apocrypha.[5]
[1] www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html. At least that is my view, as well as Gallagher and Meade’s view. There are also people who think Eusebius made the list up and attributed it to Origen (see above re: Eusebius’ unreliability…). In which case, Origen’s list really is Eusebius’ list, meaning Westcott would not be confused.
[2] See www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm et seq. Oracles of the Hebrews is the same term that he uses for all the Scriptures, such as 1 Chronicles. (See the discussion of 1 Maccabees, below).
[3] Demonstratio Evangelica, 6.19 www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_de_08_book6.htm.
[4] Church History 6, 31, 1: www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm
[5] In particular, although he refers to some of the Apocrypha as “disputed,” it is not clear that he is using the word to mean the same thing as his New Testament category (he is using the words in passing when talking about the Apocrypha); and then, he also does not detail what happens with an Old Testament Book that is disputed. New Testament Books that are disputed but recognized by many/most are still considered canon (both to Eusebius and to us moderns). In addition, he does not say that he personally disputes them. Read his own words on the matter at www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm, Book 3, Ch 25, Sec 3.
