Antilegomena
Antilegomena (from Greek antilegomena, meaning "disputed" or "spoken against") denotes a category of New Testament writings whose authenticity and canonical status were questioned by certain early Christian authorities during the development of the biblical canon in the first four centuries AD.[1][2][3] The classification originated with Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 325 AD), where he divided Christian scriptures into homologoumena (universally acknowledged books), antilegomena (disputed but potentially genuine works), and notha (spurious or rejected texts).[4][5] Eusebius listed the core antilegomena as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Book of Revelation, noting variations in acceptance across regions, such as greater Eastern hesitation toward Revelation and Western doubts about Hebrews.[6][5] These disputes arose primarily from uncertainties over apostolic authorship, stylistic inconsistencies, limited early attestation in liturgical use, and perceived tensions with established doctrine, yet the books gained broader recognition through patristic endorsement and conciliar affirmation, securing their place in the 27-book New Testament canon by the late fourth century.[7][8] Unlike the undisputed homologoumena (such as the four Gospels and Pauline epistles), the antilegomena highlight the organic, community-driven process of canon formation, reflecting rigorous scrutiny rather than arbitrary exclusion.[9] Later figures like Martin Luther revisited these tensions, questioning James for its emphasis on works alongside faith, but the traditional canon persisted without alteration.[6]Terminology and Conceptual Framework
Etymology and Definition
The term antilegomena originates from the Greek noun form ἀντιλεγόμενα, a neuter plural participle of the verb antilegō (ἀντιλέγω), literally translating to "things spoken against," "disputed," or "contradicted."[1][3] This etymology reflects its application in patristic literature to denote writings subject to debate or objection regarding their apostolic origin or doctrinal reliability.[10][7] In early Christian theology, antilegomena designates those New Testament books whose inclusion in the canon was not universally affirmed during the first four centuries, though they were ultimately accepted by the majority of the church.[1][2] These texts faced scrutiny from figures such as Eusebius of Caesarea, who categorized them separately from the undisputed homologoumena (universally acknowledged books), due to questions over authorship, stylistic variances, or limited early attestation in certain regions.[11] The term underscores a historical process of discernment rather than outright rejection, with disputes often rooted in evidential criteria like direct apostolic linkage or widespread liturgical use.[7] By the late fourth century, councils such as Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 CE) effectively resolved most such debates in favor of inclusion.[12]Distinction from Homologoumena and Other Categories
The term homologoumena (Greek: ὁμολογούμενα, "acknowledged" or "spoken the same of by all") designates those New Testament writings that achieved near-universal acceptance as apostolic and canonical across early Christian communities by the late second and early third centuries. These books, numbering approximately twenty-one, included the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline epistles (Romans through Philemon), First Peter, and First John, based on their consistent citation in patristic literature and liturgical use without significant opposition.[13] In contrast, antilegomena (Greek: ἀντιλεγόμενα, "disputed" or "spoken against") refers to a smaller set of texts—typically Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation—whose authorship, apostolic origin, or doctrinal consistency faced skepticism or debate among church fathers, despite eventual inclusion in most canons by the fourth century.[1] [2] This binary distinction, while rooted in broader patristic discussions of scriptural authority, was formalized by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History (circa 325 AD), where he differentiated homologoumena as those "accepted by all" from antilegomena as genuinely apostolic yet contested works, emphasizing criteria like widespread ecclesiastical recognition and orthodoxy over isolated doubts.[5] The homologoumena thus represented a core canon of uncontested reliability, serving as the foundation for doctrinal teaching, whereas antilegomena required additional scrutiny, often hinging on evidence of usage in orthodox worship or alignment with undisputed apostolic tradition, without implying inferiority in inspiration but highlighting historical variances in reception.[14] Beyond these, Eusebius outlined supplementary categories to encompass the full spectrum of early Christian literature: notha (spurious or illegitimate writings), such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, Acts of Paul, or Shepherd of Hermas, which circulated among some groups but lacked verifiable apostolic ties and were ultimately excluded; and heretical texts, like those from Marcion or Gnostic sources, rejected outright for doctrinal deviation.[5] These latter groups contrasted sharply with both homologoumena and antilegomena by failing tests of catholicity and orthodoxy, underscoring that canonicity involved not mere antiquity but communal consensus on divine authority, as evidenced by patterns of citation in figures like Irenaeus (circa 180 AD) and Origen (circa 230 AD).[5] Later traditions, including Lutheran reformers, retained the homologoumena-antilegomena framework to affirm full canonicity while noting evidential hierarchies, rejecting notions of graded inspiration.[15]Early Church Canon Formation
Apostolic and Sub-Apostolic Recognition
In the late first and early second centuries AD, during the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, New Testament writings circulated among churches primarily through quotation and allusion in teaching, liturgy, and correspondence, but no formal canon existed. The antilegomena—Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and Revelation—received limited or uneven attestation in surviving texts from figures like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and anonymous works such as the Didache and Epistle of Barnabas, in contrast to the frequent use of undisputed books like the Gospels and major Pauline epistles. This sparse early evidence, often confined to thematic parallels rather than explicit citations as Scripture, foreshadowed later debates over their apostolic origins and authority.[16] Hebrews stands out for relatively early acceptance, with Clement of Rome quoting it at least four times in his Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96 AD), integrating phrases such as those from Hebrews 13:7 and treating the text as authoritative for exhortation on faith and endurance.[17] No other antilegomena receive comparable treatment in Clement's work, which otherwise draws extensively from Pauline letters and 1 Corinthians. Similarly, the Didache (late first to early second century AD) shows structural and ethical affinities with James, such as warnings against double-mindedness echoing James 1:8, but lacks direct quotations or ascription to apostolic authority.[18] Writings from Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) and Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (c. 110–140 AD) further illustrate the pattern, relying on undisputed texts like Matthew, 1 Peter, and 1 John while omitting the antilegomena entirely; Polycarp alludes to over 30 New Testament passages but none from the disputed books.[19] The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70–132 AD) contains typological interpretations akin to Hebrews' priestly themes but no verbatim citations, and it ignores James, Jude, 2 Peter, and the minor Johannine letters. Revelation appears absent from these sources, with its apocalyptic style possibly limiting early liturgical use amid concerns over millenarian interpretations. Jude receives no clear allusions, its brevity and polemical tone against false teachers evidently not prompting quotation in these exhortatory contexts.[20] This selective engagement suggests that while Hebrews gained traction in Roman and Corinthian circles by the 90s AD, the other antilegomena circulated regionally or faced initial skepticism regarding authorship—such as doubts over Pauline origin for Hebrews or Petrine for 2 Peter—or doctrinal fit, contributing to their "disputed" status in subsequent patristic evaluations.[8] The absence of uniform recognition in these foundational texts underscores a gradual process of validation through church usage rather than immediate consensus.[21]Patristic Criteria for Inclusion
The early Church Fathers employed several interrelated criteria to evaluate the canonicity of New Testament writings, emphasizing attributes that ensured authenticity, doctrinal integrity, and communal validation. Chief among these was apostolicity, requiring direct linkage to an apostle or an eyewitness of the risen Christ, such as authorship by figures like Paul, Peter, or associates like Mark and Luke who were under apostolic oversight. This criterion, articulated by Irenaeus of Lyons around 180 AD, prioritized texts traceable to the apostolic era to safeguard against later fabrications, as seen in his appeal to the succession of bishops from the apostles in Against Heresies. Origen of Alexandria, writing in the early third century, similarly stressed origins from apostles or their disciples, noting in his Commentary on the Gospel of John that books like Hebrews, though anonymous, gained traction due to presumed Pauline influence despite authorship uncertainties. A second key test was orthodoxy, demanding alignment with the established "rule of faith"—the core apostolic doctrines on Christ's divinity, incarnation, and resurrection—without introducing contradictions or heretical innovations. Tertullian, in Prescription Against Heretics (c. 200 AD), argued that canonical texts must cohere with the teachings handed down from the apostles, rejecting works that deviated, such as Gnostic gospels. Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 325 AD), applied this by classifying books as homologoumena (universally acknowledged) if they upheld orthodox Christology, while relegating others to disputed status if they risked misinterpretation, as with the potentially antinomian tone in James. Athanasius of Alexandria reinforced this in his 39th Festal Letter of 367 AD, affirming 27 books as canonical only after verifying their doctrinal purity against Arian and other challenges.[22][23] Complementing these was catholicity, or widespread liturgical use across diverse churches, serving as empirical evidence of communal reception over time. This "usage test," evident in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170–200 AD), favored texts read publicly in assemblies from Rome to Antioch, indicating organic endorsement rather than isolated endorsement. By the fourth century, councils like Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) formalized this, drawing on patristic consensus where books like 2 Peter faced initial hesitation due to limited early attestation but eventual broad adoption. These criteria were not rigidly formulaic but applied judiciously, often interdependently, to affirm texts amid forgeries and sectarian claims, culminating in the near-universal NT canon by the late patristic era.[24][25]Eusebius and Fourth-Century Classification
Eusebius' Categorization in Ecclesiastical History
In his Ecclesiastical History, completed around 324–325 CE, Eusebius of Caesarea offers the earliest extant systematic classification of New Testament writings, reflecting the consensus of early fourth-century churches rather than imposing a personal canon.[23] In Book III, Chapter 25, he divides them into three tiers: universally acknowledged books (homologoumena), disputed but widely recognized ones (antilegomena), and spurious or rejected texts (notha).[5] This framework draws from patristic traditions and ecclesiastical usage up to his era, emphasizing apostolic origin, orthodoxy, and broad acceptance as criteria.[23] The homologoumena encompass 21 books undisputed by orthodox communities: the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, the 13 Pauline epistles (Romans through Philemon, plus Hebrews attributed to Paul), the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter.[5] Eusebius describes these as "accepted writings" known to all churches from antiquity.[23] The antilegomena, or disputed books, include five shorter Catholic epistles: James, Jude, Second Peter, Second John, and Third John.[5] These were "recognized by many" yet contested by some early fathers due to questions of authorship, style, or limited attestation, though still deemed profitable and orthodox by most.[23] Eusebius treats the Apocalypse of John (Revelation) separately, noting its contested reception: included among the homologoumena by some but classed as spurious by others, with no unanimous verdict.[5] Among rejected works, he lists extracanonical texts like the Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews (used by Jewish Christians but not Gentiles).[23] He categorizes overtly heretical forgeries—such as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and Acts of Andrew or John—as impious inventions outside apostolic tradition.[5] This classification underscores ongoing fluidity in canon formation, with Eusebius reporting historical divisions without resolving them definitively.[23]Accepted versus Disputed Books
In his Ecclesiastical History (composed circa 325 AD), Eusebius of Caesarea distinguished between books of the New Testament that were universally accepted (homologoumena) by the churches and those that were disputed (antilegomena) yet familiar to many.[23] The homologoumena comprised writings with broad consensus on their apostolic origin, doctrinal soundness, and liturgical use, forming the core of the emerging canon; these included the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of Paul (Romans through Philemon, excluding Hebrews from undisputed status), the first Epistle of Peter, and the first Epistle of John.[4] Eusebius noted that these twenty-one books were "admitted without dispute by those ancient men who from the first down to our own times have handed down the tradition of the orthodox faith."[23] The antilegomena, by contrast, were recognized by the majority but contested by some due to questions of authorship, style, or limited attestation in certain regions; Eusebius listed the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, and the Revelation of John among these.[4] He observed that "disputed books, which are nevertheless recognized by many" included these, reflecting ongoing debates rather than outright rejection, as they were still employed in worship by numerous communities.[23] This classification underscored a fluid yet stabilizing process, where acceptance hinged on empirical evidence of early circulation and orthodoxy rather than later conciliar decrees.| Category | Books Included |
|---|---|
| Accepted (Homologoumena) | Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John); Acts of the Apostles; Paul's epistles (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon); 1 Peter; 1 John |
| Disputed (Antilegomena) | James; 2 Peter; Jude; 2 John; 3 John; Revelation |
The Specific Antilegomena Books
New Testament Disputed Texts
The New Testament antilegomena, or disputed texts, comprise seven books whose inclusion in the canon was contested by segments of the early church, primarily due to questions of authorship, apostolic origin, and widespread attestation: the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Book of Revelation.[6][28] These texts were distinguished from the 20 undisputed books (homologoumena), which included the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, 13 Pauline epistles (excluding Hebrews), 1 Peter, and 1 John, as universally recognized by the third century.[27] By contrast, the antilegomena were acknowledged by many but rejected or hesitated over by others, particularly in the Eastern church traditions.[5] Eusebius of Caesarea provided the earliest systematic classification in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 324–325 AD), placing James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John explicitly among the disputed writings "known to most but not all," while noting Hebrews' association with Paul but its contested Pauline authorship, and Revelation's acceptance by some but rejection by others due to its apocalyptic content.[27][5] Earlier witnesses like Origen (c. 185–254 AD) referenced disputes over Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, James, and Jude, affirming their use despite reservations from some presbyters.[29] The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170–200 AD), one of the oldest canon lists, omits several of these, implying early uncertainty, though it includes Revelation and Jude.[30]- Epistle to the Hebrews: Lacking explicit authorship, it was linked to Paul by some but doubted by others, such as Eusebius, who noted its non-Pauline style; it gained traction in the East by the fourth century but remained disputed in the West until councils like Hippo (393 AD).[31][5]
- Epistle of James: Attributed to James the brother of Jesus, it faced skepticism for its late apparent composition and emphasis on works, with Origen and Eusebius citing limited early citations.[29][27]
- Second Epistle of Peter: Questioned for stylistic differences from 1 Peter and sparse attestation before Origen, who accepted it cautiously; Eusebius listed it among the contested.[6][27]
- Second and Third Epistles of John: Brief and addressed to specific individuals, these catholic epistles were rarely quoted early on, leading Eusebius to classify them as disputed despite their Johannine attribution.[28][27]
- Epistle of Jude: Its quotation of non-canonical texts (e.g., Enoch) raised concerns, though Origen defended it; Eusebius included it in the antilegomena.[6][27]
- Book of Revelation: Accepted in the West but rejected by Eastern figures like Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 200–265 AD) for its chiliastic interpretations and stylistic variance from Johannine works; Eusebius noted its divided reception.[27][5]