Disputed New Testament books: reports, lists and reception

The question and the witnesses

What does an early Christian writer mean when a book is disputed, accepted or read for instruction? Eusebius reports differences concerning James, Jude, Second Peter, Second and Third John, and Revelation. Athanasius later names these books within an explicit New Testament list. Their testimony helps explain formation and reception, but the two witnesses do not furnish every intermediate decision or establish an uninterrupted universal agreement. The question is how their different statements support claims about Scripture’s authority. Eusebius III.25 Athanasius 39.5–7

Eusebius’s fourth-century Church History surveys earlier writings and their use in the churches. III.25 summarizes testimony already discussed before returning to the narrative. Athanasius writes pastorally in a festal letter dated by this edition to 367, warning readers about misleading books and recalling writings received as divine. Their different purposes matter: a historian reports reception, while a bishop directs his readers. III.25.1, 6–7 39.2–3

Canon here concerns a recognized collection of authoritative Scriptures; acceptance, authorship and usefulness remain distinguishable questions. McGiffert’s notes supply transliterations such as homologoumena for accepted writings, antilegomena for disputed writings and nothoi beside his English rejected. These are aids furnished by a historical edition, not a newly checked Greek text. The same English word can obscure a shifting scope. In particular, disagreement about who wrote a book need not be identical to disagreement about whether churches may receive it as Scripture. III.25, notes 778, 787–788, 794

Eusebius: accepted, disputed and other writings

Chapter III.25 begins with the four Gospels and Acts, followed by Paul’s epistles, First John and First Peter. Revelation receives a qualification even in this accepted group: its placement depends on whether that seems proper, with different opinions reserved for discussion. That condition is part of the sentence’s evidence. It prevents treating the opening list as an unqualified endorsement of every item, while its substantial common core prevents turning a dispute over selected writings into uncertainty about every New Testament book. III.25.1–2, local lines 4–14

Eusebius next names James, Jude, Second Peter, Second John and Third John as disputed yet known to many. For the last two, he asks whether the author is the evangelist or another John. The passage thus brings a reception category together with an attribution question. “Disputed” needs to be read with the qualification about recognition; it cannot be taken to mean rejection by every congregation. III.25.3, local lines 16–20

Revelation appears again among rejected writings, conditionally, because some reject it while others place it among accepted books. This repeated appearance is deliberate evidence of divergent judgments rather than two straightforward contradictory decrees. Its position differs from the five disputed epistles just listed. Chapter III.24.18 also reports divided opinions about the Apocalypse. Whether Eusebius’s own preferences affected his arrangement requires further investigation; the catalogue alone does not justify converting every report into his personal final verdict or a universal church judgment. III.25.2, 4; III.24.18

Section 4 places the Acts of Paul, Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas and Teachings of the Apostles together. Section 5 then includes the Gospel according to the Hebrews and extends disputed language over this discussion. Sections 6–7 separate works known to ecclesiastical writers from books Eusebius condemns as heretical fabrications. His labels consequently resist a neat chart of four mutually exclusive modern categories. In particular, rejected in one part of this translation does not automatically mean fabricated in the harsher sense of the final paragraph. III.25.4–7, local lines 22–53

In note 778, McGiffert interprets the narrower disputed group as books moving toward wider canonical acceptance and nothoi as works moving toward exclusion, without necessarily judging their authenticity. He uses that account to explain Revelation’s conditional placements. The note develops a substantial nineteenth-century interpretation amid scholarly disagreement. Reading it beside Eusebius helps illuminate the categories, provided the commentator’s reconstruction remains distinct from the ancient report and from present scholarly consensus. III.25, note 778

Hebrews, the Shepherd and the limits of silence

Hebrews is not individually named in III.25. In III.3.5, however, Eusebius speaks of fourteen Pauline epistles and reports that some rejected Hebrews because the church of Rome disputed its Pauline authorship. McGiffert infers in notes 778 and 781 that III.25 includes it within Paul’s epistles, distinguishing authorship doubts from canonical standing. That inference has a textual basis, but its claim that canonicity was not doubted must remain the commentator’s interpretation beside Eusebius’s actual report of rejection. Silence in the catalogue supplies no independent universal verdict. III.3.5; III.25, notes 778, 781

The Shepherd makes the distinction between reading and inclusion especially clear. In III.3.6 Eusebius says objections prevent placing it among acknowledged books, yet others consider it indispensable for elementary instruction; he also reports public reading in churches and use by ancient writers. III.25.4 lists it among rejected writings. Those statements can coexist if usefulness, liturgical use and canonical classification answer different questions. They also warn against assuming that quotation by a Christian author, or reading in a congregation, alone proves membership in a universally fixed scriptural collection. III.3.6; III.25.4

Athanasius: a list and a second kind of reading

The Athanasian extract warns about fabricated books whose names resemble genuine writings. Sections 2–3 present the list as a reminder prompted by church needs and requests from brethren, grounding its boundaries in inherited testimony. That appeal is part of Athanasius’s pastoral argument. Tracing how each book had been received in other regions before his letter requires further witnesses. 39.1–3, local lines 7–37

Section 5 gives four Gospels, Acts, seven Catholic epistles, fourteen Pauline epistles including Hebrews, and Revelation. The resulting twenty-seven-book New Testament includes the five epistles singled out as disputed in Eusebius III.25.3 and the conditionally placed Apocalypse. Section 6 then forbids adding to or subtracting from the named Scriptures and connects them with salvation and godliness. This is clear evidence of Athanasius’s stated boundary in this letter. Counting its entries does not by itself demonstrate when every other church adopted that boundary. 39.5–6, local lines 56–74

Section 7 adds books outside the canon that the fathers appointed for instruction of newcomers. Alongside several Old Testament-related writings, it names the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd. He distinguishes these useful readings from heretical apocryphal inventions. Thus his negative classification does not give every excluded book the same status. His placement of Esther in this instructional group also warns against using agreement about twenty-seven New Testament books as proof that every aspect of his entire biblical list matches a modern list. 39.4, 7, local lines 39–54, 76–87

The comparison shows an extensive shared core, followed by explicit Athanasian inclusion of the epistles disputed in Eusebius. Both also distinguish useful ecclesiastical writings from works more severely condemned as misleading. Athanasius’s later list leaves Eusebius’s earlier report of divided reception intact. Those differences raise a historical question about how reception changed; they are not competing council definitions simply because they come from different dates. III.25.1–7 39.5–7

The reader contains the full extract called From Letter XXXIX in this edition: seven sections and eight notes. The ancient letter is incomplete, as the opening ellipses show. Notes 4539 and 4541 describe differing Coptic, Greek and Syriac remains, and the preface credits Miss Payne Smith’s revision of the Oxford translation. Those editorial accounts point to transmission questions still requiring critical study. Heading, notes 4539–4541 and translation preface

Named Catholic and Orthodox readings

Catechism §120 relates the Church’s discernment of Scripture to apostolic Tradition and names twenty-seven New Testament books, including Hebrews and Revelation. This Catholic teaching gives ecclesial judgment an integral role in recognizing Scripture. Explaining the earlier differences reported by Eusebius requires a historical account alongside that theological claim; the present list alone cannot supply the sequence of reception. Catechism 120

Athanasius identifies a collection through received testimony, while Eusebius records differences in its reception. Together they make ecclesial discernment a concrete historical question. Further evidence needs to connect particular judgments, communities and stages of reception before one can assess a later theory of who may settle disputed boundaries. The same history also needs to be explained by anyone arguing that disagreement makes every later boundary arbitrary. III.25 39.3, 5–7

The OCA’s educational Bible page presents the same New Testament collection through Gospels, Acts, epistles and Revelation. It groups Hebrews among fourteen Pauline letters while allowing that some letters may not come directly from Paul. The account therefore illustrates canonical reception alongside qualified authorship. Earlier communities’ lists and attribution judgments need to be established from their own evidence. OCA, Bible

The OCA’s Book of Revelation page acknowledges early hesitation and affirms eventual inclusion. It distinguishes the book’s absence from liturgical reading from its influence on worship, emphasizing interpretive difficulty and ecclesial inspiration. This account helps explain why canonical standing and liturgical use can differ. Its explanation still needs to be tested against ancient reservations such as those Eusebius reports; it does not establish the reason for every reservation, apostolic authorship or every Orthodox practice. OCA, Book of Revelation III.25.2, 4

What remains open

The passages show reported differences and a later explicit twenty-seven-book list. Connecting them needs more dated witnesses and critical editions, especially to distinguish local reception, authorship questions and authoritative judgments. Read Eusebius’s chapter and Athanasius’s extract with their notes, then follow the profile and interpretation topic. The historical English and its commentary remain limited witnesses, and independent Denzinger-number checks are unfinished. Complete III.25 Complete retained extract

Read the passages in context

Eusebius, Church History III.25.3–4

The disputed epistles and the next category, including the conditional placement of Revelation. Arthur Cushman McGiffert’s historical English translation, 1890.

3. Among the disputed writings, [788] which are nevertheless recognized [789] by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James [790] and that of Jude, [791] also the second epistle of Peter, [792] and those that are called the second and third of John, [793] whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. 4. Among the rejected writings [794] must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, [795] and the so-called Shepherd, [796] and the Apocalypse of Peter, [797] and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, [798] and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; [799] and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, [800] but which others class with the accepted books. [801]

Read this passage in context · Read the complete chapter and all notes

Athanasius, From Festal Letter XXXIX, sections 5–6

The New Testament list and its immediate conclusion. Historical English in the 1892 edition; Oxford translation revised by Miss Payne Smith.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me [4546] .'

Read this passage in context · Read the complete retained extract and all notes

Compare these passages · Athanasius: writings and historical setting · Church and scriptural interpretation

Sources, editions and limits

Eusebius’s complete III.25 appears with seven sections and 35 notes in Arthur Cushman McGiffert’s translation and commentary, NPNF Second Series I (1890 print basis). Note 778 is his historical interpretation, distinct from Eusebius’s prose. Historical edition and surrounding chapters

The 1892 NPNF Second Series IV dates the From Letter XXXIX extract to 367. It supplies all seven sections and eight attached notes while preserving the ancient letter’s incomplete survival. Its preface credits Miss Payne Smith’s revision of the Oxford translation; unsigned notes do not all have established individual authorship. Historical edition

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 120. Promulgated Catholic catechetical teaching. Official text

Orthodox Church in America, The Orthodox Faith, volume I, Bible. Jurisdictional educational publication. Named Orthodox reading

Orthodox Church in America, The Orthodox Faith, volume I, Book of Revelation. Jurisdictional educational publication. Named Orthodox reading

The retained historical volume headers declare Public Domain; that edition-specific assertion does not clear every modern revision or jurisdiction. CCEL’s permission page distinguishes permitted uses from reserved republication rights. Modern reception texts are linked and briefly paraphrased, without modern direct quotations. Source transcription quirks and old commentary remain visible rather than silently becoming critical readings. CCEL permissions statement