Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

NPNF historical edition · Translated text

Book III — Chapter III — The Epistles of the Apostles.

Chapter III.—The Epistles of the Apostles.

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. ^{Edition note 1} And this the ancient elders ^{Edition note 2} used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. ^{Edition note 3} But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; ^{Edition note 4} yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. ^{Edition note 5}

2. The so-called Acts of Peter, ^{Edition note 6} however, and the Gospel ^{Edition note 7} which bears his name, and the Preaching ^{Edition note 8} and the Apocalypse, ^{Edition note 9} as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, ^{Edition note 10} because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. ^{Edition note 11}

3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, ^{Edition note 12} and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, ^{Edition note 13} as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.

4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine ^{Edition note 14} and acknowledged by the ancient elders. ^{Edition note 15}

5. Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. ^{Edition note 16} It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, ^{Edition note 17} saying that it is disputed ^{Edition note 18} by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. ^{Edition note 19} In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, ^{Edition note 20} I have not found them among the undisputed writings. ^{Edition note 21}

6. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, ^{Edition note 22} has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd ^{Edition note 23} is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.

7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.

Read in this edition: source locators and uncertainty marks are retained. Square brackets can mark gaps or editorial interventions; headings and supplied subtitles belong to the edition. Coverage and cautions

About this reading layout

Source wording, punctuation, paragraph boundaries and supplied line breaks are retained. Long prose also has editorial reading breaks at sentence boundaries. Substantial passages already enclosed in double quotation marks are set apart; this does not identify their source or establish a connection.

These added breaks are reading aids, not claims about the original manuscript’s layout. Poetry is lineated only where the downloaded text supplies line breaks. References and edition notes remain with their text.

Edition notes

These belong to the translator or historical editor, not to the ancient author.

Edition note 1

The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and was cited under the name of Peter by Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely ungenuine.

The Tübingen School followed, and at the present time the genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 428 sqq., who confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle). The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption of the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that the name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents no fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to find an author for the anonymous epistle.

In support of this is urged the fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second century, it is never connected with Peter’s name until the time of Irenæus. (Cf. Harnack’s Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 106, note, and his Dogmengeschichte , I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few supporters.