| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Antilegomena (fromGreekἀντιλεγόμενα) are written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.[1]Eusebius in hisChurch History (c. 325) used the term for thoseChristian scriptures that were "disputed", literally "spoken against", inEarly Christianity before theclosure of the New Testament canon.
Theantilegomena were widely read in the Early Church and included theEpistle of James, theEpistle of Jude,2 Peter,2 and3 John, theBook of Revelation, theGospel of the Hebrews, theEpistle to the Hebrews, theApocalypse of Peter, theActs of Paul, theShepherd of Hermas, theEpistle of Barnabas and theDidache.[2][3] There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.
The first major church historian,Eusebius,[4] who wrote hisChurch History c.AD 325, applied the Greek termantilegomena to the disputed writings of theEarly Church:
Among the disputed writings [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to theevangelist or toanother person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also theGospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων].
It is a matter of categorical discussion whether Eusebius divides his books into three groups—homologoumena (fromGreekὁμολεγούμενα, "accepted"),antilegomena, and "heretical"—or into four by adding anotha ("spurious") group.[5][6]
TheEpistle to the Hebrews had earlier been listed:[7]
It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed[αντιλέγεσθαι] by theChurch of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.
Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th-century text and possibly one of theFifty Bibles of Constantine, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The originalPeshitta (NT portion is c. 5th century) excluded 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation.[8][9][5][10][11] Some modern editions, such as theLee Peshitta of 1823, include them.
During theReformation,Luther brought up the issue of theantilegomena. Though he included the Letter to the Hebrews, the letters of James and Jude, and Revelation in hisBible translation, he put them into a separate grouping and questioned their legitimacy.[12] Hence, these books are sometimes termed "Luther's Antilegomena"[13] – a terminology that remains in use today.[a] CurrentLutheran usage expands this questioning to also include 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.[14]
F. C. Baur used the term in his classification of thePauline Epistles, classing Romans, 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians ashomologoumena; Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians and Philemon asantilegomena; and thePastoral Epistles asnotha (spurious writings).[15]
The term is sometimes applied also to certain books in theHebrew Bible.[b][c]
For instance, theCatholic Encyclopedia and discussions from institutions likeKnox Theological Seminary have noted that certainHebrew Bible books were subject to debate, thus fitting the broader definition ofantilegomena.[16][10][17]
Books such asEcclesiastes,Esther,Song of Songs,Ezekiel, andProverbs were among those whose inclusion in the canon was questioned at various times. Reasons for these debates ranged from theological concerns to perceived inconsistencies. For example, Ecclesiastes was seen by some as too skeptical, while Esther was noted for not mentioning God explicitly.[18]
6. Throughout the Middle Ages there was no doubt as to the divine character of any book of the NT. Luther again pointed to the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena* (followed by M. Chemnitz* and M. Flacius*). The later dogmaticians let this distinction recede into the background. Instead of antilegomena they use the term deuterocanonical. Rationalists use the word canon in the sense of list. Lutherans in America followed Luther and held that the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena must not be suppressed. But caution must be exercised not to exaggerate the distinction.
Solomon's allegory was relegated to the antilegomena because even the allegorical anthropomorphism of God espousing to Himself a people, once again reflecting the comedic imagination, was regarded as too bold and too bodily.
All the books of the Hebrew Old Testament are cited in the New except those which have been aptly called the Antilegomena of the Old Testament, viz., Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles.
Even a few Catholic scholars of the Renaissance type, notablyErasmus andCajetan, had thrown some doubts on the canonicity of the above-mentioned Antilegomena.
Andreas Carlstadt weighed the historic evidence, discriminated between three orders of books as of first, second, and third dignity, putting the Hagiographa of the Old Testament and the seven Antilegomena of the New in the third order, and expressed doubts on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He based his objections to the Antilegomena, not on dogmatic grounds, as Luther, but on the want of historical testimony; his opposition to the traditional Canon was itself traditional; he put ante-Nicene against post-Nicene tradition. This book on the Canon, however, was crude and premature, and passed out of sight.