Chapters XI: The apocryphal and rejected books of the New Testament, § 301.
CHAPTER XI: ON THE APOCRYPHAL AND REJECTED BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
§ 301. Irenaeus writes concerning the disciples of Simon Magus: “They have brought out an untold number of apocryphal books and writings that they dreamed up to stupify the irrational and that seem to be truth to those who cannot read” (Advers. haeres., bk. 1, c. 17). In these words Irenaeus opens for us the source from which so many apocryphal, spurious, and rejected books of the New Testament, falsely attributed to evangelists and apostles, have flowed, namely, from the school of Simon Magus, the patriarch of all the heretics in the New Testament. The same Irenaeus (bk. 1, c. 35, p. 91) mentions that the Cainite heretics used a Gospel of the betrayer Judas. In bk. 3, c. 11, p. 188, he writes about the Valentinians that “being without fear, they put forth their own compositions and boasted that they have more Gospels than there actually are. Indeed, they proceeded to such audacity that they call what was written by them not long ago ‘the Gospel of Truth,’ though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the evangelists.” Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 3: “The Acts that are called ‘of Peter,’ the Gospel that is said to be his, the prophecy ascribed to him, and the Revelation called his—we know that these were never handed down among the catholic writings because no commentator of the ancients or of our time has used their testimonies.” Later:
I have declined to list the Acts that are said to be Paul’s among the books without doubt. Because the same apostle mentions Hermas, along with others, toward the end of his Epistle to the Romans (where he greets certain people) and because for this reason they say the book of The Shepherd belongs to this Hermas, one should know that some have spoken against the former book. Therefore it is not listed with those that are considered certain. On the other hand, others have judged it as especially necessary to those who have a need for an elementary introduction. Consequently, I have accepted it because we know that it has been published among the churches and that some of the oldest writers have used it.
Eusebius means Papias and Origen, bk. 10 on Romans 16, where it says that “Scripture is useful and divinely inspired.” He also means Irenaeus, who in bk. 4, c. 37, not only knows this book of The Shepherd but also approves it, saying, “That Scripture has declared correctly that says, ‘Before all things, believe that there is one God, who created and perfected all things.’ “This passage of Irenaeus is adduced by Eusebius in Hist., bk. 5, c. 8. Jerome also says, “This book is truly useful” (Catal. scriptorum). Testimonies are taken from it by Tertullian (De orat.), Clement of Alexandria (Stromat., bk. 6), Athanasius (De decret. syn. Nicen.), and Cassian (Coll. 13, c. 12). But because this book is filled with fictitious visions and dreams, fosters the errors of the Novatians about a single repentance, and contains some harmful matters, it is deservedly placed among the apocryphal and corrupt books by Tertullian (De pudicit.), Jerome (Prolog. galeat.), Gelasius (dist. 15, c. S. Romana). Again Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 22:
Among the corrupt books we list the Acts of Paul, the book called The Shepherd, and the Revelation of Peter, as well as that which is circulated as the Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles, etc. On the other hand, some also list the Gospel to the Hebrews among these. This book is a special delight for those of the Jews who have received Christ. All these belong to those that have been spoken against. Out of necessity we have drawn up a catalog of those, so that we may make a distinction between those writings that, according to ecclesiastical tradition, are neither fictitious nor doubtful but are true, and between those that are not outside those legitimate writings of the New Testament but that suffer contradiction and still are read by many churchmen. Thus we may be able to know both that former group and those that are set forth by the heretics under the names of the apostles, whether as the gospels of Peter or Thomas or Matthias or others, or books containing the acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. No writer of the ecclesiastical succession has thought any of these worthy to mention in his commentaries. Furthermore, the character of the diction differs from apostolic custom. The sense and intent of the subjects reported therein differs much from the truth of correct doctrine. They clearly demonstrate that they are the figments of heretics. Therefore they must be placed not even among the corrupt writings but must be rejected as absolutely absurd and wicked.
Observe here that Eusebius establishes four marks by which spurious writings can be distinguished and recognized from genuine canonical writings: (1) the testimony of the Church; (2) diction [
]; (3) sense [
]; (4) intent [
].
§ 302. Around the year 493, Gelasius I in the Council of Rome denounced many apocryphal writings of this sort that were falsely attributed to the apostles. A summary of his decretal is extant in dist. 15, c. Sancta Romana:
The Itinerarium under the name of the apostle Peter, which is called bk. 8 of Clement, is apocryphal. The acts under the name of the apostle Andrew is apocryphal. The acts under the name of Philip is apocryphal. The gospels in the name of Thad-deus are apocryphal. The acts in the name of the apostle Thomas, which the Manichaeans use, is apocryphal. The gospels in the name of the apostle Barnabas are apocryphal. The gospels in the name of the apostle Bartholomew are apocryphal. The gospels in the name of the apostle Andrew are apocryphal. The gospels that Lucian falsified are apocryphal. The gospels that Hyritius falsified are apocryphal. The book De infantia Salvatoris is apocryphal. The books De nativ. Salvatoris, De s. Maria, and De obstetrice Salvatoris are apocryphal. The book called The Shepherd is apocryphal, etc. The book called Actus Teclae et Pauli is apocryphal. The revelation called Paul’s is apocryphal. The revelation called Thomas’s is apocryphal. The revelation called Stephan’s is apocryphal. The book called Transitus sanctae Mariae is apocryphal. The book called Sors apostolorum is apocryphal. The book of the Canons of the Apostles is apocryphal.
All this is from the list of Gelasius, who later pronounces his anathema on the heretical authors of these books.
§ 303. Under the name of Linus, some books De Passione Petri et Pauli were written by some trifler. He tells many of the acts of St. Peter, which are either false or at least doubtful. He says that Agrippa was the prefect of the city at the time of the suffering of Peter and that he killed Peter without the emperor’s consent, who also disapproved of that action. He claims that the wife of Albinus, having been so taught by Peter, repudiated her husband’s bed because of her love of chastity, though her husband objected. In fact, the book teems with so many fables that the Papists themselves reject it: Baronius (vol. 1, Annal., ann. 66, no. 14; ann. 69, no. 6; ann. 80, no. 4), Bellarmine (De Rom. pontif., bk. 2, c. 9; De script. eccles., p. 55), Bisciola (vol. 1, p. 58, § Paul), etc.
The book of the Passio Andreae is spurious because no mention is made of it among the approved authors, not even among those who intentionally put together a catalog of the ancient writers, for example, Eusebius, Jerome, Gennadius, etc. In De script. eccles., p. 69, Bellarmine fights for its verity and authority, but his arguments are extremely weak.
The book of Abdias, De vitis Apostolorum, is a spurious work of fiction. He tells those fables about St. Thomas, St. Matthew, St. Andrew, and St. Maximilla, wife of Egetes. Augustine asserts that the Manichaeans made these up (De fid. contra Manich., c. 38; Contra Adimantium, c. 17). Also, no mention of this Abdias or of his books is found among the ancient writers. As a result, its authority is quite insignificant, even among Papist writers themselves: Baronius (ann. 44, no. 44; ann. 51, no. 51), Bellarmine (De script. eccles., sect. 1), Gualterius (secul. prim., p. 18), Molanus (De fid. haeret. serv., bk. 1, c. 6), etc.
In the Orthodoxographa patrum, vol. 1, p. 71, there is the Protoevangelium Jacobi on the births of Jesus Christ and of His virgin mother, which Gelasius correctly places among the apocryphal writings under the name De nativitate et obstetrice Salvatoris. They contain tales contrary to the canonical books of the evangelists.
Prochorus’s Historia de rebus gestis Johannis, which is also in vol. 1 of the Orthodoxographa, is fiction.
The Disputatio Petri cum Apione is rejected by Athanasius (Synopsis) and Jerome (Catal. scriptor.).
Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans, consisting of eighteen verses largely patched together from the Pauline Epistles, was published by Praetorius of Hamburg in 1595, along with the Fragmenta apostolorum. In Catal., however, Jerome rejects it among the apocryphal writings. Colossians 4:16 does not mention any Epistle to the Laodiceans but one written “from Laodicea.”
The Acts of Barnabas, written in John’s name, is filled with many obvious falsehoods (Baronius, ann. 51, no. 51).
** Augustine discusses the Revelation of Paul in tractate 98 on John; the book of the apostle Thomas in Epistle 38; the epistles ascribed to the apostles in his commentary on Psalm 42; the Book of Enoch in De civ. D., bk. 18, c. 38; and the epistle written by Christ Himself in Contra Faust., bk. 28, c. 4. **
The Epistolae Pauli ad Senecam are convicted of having many lies in Baronius (ann. 66, no. 11), though they are quoted with praise by Jerome (Catal.) and Augustine (Epistle 14).
In Biblioth., bk. 2, p. 40, Sixtus Senensis reports from Franciscus Alvarezius in Itinerarium Aethiopicum that the Apostolorum librum, which the apostles themselves wrote when they were all gathered together in Jerusalem, was held in equal honor with the divine volumes by the Ethiopian Christians in the Ethiopian language. Kirstenius, too, in his preface to Gramm. Arabic., p. 5, mentions that there are writings of the apostles that are found in no language other than Arabic. He says, “Arabs are said to have many epistles of Paul and writings of the other apostles that are not yet extant in other languages.” Yet even if those writings had come from the apostles, they would not be parts of canonical Scripture, as one can see from what we said earlier on the question whether some canonical books were lost.
Therefore Casaubonus is right to complain as he weighs the multitude of apocryphal writings (Exerc. 1, ad Baron., c. 3, p. 29):
That first court of the Christian Church produced writings filled with fables and clever falsehoods. Of this kind were the Gospel of Christ according to the Egyptians; another according to the Hebrews, whose testimonies Clement of Alexandria uses not merely once; Pauli
, which Epiphanius discusses in Contra Cajanos; the epistle of the apostle John to the Parthians (nevertheless the learned claim that this is the first catholic Epistle of John, which is genuine); Chami prophetia; the Revelation of Moses; Eliae apocrypha; Jeremiae apocrypha; Matthaei apostoli
.
Casaubonus goes on: “There is a salutary decree of the Council of Rome and of Pope Gelasius in the Jus canonicum, dist. 15, where many books of this nature are both listed and condemned. Nevertheless some still remain today as 
[“falsely titled”] in the judgment of all who see anything in literature, and these must be put on the same list, such as the 
of Peter, the Recognitiones of Clement, several epistles of the blessed Virgin, epistles of Paul to Seneca and of Seneca to Paul, and many others.”
§ 304. Furthermore, this multitude of apocryphal writings that heretics have spread under the venerable names of the evangelists and apostles teaches us: (1) About the devil’s great hatred against the sacred writings, who has intended in various ways to gain canonical authority for apocryphal fables and, on the other hand, to bring the sacred, divinely inspired, and truly canonical books into contempt. (2) About the matchless providence of God by which it has happened that the canon of the New Testament was preserved whole and inviolate. Consequently, God granted a long life to St. John so that he might be able to teach the Church about the genuine, canonical books of the evangelists and apostles and to distinguish them from spurious and fictional works. (3) About the devout concern and faithful care of early antiquity in distinguishing apocryphal and spurious books from the canon. Concerning this matter, judgment can be made from what we said earlier.