The Antilegomena

The term Antilegomena (from the Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα, meaning “spoken against”) refers to certain books of the New Testament that were disputed or questioned in the early centuries of Christianity regarding their apostolic authorship and canonical status. Unlike the universally accepted books—referred to as the Homologoumena—these writings were not immediately or universally recognized as Scripture across all Christian communities. Their status remained uncertain for several centuries and was the subject of discussion among early Church Fathers, councils, and later theological authorities.  Some of these disputed books -such as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation– would eventually be included in what became know as the New Testament.  Alongside these, there were other early Christian writings that many Church Fathers and local churches initially considered scriptural but which were eventually excluded from the canon. These included: the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the 1st & 2nd Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians.

Early Development and Reception

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the New Testament canon was still fluid. The Muratorian Fragment (late 2nd century) is one of the earliest known canonical lists, which excludes some of the Antilegomena, such as Hebrews, James, and 3 John, while including the Apocalypse of Peter—a work later rejected. During this time, local churches used various writings in worship, and different regions developed different lists of authoritative texts. The primary criterion was whether a book was apostolic—either written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with one.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253) acknowledged that several books were disputed. He referred to Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and James as books whose authorship or authenticity was questioned, though he himself often cited them as Scripture. Eusebius of Caesarea (early 4th century) famously categorized books into three groups: recognized, disputed (the Antilegomena), and spurious. He noted that while books like James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John were read by many, they were not accepted by all.

Factors Behind Dispute and Acceptance

The reasons for dispute varied:

Texts Eventually Included in the Canon (Antilegomena)

• Hebrews: Widely accepted in the East early on (especially by Origen), but questioned in the West due to its anonymity and disputed Pauline authorship. Eventually accepted due to its deep theological content and use in worship.

• James: Questioned by Origen and Eusebius but cited approvingly by later figures like Jerome and Augustine. Its practical theology and increasing liturgical use helped its acceptance.

• Jude: Disputed because of its use of non-canonical Jewish texts (like 1 Enoch), but eventually accepted due to its apostolic attribution and doctrinal soundness.

• 2 Peter: One of the most disputed books due to stylistic differences from 1 Peter. Origen and Eusebius mention its uncertain authenticity, but it was gradually accepted in the West.

• 2 and 3 John: Short and limited in circulation, but accepted due to attribution to the Apostle John and consistent theology.

• Revelation: Accepted in the West by Tertullian and others, but resisted in the East for centuries due to its apocalyptic content and use by heterodox sects like the Montanists. Eventually included due to its apostolic authorship and spiritual depth.

Texts Ultimately Excluded

• The Shepherd of Hermas: Cited approvingly by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and included in the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus. Excluded due to its late date (2nd century), non-apostolic authorship, and growing concerns over its visionary genre.

• The Didache: A church manual on morals, sacraments, and community life. Quoted by early Fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and respected in the East. Eventually excluded due to lack of apostolic authorship and limited circulation.

• Epistle of Barnabas: Allegorically rich and cited by Clement and Origen. Eventually rejected due to speculative theology and lack of apostolic origin.

• The Acts of Paul: Admired by Tertullian and contains the story of Thecla. Rejected due to its apocryphal elements and fictitious character.

• Epistle to the Laodiceans: A forged Pauline letter, cited by some in the West but widely recognized as pseudepigraphal.

• Gospel of the Hebrews: Used by Jewish-Christian groups and quoted by Clement and Origen. Ultimately rejected due to theological deviations and regional use only among certain sects.

• Apocalypse of Peter: Highly popular and cited by Clement of Alexandria. Included in the Muratorian Fragment but later excluded due to questions about authorship and its graphic depictions of hell, which some considered excessive or theologically dubious.

• 1 Clement: Written by the bishop of Rome around 95 A.D., this epistle was highly regarded by the early Church, read publicly in Corinth, and included in some early codices (like Codex Alexandrinus). Excluded mainly due to its non-apostolic authorship and lack of universal liturgical use.

Criteria for Canonicity

When the early Church began discerning which writings belonged in the New Testament, it relied on three primary criteria:

1. Apostolic Origin: Was the writing composed by an apostle or a direct companion of an apostle, and did it date from the apostolic era (roughly 30–100 A.D.)?

2. Orthodoxy: Did the text align with the teachings received from the Apostles and the rule of faith (regula fidei) as preserved in the early Church’s teaching and worship?

3. Catholicity (Universal Recognition): Was the writing widely read and accepted across the various local churches, particularly in the context of the liturgy?

All three of the above criteria, however, ultimately depended upon Tradition. Apostolic origin required an oral transmission of Jesus’ teachings to the Apostles before they were written down. Determining Orthodoxy required one to have previously been taught an orthodox understanding of the faith. Universal recognition involved examining which writings had been handed down and used regularly in each church’s worship. However, it was ultimately each book’s liturgical use that decided it’s place in scripture.  Liturgical use was the most decisive factor in determining whether a text was included in the New Testament canon. While apostolic origin and orthodoxy were essential, it was the regular public reading of a text in the worship of the Church—that is, its liturgical use—that functioned as the final and practical test of whether a book was truly received as Scripture by the Christian community.

This was because the early Church viewed the canon not merely as a theological or historical collection, but as the set of writings inspired by God and used in the life of the Church for teaching, exhortation, and the Eucharistic assembly. In this sense, canon and liturgy were intimately connected. If a writing was not consistently read in public worship, it did not function as Scripture—even if it was respected or orthodox:

Justin Martyr (c. 155 A.D.)

In his First Apology (ch. 67), Justin describes the Christian liturgy and notes that “the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” This shows that Scripture was defined by what was read aloud in worship—apostolic and prophetic writings, later known as the New and Old Testaments.  If a book was not read in this setting, it wasn’t treated as Scripture, regardless of its theological content.

Origen of Alexandria (early 3rd century)

Origen acknowledged that some books were disputed (e.g., 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews), but he frequently quoted them as Scripture, implying that they were used liturgically in his own community. Conversely, though he deeply valued The Shepherd of Hermas, he noted it was read privately, not publicly in churches—thus implicitly placing it outside the canon.

“The Shepherd ought to be read, but it cannot be used to establish any doctrine.”
— Commentary on Romans

This distinction—edifying vs. doctrinal and liturgical—was pivotal. Hermas was respected but not canonical because it lacked liturgical authority.

Athanasius of Alexandria (367 A.D.)

In his famous 39th Festal Letter, Athanasius gives the first complete list of the 27 New Testament books, stating that these alone are to be “read publicly in the Church.”

“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is the teaching of godliness proclaimed. Let no one add to these or take from them.”

Athanasius includes books like Revelation (despite previous doubts) and excludes books like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, explicitly because they were not part of the Church’s regular liturgical reading.

The Muratorian Fragment (late 2nd century)

This early canonical list includes many accepted books but excludes Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter, and notes that The Shepherd of Hermas should be read, but not publicly in church:

“It ought to be read, but it cannot be read publicly to the people in the church either among the prophets, whose number is complete, or among the apostles.”

Here again, liturgical status determines canonical status.  A text might be orthodox and even attributed to an apostle, but if it was not being read in the worship of the whole Church, it was not considered part of the New Testament canon. The Church did not merely define the canon from above; it recognized over time which writings had already become part of its living, worshiping Tradition. In this sense, the canon was shaped in the sanctuary, not just in theological debates.

Resolution and Finalization

The canon began to solidify in the 4th century. Athanasius of Alexandria, in his Festal Letter of 367 AD, listed the 27 books of the New Testament as we have them today. This was the first known list to match the modern canon exactly. His influence, along with that of other major bishops, helped standardize the canon in both the East and West.

The Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 AD) reaffirmed the same list. These councils were local (not ecumenical), but they were influential, especially in the Latin West. Later, the canon was reaffirmed by authoritative councils such as the Council of Florence (1442) and definitively at the Council of Trent (1546), which declared the canon closed in response to the Protestant Reformation.

• see also Early Biblical Canons

return to top ⇑