|Part of a series on the|
|Bible book Bible portal|
Eusebius in his Church History (c. 325) used the term for those Christian scriptures that were "disputed," literally "spoken against," in Early Christianity before the closure of the New Testament canon. It is a matter of categorical discussion whether Eusebius divides his books into three groups of homologoumena ("accepted"), antilegomena, and 'heretical'; or four, by adding a notha ("spurious") group. The antilegomena or "disputed writings" were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term "disputed" should therefore not be misunderstood to mean "false" or "heretical." There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.
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 the evangelist or to another 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 the Gospel 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 not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed [αντιλέγεσθαι] by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.
Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th-century text and possibly one of the Fifty Bibles of Constantine, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The original Peshitta (NT portion is c. 5th century) excluded 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Some modern editions, such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823, include them.
During the Reformation, Luther brought up the issue of the antilegomena among the Church Fathers, and none of the New Testament books of the Canon of Trent was rejected from Luther's canon. The terminology remains in use today.[a] Since he questioned Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, these books are sometimes termed "Luther's Antilegomena". Current Lutheran usage expands this to also include 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
F. C. Baur used the term in his classification of the Pauline Epistles, classing Romans, 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians as homologoumena; Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians and Philemon as antilegomena; and the Pastoral Epistles as "notha" (spurious writings).
- "Canon", Lutheran Cyclopedia, LCMS, archived from the original on 2009-10-20,
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.
- John’s Revelation project, Knox Theological Seminary, archived from the original on 2007-12-09,
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.
- "Canon of the Old Testament", Catholic Encyclopedia,
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.
- Eusebius of Cæsarea (1904) , Philip Schaff; Henry Wace, eds., Church History, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 1, translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert.
- Kalin, Everett R (2002), "23: The New Testament Canon of Eusebius", in McDonald; Sanders, The Canon Debate, pp. 386–404.
- McDonald; Sanders, eds. (2002), The Canon Debate, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.
- "Canon of the New Testament", Catholic Encyclopedia,
Even a few Catholic scholars of the Renaissance type, notably Erasmus and Cajetan, had thrown some doubts on the canonicity of the above-mentioned Antilegomena.
- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Antilegomena". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 126.
- Baumler, Gary P, The Canon—What Is The Import of The Distinction Between The Canonical and Deuterocanonical (Antilegomena) Books? (presentation of Lutheran position), WLS essays, archived from the original on 2010-07-07.
- Pieper, Franz August Otto, "The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena)", Lutheran theology, Angel fire
- Schaff, Philip, "The Revolution at Wittenberg. Carlstadt and the New Prophets", History of the Christian Church, The Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
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.