Eusebius of Caesarea Challenges the Liberal View of Pauline Authorship

Eusebius of Caesarea

One witness to affirming Pauline authorship of the six disputed epistles is the early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea.  Eusebius wrote a history of the early church from the time of Christ to just before the Council of Nicaea.  He’s a good witness to the fact that early Church fathers thought critically and weren’t a bunch of ignorant fundamentalists like modern liberals seem to think.

In Book III of his Church History, Eusebius discusses certain books that are in the canon and ones that shouldn’t be.  In Chapter 3 of Book III he says:

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

He shares some views that would be appreciated by modern scholarship since he appears to believe 2nd Peter was not written by St. Peter.  As a Catholic, I defer to the Councils on this matter but it just shows that were willing to think critically.

Now, we can safely assume that Eusebius had the same critical mind when he looked at the Pauline epistles as well.  Later in Chapter 3, he says:

Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed 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. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.

But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd 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.

Obviously Eusebius is thinking about these things.  He’s thinking about these things and he’s thinking critically.  He knows Greek at least as good, if not better than Ehrman and the other liberals.  He can obviously look at the use of sentence length, vocabulary and other literary techniques and still believes that the Pauline corpus is genuine.  No one has doubted the authenticity of any of the 13 until modern times.

One last thing about the analysis of Eusebius is the way he finishes off Chapter 3.  Here’s what he says:

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

Modern liberals certainly weren’t the first ones to think about these issues critically.