[8] The date so frequently given, A.D. 363, cannot be substantiated, and on the whole is not probable. See Hefele, _History of the Church Councils_, II. vi. 93.
[9] The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse.
[10] γνωρίμων δ' οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς (_H. E._ III. xxv. 3), where γνώριμος, as usual, indicates _familiar_ knowledge. Eusebius is a desultory writer, and one has to gather his views from statements scattered over chaps. iii., xxiv., and xxv., some of which are not very precise. The following table seems to represent his opinion:--
{ Four Gospels, Acts, { fourteen Epistles { _Universally acknowledged_ { of Paul (Hebrews ?), { (τὰ ὁμολογούμενα) { 1 John, 1 Peter, CANONICAL BOOKS { { Apocalypse (?). (ἐνδιάθηκοι { γραφαί) { { _As to authenticity_--2 Peter. { _Disputed_ { { (τὰ ἀντιλεγόμενα) { _As to Apostolicity_--James, { Jude, 2 and 3 John.
{ _As to authenticity_--Acts of Paul, { Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter. { _Orthodox_, but { { of no authority, { _As to Apostolicity_--Epistle of { because _defective_ { Barnabas, Doctrines of the { { Apostles, Gospel according to UNCANONICAL { { Hebrews, Apocalypse (?). { { _Heretical_ { Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, { Acts of Andrew, John, etc., etc.
[11] _Epist. Fest._ xxxix. The passage is given in full by Westcott _On the Canon_, Appendix D., xiv. The _Ecclesiastical History_ of Eusebius cannot have been completed later than A.D. 325, but the earlier books were probably written about A.D. 313, soon after the Edict of Milan. See Bishop Lightfoot, _Dict. of Chris. Biog._, I., p. 322.
[12] Harnack, _Das Neue Testament um das Jahr_ 200 (Freiburg I. B., 1889), p. 79.
[13] Compare Clement x. 1 with James ii. 23. " " xi. 2 " " i. 8; iv. 8. " " xii. 1 " " ii. 25. " " xvii. 6 " " iv. 14. " " xxx. 2 " " iv. 6. " " xxxi. 2 " " ii. 21. " " xlvi. 5 " " iv. 1. " " xlix. 5 " " x. 20.
[14] Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 52, 582-91, 4th Ed. (Murray, 1889); Zahn, _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons_ (Erlangen, 1889), p. 962.
[15] If Zahn is right in thinking that Clement knew, and perhaps commented on, the Epistle of James, it may have become known in Alexandria somewhat earlier. A few passages in Clement have possible reminiscences of James; _e.g._ in _Strom._ II. v. he says of Abraham that he is found to have been expressly called the "friend" of God (James ii. 23); and in _Strom._ VI. xviii., in connexion with loving one's neighbour (the βασιλικὸς νόμος of James ii. 8), he speaks of being βασιλικοί (Zahn, _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons_, I., pp. 322, 323--Erlangen, 1888). The _Hypotyposeis_, in which Clement perhaps treated of the Catholic Epistles, were written after he left Alexandria (_Ibid._, p. 29).
[16] Or, more literally, "a right strawy Epistle"--"eine rechte strohern Epistel.... Denn sie doch keine evangelische Art an sich hat" (_Luther's Werke_, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt, 1840, p. 1412; see also pp. 1423, 1424, and Westcott _On the Canon_, 3rd ed., pp. 448-54).