Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why weren't the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas considered Canon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why weren't the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas considered Canon?

    Why weren't the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas considered Canon?

    It is my understanding that both books appear in the Sinaiticus in the fourth century.

    Why were they dropped out of the Canon?

    Thanks.

  • #2
    They weren't "dropped out". Neither had a tradition of Apostolic authorship.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      They weren't "dropped out". Neither had a tradition of Apostolic authorship.
      OK, then why did the Sinaiticus include them?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
        OK, then why did the Sinaiticus include them?
        Presumably because they were considered useful, even if not apostolic. The Shepherd of Hermas was quite popular in the early church; if it had been apostolic (which the Muratorian fragment shows it is not), it may well have been included as scripture. The NT canon was not more or less closed until the 4th century some time, contemporaneously with or later than Sinaiticus.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Presumably because they were considered useful, even if not apostolic. The Shepherd of Hermas was quite popular in the early church; if it had been apostolic (which the Muratorian fragment shows it is not), it may well have been included as scripture. The NT canon was not more or less closed until the 4th century some time, contemporaneously with or later than Sinaiticus.
          Thank you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
            Why weren't the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas considered Canon?

            It is my understanding that both books appear in the Sinaiticus in the fourth century.

            Why were they dropped out of the Canon?

            Thanks.
            Iraneous and Hipolatus quoted from a manuscript earlier than Sinaiticus.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Presumably because they were considered useful, even if not apostolic. The Shepherd of Hermas was quite popular in the early church; if it had been apostolic (which the Muratorian fragment shows it is not), it may well have been included as scripture. The NT canon was not more or less closed until the 4th century some time, contemporaneously with or later than Sinaiticus.
              The Muratorian canon lists The Shepherd of Hermes as being written by the brother of Pius, Bishop of Rome likely in the 140s to 150s A.D., which definitely take it out of the Apostolic period:

              But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.


              And a late 3rd cent. anti-Marcion poem by "pseudo-Tertullian"[1] also makes this claim.

              Still Irenaeus considered it canonical and it can be found not just in the Codex Sinaiticus but also in a catalogue of the New Testament books (which also omits Philippians, I and II Thessalonians, and Hebrews, and aside from Hermas also included the Epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, and Revelation of Peter) contained in the Codex Claromontanus. Later, Clement of Alexandria often quoted from it but usually apologized for doing so.

              It remained incredibly popular in spite of Pope Callixtus I acknowledging that "every council of the Churches" judged it to be apocryphal, and possibly started going out of favor due to being cited amongst those who favored Docetism as well as Montanism.





              1 The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates he was the Christian Latin poet, Commodianus



              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                The Canon by F.F. Bruce has a lot of information on why the Apocrypha wasn't considered canon. Josh McDowell and others have information in their books.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Shepherd of Hermas is quite a theologically-interesting book which I do recommend Christians read. As it contains some ideas about the process of salvation which are quite different to those common in Protestantism today, I think Christian history might have gone quite a bit differently if it were included in the canon, and Christians would be answering the "what must I do to be saved?" question a bit differently than they tend to.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Neither had a tradition of Apostolic authorship.
                  That argument would seem to imply that the early church was justified in leaving books out of the bible that they widely believed had not been written by the apostles. Since scholars in the modern day widely believe certain books in the canon were not written by the apostles, would it be reasonable for the modern church to remove them?
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The collection of writings that Protestants call the Apocrypha (hidden writings), Roman Catholics call the deuterocanonical (later or second canon) books. These books were written between 300 B.C. and 100 A.D., the Intertestamental Period between the inspired writings of God’s Prophets in the Old Testament and those of the Apostles and their contemporaries in the New Testament. These were "infallibly" accepted into the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Now the Apocrypha would be covered under the evidence for the Bible if these writings were truly inspired - but evidence seems to indicate that they are not. In the Bible we find prophets of God whose messages are ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, and whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh. 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). What we find in the apocrypha is just the opposite - no apocryphal book was written by a prophet. None of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no ratification of the authors of any apocryphal book. No apocryphal book is cited as authoritative by later Biblical writers. There is no fulfilled prophecy in any apocryphal book. Finally, Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha. Neither did any of His disciples.
                    https://www.gotquestions.org/which-book.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Got Questions is a great internet source.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Chuckz View Post
                        Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha. Neither did any of His disciples.
                        Here is a long list of quotes and references to the apocrypha in the NT, including references by Jesus.

                        One can, of course, bicker over what is a 'quote' exactly, and what is a 'allusion' exactly, however it seems generally a false statement to say that there are no quotes made from the apocrypha.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Here is a long list of quotes and references to the apocrypha in the NT, including references by Jesus.

                          One can, of course, bicker over what is a 'quote' exactly, and what is a 'allusion' exactly, however it seems generally a false statement to say that there are no quotes made from the apocrypha.
                          There are other conclusions that could be made like the Apocrypha authors quoted from Biblical sources.

                          Haven't you heard the claim that Shakespeare wrote the Bible?
                          Last edited by Chuckz; 03-07-2021, 12:22 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Here is a long list of quotes and references to the apocrypha in the NT, including references by Jesus.

                            One can, of course, bicker over what is a 'quote' exactly, and what is a 'allusion' exactly, however it seems generally a false statement to say that there are no quotes made from the apocrypha.
                            Don Stewart :: Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?

                            2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture

                            Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word. The Apocrypha was not the Bible of Jesus or His apostles. While Jesus and Hs apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, they never quoted from the Apocrypha.

                            Allusions Are Not The Same As Scripture
                            While there may be some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers there is no direct quote from them. An allusion is not the same as a direct quote.
                            https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_395.cfm



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                              Why weren't the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas considered Canon?

                              It is my understanding that both books appear in the Sinaiticus in the fourth century.

                              Why were they dropped out of the Canon?
                              To establish orthodoxy and in response to polemical attacks on Christians by individuals like Porphyry of Tyre and Sossianus Hierocles, the latter a newly appointed governor of Bithynia who also had connections at court.


                              You can thank Eusebius of Caesarea [died mid fourth century] who wrote that he was going to “carefully show...the succession of the apostles” and claimed he was going to identify for each major centre of Christian faith, the specific names and dates of the successive bishops all the way back to the respective apostle who founded each church.

                              His reasons for undertaking such a task were premised on the writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus [both early third century] who had alleged that it was the bishops in churches where a chain of apostolic succession could be demonstrated which were responsible for deciding which apostolic writing should be used for worship and liturgies. It was believed that only those churches where the succession of bishops could be shown would actually possess a genuine Apostolic text that had been received from the hand of each respective apostle. By demonstrating which churches had this continuation of bishops the truly Apostolic texts could be identified from among the plethora of gospels, epistles, acts, and apocalypses and revelations that existed.

                              It should also be noted that when Eusbeiuis wrote of “ecclesiastical writers” he was referring to those perceived orthodox writers. He never uses the phrase when referring to Gnostics, Marcionites, or Montanists or any of the other sects deemed “heretical”.

                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              13 responses
                              41 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X