canon question

[Daniel_Marsh]

what books besides the Shepard of Hermas were early on considered to be canonical? but, were later rejected as such?

 

[TheOneTrueFred]

Here’s a cool chart.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Excellent chart! Thank you!

 

[epostle]

The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve) was disputed to be included in the canon, and I think I Clement, but I currently have no references to support this.

 

[Epistemes]

Leaving the Didache out of the official NT canon was a huge mistake on the part of the councils which defined the canon. Its material is not only important for its historical merits, but also would have allowed greater liturgical and orthpractical preservations, tending to prevent innovations. To think that the Great Schism and Reformation might have been prevented by this essential document, which has long been relativized and archived as “history” is mindblowing.

 

[jblake]

Daniel Marsh;:

what books besides the Shepard of Hermas were early on considered to be canonical?

For the Old Testament:

• 1 Esdras;
• 2 Esdras;
• PrMan;
• 3 Mac;
• 4 Mac;
• Psalm 151;
  all of which are currently considered to be either Canonical or Deuterocanonical in Orthodox Christianity. ( 4 Mac might be apocryphal,rather than Deuteorcanonical for Orthodox Christianity.)
• Psalm 152;
• Psalm 153;
• Psalm 154;
• Psalm 155;
  were used, and might have been canonical for a branch of either Syriac Jews or Syriac Samaritans.

For the New Testament:

• 3 Corininthians (Armenian Apostolic Church);
• EpLao (German Catholic Church prior to Luther);

I think that a Celtic Christian group canonized Acts 29.

There are a slew of books that are part of *The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) *that aren’t found in any other Canon.

The chart that OneTrueFred pointed to is fairly complete for the New Testament.

Lost Books of the Bible and Forgotten Books of Eden contains material that it claims to have been removed from the Bible, over the course of time.

There are still other sources for both apocryphal and pseudopigraphical material. ( *The Nag Hammadi Library *comes to mind as an example of the latter.)

xan

jonathon

 

[inthecloud]

Leaving the Didache out of the official NT canon was a huge mistake on the part of the councils which defined the canon. Its material is not only important for its historical merits, but also would have allowed greater liturgical and orthpractical preservations, tending to prevent innovations. To think that the Great Schism and Reformation might have been prevented by this essential document, which has long been relativized and archived as “history” is mindblowing.

I Agree!
The Didache belongs in the Bible.
But I doubt that the Geat Schism and the Reformation would have been prevented by it. But some form off Protestantism would never had happened.

 

[davidv]

I Agree!
The Didache belongs in the Bible.
But I doubt that the Geat Schism and the Reformation would have been prevented by it. But some form off Protestantism would never had happened.

So, should I conclude from this that you believe the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to get the cannon wrong?

 

[inthecloud]

And a bit of a heretic.
But honesty, the Didache should be at least an appendix.