How were writings canonized?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trying2overcome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Trying2overcome

Guest
What determined the books that were to be included in the Bible and why weren’t other writings, like the letters of St Justin or St Clement or any other writings, canonized too?
 
The bishops of the Catholic Church got together and determined which books were acceptable to be read in Mass. The Pope then ratified this decision.

These books began to be collected together and became known at the “bible” (books). The listing of the books which belonged to this collection became known as the canon.
 
Thanks for the answer, I appreciate it. But what about the writings of the early church fathers? Do you know?
 
Trying2overcome said:
What determined the books that were to be included in the Bible and why weren’t other writings, like the letters of St Justin or St Clement or any other writings, canonized too?
Click to expand...
Part of the decision was based on when the books were written, by whom they were written, and the content of their doctrine. The Muratorian Fragment reflects the process of determining which books should be in the Bible. After listing most of the New Testament, it says: 1. There is current also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church—for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.
  1. Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted in the Catholic [Church]; and [the book of] Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor.
  2. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.
  3. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] 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.
  4. But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians…
Source You can see in this fragment several of the reasons cited by Catholics for why certain books should be rejected.

In paragraph 1, some books are rejected from the Canon because (a) they were forged, (b) they taught Marcionism, (c) they were written by heretics. That shows three criteria right there.

In paragraph 3, we see that the Apocalypse of Peter was in dispute, though the author does not tell us why in this particular fragment, at least not that I can see.

In paragraph 4, the Shepherd of Hermas is rejected from the Canon because “it is after [their] time,” referring to the Apostles, but it is accepted as a good and holy book so long as it is not treated as God’s word. That’s the same way the Catholic Church treats it today.

In paragraph 5, we see another, stronger rejection of anything written by heretics, which shows that orthodoxy and apostolicity was a very strong criterion for canonicity in the early Church.

I hope that helps. Please let me know if it does. God bless!
 
So do you think that the writings of the early church like those of Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin martyr, st clement, etc would be like the writing of Hermas? They’re good and holy but not God’s word… that’s what I think
And thanks, it does help:thumbsup:
 
Trying2overcome said:
So do you think that the writings of the early church like those of Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin martyr, st clement, etc would be like the writing of Hermas? They’re good and holy but not God’s word… that’s what I think
And thanks, it does help:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
That’s what I think too. The writings of the Saints are good and holy, but they are not God’s word. Except for what the Apostles wrote in the Bible. That’s God’s word.
 
Trying2overcome said:
So do you think that the writings of the early church like those of Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin martyr, st clement, etc would be like the writing of Hermas? They’re good and holy but not God’s word… that’s what I think
And thanks, it does help:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
The Early fathers set the scene for what was happening at the time in the culture and give us a clear window into what was or wasn’t practiced or believed. Many also wrote extensively on Heresy and defended the church against some of the first heretics. When we look back we can find out exactly what the Christians of any particular time believed and practiced. this help immensely in the defense of the church when protestants make false accusations.
 
dmar198 said:
Part of the decision was based on when the books were written, by whom they were written, and the content of their doctrine. The Muratorian Fragment reflects the process of determining which books should be in the Bible. After listing most of the New Testament, it says: 1. There is current also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church—for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.
  1. Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted in the Catholic [Church]; and [the book of] Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor.
  2. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.
  3. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] 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.
  4. But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians…
Source You can see in this fragment several of the reasons cited by Catholics for why certain books should be rejected.

In paragraph 1, some books are rejected from the Canon because (a) they were forged, (b) they taught Marcionism, (c) they were written by heretics. That shows three criteria right there.

In paragraph 3, we see that the Apocalypse of Peter was in dispute, though the author does not tell us why in this particular fragment, at least not that I can see.

In paragraph 4, the Shepherd of Hermas is rejected from the Canon because “it is after [their] time,” referring to the Apostles, but it is accepted as a good and holy book so long as it is not treated as God’s word. That’s the same way the Catholic Church treats it today.

In paragraph 5, we see another, stronger rejection of anything written by heretics, which shows that orthodoxy and apostolicity was a very strong criterion for canonicity in the early Church.

I hope that helps. Please let me know if it does. God bless!
Click to expand...
That sounds about right. BTW, IIRC, the main problem with the “Apocalypse of Peter” was that it taught universalism - that is, that even those sentenced to Hell would eventually be freed and enter Heaven.

The bigger question is, why was the Didache rejected?
 
powerofk said:
That sounds about right. BTW, IIRC, the main problem with the “Apocalypse of Peter” was that it taught universalism - that is, that even those sentenced to Hell would eventually be freed and enter Heaven.

The bigger question is, why was the Didache rejected?
Click to expand...
I think the Didache was more like a catechism. That’s what I read somewhere
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top