P
powerofk
Guest
The point is actually that the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians and the Shepherd of Hermas were actually in much wider circulation than 3 John and Hebrews. The Apocalypse of Peter was in much wider circulation than the Apocalypse of John. And, in general, as the majority of the faithful were illiterate, they received most of their scripture during the Mass. So it was up to the bishops to determine which scripture was appropriate for reading during Mass. But there was disagreement on what writings were divinely inspired. As heresies developed and flourished, it became more and more important for the bishops to decide which writings were inspired, which writings were not inspired but made for edifying reading, which writings were pious fiction, and which writings were heretical. There were many, many books that were disputed by the bishops as to their authenticity.
Among the books that were disputed were 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, Jude, the Apocalypse of John, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians, and Ephesians along with the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, the letter of Ignatius to Polycarp, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The bishops, in communion with the Pope, at the ecumenical councils of Hippo and Carthage, looked at all supposed Christian literature, and made their decisions.
2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, Jude, the Apocalypse of John, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians, and Ephesians were considered divinely inspired.
The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, the letter of Ignatius to Polycarp, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas were considered edifying reading - not divinely inspired scripture, but good for the faithful to read to help understand and interpret the scriptures. The books in this group could be considered akin to the Babylonian Talmud for the Jews - not scripture in and of itself, but giving a perspective to the faithful on how the scriptures were properly interpreted.
Books such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Acts of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, etc., were considered pious fiction. These books often contained legends of what happened to the apostles, Jesus’s and Mary’s childhoods, etc. But they came much later (often not appearing until the 200’s AD), and though popular among the faithful, were obviously not scriputural.
The Apocalypse of Peter, along with such writings as the “Gospel of Mary”, the “Gospel of Judas”, the “Secret Gospel of Mark”, the epistle of Barnabas, etc., were considered heretical. Most of these books had a very small distribution, but the Apocalypse of Peter and the epistle of Barnabas had a very wide distribution, often being more popular and widespread than many books that eventually were included in the canon, and were heavily debated for inclusion.
The question for you would be this: if you had a copy of every Christian writing or supposed Christian writing that was purported to be scripture with no knowledge about which books were scriptural and which ones weren’t, how would you decide which books were divinely inspired? How closely would it match the actual New Testament?
