Removed books?

[NorthTexan88]

I was reading today and was wondering why the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Bible? If it was considered scripture by some of the early church fathers and was included in the Codex Sinaiticus then why was it later removed?

 

[Orogeny]

I was reading today and was wondering why the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Bible? If it was considered scripture by some of the early church fathers and was included in the Codex Sinaiticus then why was it later removed?

Neither were ever in the Bible. They were not included because the Church, lead by the Holy Spirit, did not identify them as inspired.

Peace

Tim

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I was reading today and was wondering why the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Bible? If it was considered scripture by some of the early church fathers and was included in the Codex Sinaiticus then why was it later removed?

Both books are also contained in the Greek/Latin text of the 6th century Codex Claromontanus, so they certainly appeared in some Bibles.

 

[LoyalViews]

They, however, are good for devotional reading, but not as inspired scripture.

When the Codex was compiled, perhaps they were put in, along with many other apocryphal books for purely devotional thought?

 

[Evan]

I was reading today and was wondering why the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Bible? If it was considered scripture by some of the early church fathers and was included in the Codex Sinaiticus then why was it later removed?

As I understand it, when the Church decided to canonize the bible they chose as one of the criteria that

the books must be authored by Paul or one of the Twelve
or writings based on these same.

So: Peter is considered the origin of Mark’s Gospel
Paul is considered the origin of Luke-Acts

Some of Paul’s letters were not written by him, but under his authority.

Barnabas, Clement, and Hermas were writing on their own authority and thus were not considered inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I find their writing excellent, but that does not mean they are inerrent.

 

[puzzleannie]

I was reading today and was wondering why the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Bible? If it was considered scripture by some of the early church fathers and was included in the Codex Sinaiticus then why was it later removed?

I don’t know that these were ever in the bible nor the CS.
is the CS a strictly biblical text or a collection of other early church writings as well?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Both books are also contained in the Greek/Latin text of the 6th century Codex Claromontanus, so they certainly appeared in some Bibles.

Just so everyone is clear (and you may already know this) but a Codex is not a “Bible” per se. It is a collection of texts bound together. Some of the contents may be “considered Scripture” (as the OP asked) and some may not. Some stuff might just be good for Catechesis or simply edifying reading or perhaps even historical reading. Codices really shouldn’t be considered strict examples of “what the Church considered Scripture.”

For instance, the Codex Claromontanus which you mention above also includes 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, and Revelation of Peter. From that we should not surmise that all these texts were once “considered Scripture.”

The Codex Fuldensis contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. From that we can neither surmise that this book was considered Scripture simply because it was found in a Codex with other texts that were Scripture.

By the same eye, we can look at the 10th/11th century Codex Mediolanensis which only contains a few selections from Luke and Acts of the Apostles. From that we should not surmise that these are the only two inspired books the compilers believed were inspired. They are just the two books that they put in the Codex.

My point is that any single Codex is not necessarily a complete measure of what was “considered divinely inspired Scripture.”

 

[NorthTexan88]

Just so everyone is clear (and you may already know this) but a Codex is not a “Bible” per se. It is a collection of texts bound together. Some of the contents may be “considered Scripture” (as the OP asked) and some may not. Some stuff might just be good for Catechesis or simply edifying reading or perhaps even historical reading. Codices really shouldn’t be considered strict examples of “what the Church considered Scripture.”

For instance, the Codex Claromontanus which you mention above also includes 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, and Revelation of Peter. From that we should not surmise that all these texts were once “considered Scripture.”

The Codex Fuldensis contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. From that we can neither surmise that this book was considered Scripture simply because it was found in a Codex with other texts that were Scripture.

By the same eye, we can look at the 10th/11th century Codex Mediolanensis which only contains a few selections from Luke and Acts of the Apostles. From that we should not surmise that these are the only two inspired books the compilers believed were inspired. They are just the two books that they put in the Codex.

My point is that any single Codex is not necessarily a complete measure of what was “considered divinely inspired Scripture.”

Ah ok, thanks for the insight, is this the same reason that the Didache was not added?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Ah ok, thanks for the insight, is this the same reason that the Didache was not added?

I’m unclear what you mean. Are you asking why the Didache is not Scripture or why it’s not in a particular codex?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Just so everyone is clear (and you may already know this) but a Codex is not a “Bible” per se. It is a collection of texts bound together. Some of the contents may be “considered Scripture” (as the OP asked) and some may not. Some stuff might just be good for Catechesis or simply edifying reading or perhaps even historical reading. Codices really shouldn’t be considered strict examples of “what the Church considered Scripture.”

On the other hand, how can you be so certain they are not Bibles? For example, I think Irenaeus believed the Shepherd of Hermas to be divine scripture (since this work was mentioned in the OP), and I think it’s likely that he was not the only Early Church Father that thought so.

What about Sinaiticus and Vanticanus? Would you say that these are Bibles?

 

[Rolltide]

Ah ok, thanks for the insight, is this the same reason that the Didache was not added?

As far as I’m aware, the reason that the Didache was not included in the Bible is not because it was factually wrong; indeed, it was an accurate statement of the procedures of running the first century church. It was excluded because it was not inspired, and contributed no knowledge that was absolutely required for our salvation. It was more akin to a very primitive catechism than anything else. It does, however, make for very interesting reading, and can even help a lot in apologetics discussions.

 

[MarcoPolo]

On the other hand, how can you be so certain they are not Bibles? For example, I think Irenaeus believed the Shepherd of Hermas to be divine scripture (since this work was mentioned in the OP), and I think it’s likely that he was not the only Early Church Father that thought so.

What about Sinaiticus and Vanticanus? Would you say that these are Bibles?

I guess one could call them whatever, I guess, as long as one recognizes that a codex does not necessarily contain an exhaustive list of that which is divinely inspired.

 

[Mintaka]

Anyway, the very way people are asking this sort of question is anachronistic. The question wasn’t “What books are in the Bible?” or “What is the canon of the New Testament?” It was “What books are suitable for readings at Mass, like the letters and memoirs of the Apostles?”

A lot of us remember a brief period during the Seventies when people thought Kahlil Gibran and Beatles lyrics were suitable for readings at Mass. Obviously Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are a ton better than that junk, but the same sort of innovation followed by pulling back to normal stuff was happening back then. (Except without the benefit of pointing out to people that Gibran isn’t in the Lectionary, so they should put the poetry book away and read the correct epistle.)

(Keep in mind also that “the Old Testament” and “the New Testament” are really “the Scriptures of the Old Covenant” and “the Scriptures of the New Covenant”.)

But yeah, pretty much anything might be in a codex compilation. If we knew more about specific books, how they were used, who owned them, how much they cost, etc., we could say more definitely whether it was what we’d call a Bible, or just random interesting reading.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I was reading today and was wondering why the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Bible? If it was considered scripture by some of the early church fathers and was included in the Codex Sinaiticus then why was it later removed?

Well its pretty simple in my view. Some Christians considered them scripture. But you already seem to know that. Some, did not. I am careful to say the majority or minority of Christians. We have existing documents and references obviously but I suspect there are a few more scrolls and so forth to be pulled out of long covered places in the sand.
Its interesting that even before the councils and after the local regional synods of Africa groups still had varying books for the New Testament. Of course even before the synods of Carthage and Hippo some had the 27 book canon.

 

[thistle]

On the other hand, how can you be so certain they are not Bibles? For example, I think Irenaeus believed the Shepherd of Hermas to be divine scripture (since this work was mentioned in the OP), and I think it’s likely that he was not the only Early Church Father that thought so.

What about Sinaiticus and Vanticanus? Would you say that these are Bibles?

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[Dave_Noonan]

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Interesting. Apparently there were other church fathers besides Irenaeus who thought the Shepherd of Hermas should be included.

 

[NHInsider]

Hermas was popular with many of the ECF. Also the letters of Clement. On the other hand, John’s Apocalypse was roundly rejected by many (Augustine famously said it wasn’t very revealing) and in fact many people thought John’s gospel was dangerously open to gnostic interpretation.

It is typical of the way the Church develops and promulgates doctrine that she does not make definitive statements until and unless there is a problem, a risk of false teaching. So there was a diversity of material being proclaimed in the churches in the early days, and it wasn’t until that diversity began to pose a risk of false teaching that the bishops began to try to set a canon to distinguish what was authentically apostolic, what was genuinely orthodox albeit not apostolic, what was edifying, and what was actually in error.

The creation of codices and books is a still later development, and as has been pointed out there was not a sense that the books of the canon should be kept together and segregated from everything else.

What may escape us, looking back on the early days of the Church, is the reality that the Bible as we know it did not exist, and was not then (as it is not now) the sole Authority for teaching. Jesus entrusted His authority not to the written Word but to the living Apostles, and they to their successors. St. Ignatius wrote “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to teach them what they needed to know - and so, when they determined that they needed to define which Christian writings would be accorded the same status as the Hebrew Scriptures, they relied on the Holy Spirit to guide them in their decision - which was nevertheless the result of a lot of learned and impassioned debate. And it is because we believe that the Holy Spirit did so guide them that we can read the Bible as authentic and authoritatively apostolic.