Shepard of Hermas (Sam Harris Video)

[Curious_Hobbit]

I watched a good debate with Rabbi Boteach, Dinesh D’souza, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris said something that concerned me. Apparently The Shepard of Hermas was originally thought to be a part of the canon and was later taken out after several centuries. He also says that Revelations wasn’t added to the canon until later because it was originally thought to be apocrypha. Is anybody familiar with these issues? What is the Christian response to this? Is he mistaken?

here’s a 4 minute clip of the section of the debate where he brings it up:

youtube.com/watch?v=HrSms6nAPgU

 

[thistle]

I watched a good debate with Rabbi Boteach, Dinesh D’souza, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris said something that concerned me. Apparently The Shepard of Hermas was originally thought to be a part of the canon and was later taken out after several centuries. He also says that Revelations wasn’t added to the canon until later because it was originally thought to be apocrypha. Is anybody familiar with these issues? What is the Christian response to this? Is he mistaken?

here’s a 4 minute clip of the section of the debate where he brings it up:

youtube.com/watch?v=HrSms6nAPgU

He is mistaken on both counts.

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[NotWorthy]

I watched a good debate with Rabbi Boteach, Dinesh D’souza, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris said something that concerned me. Apparently **The Shepard of Hermas was originally thought to be a part of the canon and was later taken out after several centuries. He also says that Revelations wasn’t added to the canon until later because it was originally thought to be apocrypha. **Is anybody familiar with these issues? What is the Christian response to this? Is he mistaken?

here’s a 4 minute clip of the section of the debate where he brings it up:

youtube.com/watch?v=HrSms6nAPgU

I wouldn’t have phrased it that way.

Before there was an established Canon (circa 390-410AD), there were some Churches (or Church regions) that thought that the Shepherd of Hermas was Scriptural and read from it in their liturgies. I think the prevailing opinion of the Shepherd of Hermas was that it was Scriptural, but support for it wained in the late 3rd and early 4th century. It was still treated as good and enlightening, just as the Didache and the Protoevangelium of James were.

Before there was an established Canon, there were some Churches (or Churches regions) that thought that Revelation was not Scriptural. The same goes with the Book of Hebrews. I believe the Church in the East always looked to Revelation as Scriptural but had doubts about Hebrews. Meanwhile, the Church in the West always thought that Hebrews was Scriptural but had their doubts about Revelation.

That was the very reason the Church settled the issue with the Synod of Rome, and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage - they wanted to decide which of the 110 books in question were Scriptural and which were not.

 

[NotWorthy]

In response to the speaker, one must look at the followers of Santis A-Baba (sic) and wonder where they will be 100 years from now. And then one can look at the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church and marvel that such an institution has survived for 2000 years!

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Thanks for the response, I was pretty sure that Harris wasn’t giving the issue full treatment. That being said, I keep track on Sam Harris because I think he’s probably the most bright out of all the new atheists like Dennet, Hitchens, Dawkins, Shermer, Singer, etc.