Should books deemed the 'Apostolic Fathers' be in the New Testament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
I think I posted something on this before, however something that intrigues me is that many early Christians regarded these books as scripture. Many of them were written during the same time period, in some cases earlier such as with 2 Peter. Some such as the Didache some scholars believe could pre date any of the books of the New Testament. I realize the Canon is closed, but I think the church could make an edict that the Apostolic Fathers be attached following the New Testament as an appendix, because so many of our traditions actually are found in them. Many don’t realize that some books that ultimately did make the New Testament, such as Hebrews and Revelation were very disputed in the early church themselves. The books I refer too are:
The Epistle to Diognetus
The First Epistle of Clement
-a letter addressed to the Christians in the city of Corinth. The letter dates from 80 A.D. to the mid 2nd century, and ranks with Didache as one of the earliest—if not the earliest—of extant Christian documents outside the canonical New Testament.The epistle was publicly read from time to time at Corinth, and by the 4th century this usage had spread to other churches. It was included in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus, which contained the entire Old and New Testaments
**The Second Epistle of Clement **-2 Clement appears to be a transcript of a homily or sermon that was originally delivered orally at a Christian worship service. For example, in ch. 19 the speaker announces that he will read aloud from scripture – something one would only expect to find in a transcript of an oral sermon. Similarly, whereas an epistle would typically begin by introducing the sender and recipient, 2 Clement starts with by addressing “Brethren”, and then proceeding directly to the sermon. If it is a sermon, 2 Clement would be the earliest surviving Christian sermon.Included in Codex Alexandrinus.
The Didache-A brief early Christian treatise, dated anywhere from as early as AD 50 to the early 2nd century.It contains instructions for Christian communities. The text, parts of which may have constituted the first written catechism, has three main sections dealing with Christian lessons, rituals such as baptism and the Eucharist, and church organization. It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament.
The Epistle of Barnabas- A Greek epistle containing twenty-one chapters, preserved complete in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus where it appears at the end of the New Testament. It is traditionally ascribed to Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles
Seven epistles attributed to Ignatius of Antioch-Bishop of Antioch.He may have known the apostle John directly, and his thought is certainly influenced by the tradition associated with this apostle.En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of the theology of the earliest Christians. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, the role of bishops, and the nature of biblical Sabbath.He clearly identifies the local-church hierarchy composed of bishop, presbyters, and deacons and claims to have spoken in some of the church of the Holy Spirit.
The Epistle of Polycarp-an epistle composed around AD 110 to 140 by Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the Apostolic Fathers, from Antioch to the early Christian church in Philippi. The letter is generally agreed to be authentic.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp-Promotes an ideology of martyrdom, by delineating the proper conduct of a martyr.
The Shepherd of Hermas- A Christian literary work of the late 1st or mid-2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.The Shepherd was very popular amongst Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It was bound as part of the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus.
Fragments of the writings of Papias of Hierapolis
One short fragment of a writing by Quadratus of Athens


The last two would not be considered mostly because they are only fragments. However it seems as the at least some of these were read as scripture in the early Christian church, if that is the case shouldn’t we give them a sort of para-canonical status? I feel as though many people don’t realize that the New Testament was chosen however some of these books can be older than some books Canon. This leads me to wonder if it is possible we are actually missing some important teachings which should in fact be scripture?
 
However it seems as the at least some of these were read as scripture in the early Christian church, if that is the case shouldn’t we give them a sort of para-canonical status? I feel as though many people don’t realize that the New Testament was chosen however some of these books can be older than some books Canon. This leads me to wonder if it is possible we are actually missing some important teachings which should in fact be scripture?
All of the books can be read. Many have good ideas. The fact that they are not in the canon does not mean they have no value. St. Thomas Aquinas isn’t in the canon either. We are not missing out on important teachings in his works.

Certain books are identified by the Magisterium as scripture. The age of a book is one of the criteria used but not the only factor. For one thing the age of a book is an approximation, and scholars have shifted their estimate of how old books are. Even so, a book from 40 AD could be very inaccurate, even though it is older than most other NT books. A book from 300 AD could be based on oral history and written manuscripts from apostolic times, so we can’t automatically rule it out. God certainly is not bound by dates.

There were other canons, other “scriptures” besides the familiar 27 book canon we know today. They were promoted by Christian scholars, used by Christian communities in worship. Essentially the Magisterium chose this, tiny 27 book canon, and rejected the others only as not being scripture, though this did not necessarily mean they were false.

Those Christian communities in union with the Magisterium gradually dropped their various canons, and used this one canon. Those Christian communities not in union with the Magisterium retained their various canons, but the communities gradually faded out. Some of the books not accepted for the New Testament were read by Christians for centuries. They are useful, in their present status. Some others were considered heretical or unreliable, and since they were no longer being copied, were hard to find.

Those scholars who were united to the Magisterium got identified as Early Church Fathers. Those who went in other directions were identified as heretics.
 
Books that are the simply words of men are not the word of God.
This brings up a very interesting issue of what should be in the Bible. Is something inspirational suitable for the Bible? What of Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” for example. Or the novels of Michael O"Brien (which I much admire). Or the books of Saint John of the Cross. These works are admirable, but not Scripture because of that fact. The early Church had in fact to sort though some candidates for Scripture such as the Book of Revelation on which there was no universal agreement, to decide what exactly did belong in the Bible. The Catholic Church had the divine-given authority to decide, and they did decide, when it came to whether literature however admirable was actually the word of God or not. And they didn’t in fact put the works of the Apostolic Fathers in the Bible (though I admire what they wrote myself).
 
Books that are the simply words of men are not the word of God.
This brings up a very interesting issue of what should be in the Bible. Is something inspirational suitable for the Bible? What of Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” for example. Or the novels of Michael O"Brien (which I much admire). Or the books of Saint John of the Cross. These works are admirable, but not Scripture because of that fact. The early Church had in fact to sort though some candidates for Scripture such as the Book of Revelation on which there was no universal agreement, to decide what exactly did belong in the Bible. The Catholic Church had the divine-given authority to decide, and they did decide, when it came to whether literature however admirable was actually the word of God or not. And they didn’t in fact put the works of the Apostolic Fathers in the Bible (though I admire what they wrote myself).
Within the title of this thread, we need to ask “deemed” by whom?

Within the Church, the** Magisterium** (not the ancient Church in general) identified certain scholars as “Apostolic Fathers” or “Early Church Fathers”. They identified other ancient Christian scholars as “heretics”, and others as neither category. Most Protestants today seem to accept that “deeming” or determination as valid, and use those categories themselves. They cite this ancient Christian man as credible, and cite that other ancient Christian man as questionable: because of the Magisterium’s “deeming”. But they may not recognize the (human) source of their categories, or template they are using.
 
There were other canons, other “scriptures” besides the familiar 27 book canon we know today. They were promoted by Christian scholars, used by Christian communities in worship. Essentially the Magisterium chose this, tiny 27 book canon, and rejected the others only as not being scripture, though this did not necessarily mean they were false.
Commenter or anyone,[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
What evidence do we have that these extra books were in fact used in the early liturgy? I have seen evidence of their existence but i was wondering about their usage.

Peace!!!
 
FYI, selections from the writings of many of these Apostolic Fathers are featured in the Church’s liturgy in the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours.
 
Commenter or anyone,[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
What evidence do we have that these extra books were in fact used in the early liturgy? I have seen evidence of their existence but i was wondering about their usage.

Peace!!!
Besides the LOTH, I was told that the older, Easter Vigil had references to the Harrowing of Hell, from the Book of Nicodemus. I can’t find the primary source, so I stand ready to be corrected if I am wrong (which I often am).

I want to reemphasize that the fact that certain ancient books were considered as possibly Scripture, but were not chosen for the canon of the NT, does not in any way mean they are false, or not useful or inspiring. Some were heretical, but many are consistent with Catholic faith, and valuable.

Some are very important. As a new grandparent (wife’s patron saint is Anne) I won’t give up my devotion to Joachim and Anne, even if they are in a book not in the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top