I find it remarkable that the Shepherd of Hermas is told in the second vision -- "God is not angry with you on account of this (the desire for the woman he saw bathing in the river), but that you may convert your house, which have committed iniquity against the Lord, and against you, their parents. And although you love your sons, yet did you not warn your house, but permitted them to be terribly corrupted. On this account is the Lord angry."
The desire itself is not considered sinful, but "Such a wish, in the case of the servants of God, produces sin. For it is a wicked and horrible wish in an all-chaste and already well-tried spirit to desire an evil deed"
Its so abundantly clear that God wrote the Bible and as much as I love all the other ancient apostolic texts, theres always something in them that clearly shows it wasnt literally, exactly, God-breathed word for word. While still insightful, its clesr how these things were revealed by the Spirit to not be Scripture (not deemed such by men). In epistle of Barnabas, for me it was the 7,000 year dispensational literalism. In Clement its the phoenix as you mentioned. God’s Word could never have a single letter that is not exactly literally infallibly true, and yet these epistles have nuggets that are seemingly of fallible human origin.
The Old Testament of the Roman Bible is full of intriguing contradictions, and certainly does Not exhibit the Love that Jesus taught.
Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire ~315 AD. The top-down Pope is equivalent to the top-down Emperor.
He appointed the Council of Nicaea to decide which writings of the first 300 years of Christianity should go in his Roman Bible, and which should be excluded. Remember, the first Christians had No Bible, just hand-written copies of letters from apostles, and other followers.
Many, many apostles & other writers were excluded to fit Constantine’s new religion (Barnabas, Clement, the Gnostic Gospels, etc)
Constantine’s Roman Church inherited the temples of the former Roman gods. Perhaps that destroyed the community of encouragement in the first tiny churches which met secretly in the homes of believers. Buildings were not part of early Christianity, as they became after Constantine.
Completely false. The Council of Nicaea was called to discuss Arianism with Constantine saying he would consent to the decision of the bishops. The Bible contains no psuedoepigraphical writings which all of the gnostic gospels are and they were all written a century later than the real apostolic canon. Barnabas is debatable but its most likely psuedoepigraphical. 1 Clement is real and highly honored same with Hermas but these werent considered canon as their not apostolic. The septuagint existed since 200 BC and was the OT that the apostles used and Jesus referenced countless times. Dont get your history from Dan Brown and Bart Ehrmann bro
“Circa A.D. 312: Codex Vaticanus is possibly among the original 50 copies of the Bible ordered by Emperor Constantine. It is eventually kept in the Vatican Library in Rome.”
It appears Constantine orderred a Bible, whether created by the Nicaean Council or others. Who did assemble the books in the Roman Bible?
The 27 books of the New Testament were indeed officially determinedly set in stone around that time. However as far as Im aware the Council of Nicaea did not feature arguments from other texts. Its not as if Arian was arguing his ideas from the Gospel of Thomas and the other bishops were saying “no,no, that book isnt real”. All the bishops of across the empire who were in attendance already had a strong consensus about which books were God-breathed.
We know from even the early to mid 2nd century Christian authors like Irenaeus and Tertullian that the gospels were four, and only four, in number.
We know about the unanimous agreement about the Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, and 1 John. The only two books that some bishops in the 3-4th century were skeptical about was 2nd Peter and Jude- skeptical that they may possibly be falsely attributed to those authors. But alas the majority of bishops as led by the Holy Spirit accepted them as genuine. Lots of 2nd Peter skepticism continues to this day but I for one think it has elements that strongly indicate Peter’s authorship. Research as you will.
James was not commonly doubted on authorship however it was questioned by some whether it was God-breathed and/or should be in the Bible (if I recall).
Revelations was also one that was debated about whether it should be included. Revelations was the last book of the Bible given to us by God, in about 90 AD by a very old Apostle John. Later in the 3rd century I think some questioned whether apocalyptic texts/visions should be in the canon.
With all of these debates remember that Christians believe God wrote every word of these texts, inspired and literally transcribed them, that God convicted men’s hearts by these words, saved men’s souls by these words, lavished understanding, revelation, peace, sanctification and spiritual gifts upon people by these words. And that God compiled the books He wanted (even if other books like St Ignatius letters are highly edifying they are not the very breath and word of God touching down on the page) and that He preserved the Bible throughout the ages amidst wars and disasters and heresies.
Also keep in mind, as many of these things seem to coincide in the early 4th century: Constantine, Codex Vaticanus, Nicaea. But remember: books themselves were invented around this time. The kind of paper, leatherbound book with a spine we have today was not an invention in the 1st or 2nd century. So the fact that we have Codexes from the 4th century but only individual scrolls and fragments from the 1st century is not a coincidence at all. Its divine providence that books were invented but you can see how it would lead to some debate amongst churches. Some churches like 1 Enoch (a whole different conversation and history). Some churches liked 1 Clement, or Shepard of Hermas. However edifying these things may be, it was ecumenically agreed upon which texts were the literal, inspired, Word of God.
Thank you and may God bless you, sorry for my earlier pugnaciousness.
You obviously are a serious spiritual scholar. Can you advise when the Roman Bible was assembled and by whom? (Nothing is as simple as are most explanations!)
PS. Dan Brown & Bart Ehrmann give everyone something to ponder.
Thank you for this. I haven’t yet made the time to read these texts for myself but you’ve peaked my interest in these and others with this series. Thank you for your time and labor in putting these reviews together.
I find it remarkable that the Shepherd of Hermas is told in the second vision -- "God is not angry with you on account of this (the desire for the woman he saw bathing in the river), but that you may convert your house, which have committed iniquity against the Lord, and against you, their parents. And although you love your sons, yet did you not warn your house, but permitted them to be terribly corrupted. On this account is the Lord angry."
The desire itself is not considered sinful, but "Such a wish, in the case of the servants of God, produces sin. For it is a wicked and horrible wish in an all-chaste and already well-tried spirit to desire an evil deed"
Its so abundantly clear that God wrote the Bible and as much as I love all the other ancient apostolic texts, theres always something in them that clearly shows it wasnt literally, exactly, God-breathed word for word. While still insightful, its clesr how these things were revealed by the Spirit to not be Scripture (not deemed such by men). In epistle of Barnabas, for me it was the 7,000 year dispensational literalism. In Clement its the phoenix as you mentioned. God’s Word could never have a single letter that is not exactly literally infallibly true, and yet these epistles have nuggets that are seemingly of fallible human origin.
The Old Testament of the Roman Bible is full of intriguing contradictions, and certainly does Not exhibit the Love that Jesus taught.
Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire ~315 AD. The top-down Pope is equivalent to the top-down Emperor.
He appointed the Council of Nicaea to decide which writings of the first 300 years of Christianity should go in his Roman Bible, and which should be excluded. Remember, the first Christians had No Bible, just hand-written copies of letters from apostles, and other followers.
Many, many apostles & other writers were excluded to fit Constantine’s new religion (Barnabas, Clement, the Gnostic Gospels, etc)
Constantine’s Roman Church inherited the temples of the former Roman gods. Perhaps that destroyed the community of encouragement in the first tiny churches which met secretly in the homes of believers. Buildings were not part of early Christianity, as they became after Constantine.
Completely false. The Council of Nicaea was called to discuss Arianism with Constantine saying he would consent to the decision of the bishops. The Bible contains no psuedoepigraphical writings which all of the gnostic gospels are and they were all written a century later than the real apostolic canon. Barnabas is debatable but its most likely psuedoepigraphical. 1 Clement is real and highly honored same with Hermas but these werent considered canon as their not apostolic. The septuagint existed since 200 BC and was the OT that the apostles used and Jesus referenced countless times. Dont get your history from Dan Brown and Bart Ehrmann bro
Thx for the correction.
May I then presume that the Roman Bible wasn’t assembled until much later?
On the other hand, here’s an article that suggests it was assembled in Constantine’s reign :
https://www.learnreligions.com/history-of-the-bible-timeline-700157
“Circa A.D. 312: Codex Vaticanus is possibly among the original 50 copies of the Bible ordered by Emperor Constantine. It is eventually kept in the Vatican Library in Rome.”
It appears Constantine orderred a Bible, whether created by the Nicaean Council or others. Who did assemble the books in the Roman Bible?
The 27 books of the New Testament were indeed officially determinedly set in stone around that time. However as far as Im aware the Council of Nicaea did not feature arguments from other texts. Its not as if Arian was arguing his ideas from the Gospel of Thomas and the other bishops were saying “no,no, that book isnt real”. All the bishops of across the empire who were in attendance already had a strong consensus about which books were God-breathed.
We know from even the early to mid 2nd century Christian authors like Irenaeus and Tertullian that the gospels were four, and only four, in number.
We know about the unanimous agreement about the Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, and 1 John. The only two books that some bishops in the 3-4th century were skeptical about was 2nd Peter and Jude- skeptical that they may possibly be falsely attributed to those authors. But alas the majority of bishops as led by the Holy Spirit accepted them as genuine. Lots of 2nd Peter skepticism continues to this day but I for one think it has elements that strongly indicate Peter’s authorship. Research as you will.
James was not commonly doubted on authorship however it was questioned by some whether it was God-breathed and/or should be in the Bible (if I recall).
Revelations was also one that was debated about whether it should be included. Revelations was the last book of the Bible given to us by God, in about 90 AD by a very old Apostle John. Later in the 3rd century I think some questioned whether apocalyptic texts/visions should be in the canon.
With all of these debates remember that Christians believe God wrote every word of these texts, inspired and literally transcribed them, that God convicted men’s hearts by these words, saved men’s souls by these words, lavished understanding, revelation, peace, sanctification and spiritual gifts upon people by these words. And that God compiled the books He wanted (even if other books like St Ignatius letters are highly edifying they are not the very breath and word of God touching down on the page) and that He preserved the Bible throughout the ages amidst wars and disasters and heresies.
Also keep in mind, as many of these things seem to coincide in the early 4th century: Constantine, Codex Vaticanus, Nicaea. But remember: books themselves were invented around this time. The kind of paper, leatherbound book with a spine we have today was not an invention in the 1st or 2nd century. So the fact that we have Codexes from the 4th century but only individual scrolls and fragments from the 1st century is not a coincidence at all. Its divine providence that books were invented but you can see how it would lead to some debate amongst churches. Some churches like 1 Enoch (a whole different conversation and history). Some churches liked 1 Clement, or Shepard of Hermas. However edifying these things may be, it was ecumenically agreed upon which texts were the literal, inspired, Word of God.
Thank you and may God bless you, sorry for my earlier pugnaciousness.
Actually Im sorry for the rude dig at the end. I get argumentative bc I see this discourse a lot but I shouldnt have been dismissive or rude.
You obviously are a serious spiritual scholar. Can you advise when the Roman Bible was assembled and by whom? (Nothing is as simple as are most explanations!)
PS. Dan Brown & Bart Ehrmann give everyone something to ponder.
Your research helps truth seekers.
Thank you for this. I haven’t yet made the time to read these texts for myself but you’ve peaked my interest in these and others with this series. Thank you for your time and labor in putting these reviews together.
Love these summaries. Really helpful in my aim to explore these early church writings.