Audio only:
It took more than a thousand years for the books of the Bible to be written, and afterward, it took several centuries for the Church to determine which of the written books were Scripture and which weren’t.
God didn’t simply give the Church a revelation saying, “The following books and only the following books are Scripture.”
Instead, the Holy Spirit guided the Church as it conducted a process of discernment. This means we don’t find early, universal agreement on what books belong in the Bible. We find early Christians having different opinions.
Today, Jimmy Akin looks at 5 books that almost made it into the Bible.
TRANSCRIPT:
Coming Up
It took more than a thousand years for the books of the Bible to be written, and afterward, it took several centuries for the Church to determine which of the written books were Scripture and which weren’t.
God didn’t simply give the Church a revelation saying, “The following books and only the following books are Scripture.”
Instead, the Holy Spirit guided the Church as it conducted a process of discernment. This means we don’t find early, universal agreement on what books belong in the Bible. We find early Christians having different opinions.
Today, we’re going to talk about 5 books that almost made it into the Bible.
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
And you can also help me keep making this podcast—and you can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Early Differences of Opinion
Now, there was always a broad consensus about the core books of the Bible. All orthodox Christians recognized works such as the five books of Moses in the Old Testament or the four Gospels in the New Testament. There also was broad agreement about the prophets and the letters of Paul.
But there was debate about other books. Certain churchmen questioned or opposed books that were eventually included.
Some had reservations about seven books of the Old Testament: 1-2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom.
Others had reservations about seven books of the New Testament: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
All these were eventually included in the Bible, but there were books that some early churchmen did regard as Scripture—even though they didn’t ultimately find a place in the canon.
We’re going to take a look at 5 books that “almost” made it into the Bible. We have to put quotation marks around “almost” because the Holy Spirit was in charge of the process, and God always knew which books he wanted the Church to recognize as canonical.
But, on the human level, there was uncertainty about the status of certain books for some time.
The Criterion of Discernment
How did the Church decide which books belong in the Bible?
The criterion that the early Church used to determine the status of a book was whether it had been handed down from the apostles as authoritative.
Of course, if a book was written by an apostle, it was authoritative. But apostolic authorship wasn’t required.
The apostles also regarded the books of the Old Testament as authoritative, so they counted as Scripture.
Even certain books of the New Testament had not been written by apostles themselves but by associates of apostles—such as Mark and Luke. They were regarded as having apostolic approval, and so they also were held to be authoritative and found a place in Scripture.
But the fact the apostles didn’t have to write a book led to differences in opinion in the early Church. If their associates could also write Scripture, just how far removed from the apostles did a book have to be before it wouldn’t count as Scripture?
If it was an orthodox book written in the Apostolic Age, did that imply apostolic approval of it?
If it was thought to be written by someone who knew the apostles—though not a traveling companion such as Mark or Luke—was that enough?
The heretical books that were written after the first century could be recognized as fakes because of the false doctrine they contained. But early orthodox books were another matter.
The fact that some of these orthodox books were considered Scripture by faithful Christians illustrates the important role that the Church played, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in determining what belongs in the Bible.
For more information on that, you can see my book The Bible Is a Catholic Book.
But what were some of these books?
The Didache
One of them was known as the Didache. It was a Church manual giving basic instruction on morality, the sacraments, prayer, church officers, and prophecy.
The Didache likely appeared in more than one edition, but the earliest version was clearly penned during the apostolic age, perhaps around A.D. 50, making it contemporaneous with or even earlier than the Gospels.
We know this because there were traveling apostles and prophets when the Didache came out, because the document includes instructions on how to tell true ones from false ones. This edition thus belongs to the apostolic age.
What’s more, the Didache says you can tell a true from a false apostle based on how many days he stays with your church before moving on. A true apostle will stay for only one or two days.
This indicates an early period, when the apostles were still vigorous, young men who could keep a brisk travel schedule—not older men who were slowing down and needed to settle in a single location for longer periods. So perhaps around A.D. 50.
Who regarded the Didache as Scripture? Although the Didache was popular in the early Church, the evidence for people thinking it was Scripture is thinner than for some other works we’ll consider. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) quoted it and may have considered it Scripture (Stromateis 1:20:100:4). In the 300s, Pseudo-Cyprian refers to it as “Scripture” (De Centesima 14). And in the late 300s, the Syriac Book of Steps, or Liber Graduum, refers to it using the scriptural citation “it is written” (Liber Graduum 7:20).
Why did some think the Didache was Scripture? The first edition of this work dates to the Apostolic Age, and the Didache (Greek, “teaching”) often circulated under the titles “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” or “The Teaching of the Apostles.” So that linked it with the apostles. It represented their teaching.
Then why isn’t it in the Bible? Ultimately, too many in the early Church doubted its apostolic authorship. The titles under which it circulated indicated it is a good summary of the teaching of the apostles, not that it was written by them.
By the early 300s, most Christians had concluded that it was not Scripture. At that time, the early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea summarized the opinion of Christians about the canon by producing a list of works that he divided into accepted, rejected, and disputed books. He listed the Didache as a rejected book, so most Christians had decided it was not Scripture by this point.
What do you find when you read the Didache? It touches on matters connected with Christian morality, the sacraments, Church discipline, and even the Christian view of the end of the world.
One notable passage it contains discusses the different ways baptism was performed in the first century. It says
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: After you have reviewed all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times “in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1-3).
So this reveals that even in the first century—in the apostolic age itself—Christians had more than one mode of baptism, and at least one of these involved pouring water over the head, so the early Christians did not insist on baptism by immersion in water, as some in recent centuries have.
Also, note that we have the Trinitarian formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” not just the baptism “in Jesus’ name” that Oneness Pentecostals insist on.
1 Clement
The second book that almost made it into the Bible is a letter written by Pope St. Clement I to the church of Corinth.
Many scholars think it was written in the A.D. 90s, but a careful examination of the text suggests it was written in the first half of A.D. 70, after the disastrous “year of four emperors” in A.D. 69 but before the destruction of the Jewish temple in August of A.D. 70.
Apparently, quite a few people thought this letter was Scripture. Eusebius notes that this letter was “publicly read for common benefit, in most of the churches” (Church History 3:16), and because of its early origin “it is probable that this was also numbered with the other writings of the apostles” (Church History 3:38). In the early 400s, it was included in the Codex Alexandrinus, an important early copy of the Bible.
Its supporters thought it was Scripture because—in addition to being pope—Clement was a man who lived in the apostolic age and who apparently knew and was approved by the apostles Peter and Paul, the same way Mark and Luke were.
He was often thought to be the Clement that Paul mentions in Philippians 4:3 (cf. Eusebius, Church History 3:15), and early traditions indicate that he was ordained at least to the priesthood by St. Peter.
Some even held that he was Peter’s immediate successor as pope. St. Jerome notes that “the greater part of the Latins think that Clement was second [pope] after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15:1), though today you’ll commonly hear that he was the 4th pope.
His letter has great literary merit and is often compared in style to the book of Hebrews. We don’t actually know who wrote Hebrews, but in the early 200s, Origen recorded a tradition that held Clement was the author of the letter to the Hebrews (see Church History 6:25:14).
If that view turned out to be true, it would be another reason for thinking his letter to the Corinthians also might be Scripture. If his letter to the Hebrews is Scripture, why not his letter to the Corinthians?
Despite its considerable merits, its long use in the churches, and Clement’s connection to the apostles, not enough churchmen came to regard it as Scripture. Thus, in the list of approved, disputed, and rejected books that Eusebius made in the early 300s, he didn’t even mention “1 Clement.”
What do you find when you read this letter? Clement wrote because the Corinthians had appealed to the Church of Rome to settle a dispute in their community. One faction had kicked out the duly ordained leaders of the church, and Clement argued they needed to be reinstated in their offices.
This apparently happened, because Clement’s letter was kept and read in Corinth for many years.
The book contains a number of points of interest, including the earliest surviving reference to the martyrdoms of Sts. Peter and Paul. Clement recounts:
There was Peter, who, because of unrighteous jealousy, endured not one or two but many trials, and thus having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.
Because of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the way to the prize for patient endurance. After he had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, and had preached in the East and in the West, he won the genuine glory for his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the West.
Finally, when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example of patient endurance (1 Clement 5:4-7).
The Letter of Barnabas
The third almost-biblical book we’re going to look at is the Letter of Barnabas. It is an early document offering a spiritual interpretation of Jewish law and customs and how they are fulfilled in Christ and the Church.
It was written shortly after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, which is mentioned in chapter 16 (Barnabas 16:3-5) of the book. The temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, so we may conjecture that Barnabas was written perhaps around A.D. 75.
Around 200, Clement of Alexandria considered it Scripture (see Church History 6:14). In the 300s, it also was included in the important Bible known as Codex Sinaiticus.
Its supporters thought it was Scripture because Barnabas was a companion of the apostles (Acts 4:36), including Paul, who he accompanied on the First Missionary Journey, and Luke even describes Barnabas himself as an apostle (Acts 14:14).
Also, around A.D. 200, Tertullian recorded a tradition that the book of Hebrews was written by Barnabas (On Modesty 20), which would provide additional reason to think the “Letter of Barnabas” might be Scripture. If Barnabas—rather than Clement—was the author of Hebrews, and if Hebrews is Scripture, then Barnabas’s other letter also could be considered Scripture.
So why isn’t it in the Bible? Well, Barnabas was an apostle of a lesser rank, but that wouldn’t be a barrier if people who weren’t even apostles like Mark and Luke could write books of Scripture.
More fundamentally, the letter does not claim to be written by him. His name is found only in the title, which may have led to doubts about its authorship.
Eusebius lists this letter among the books “rejected” by most orthodox Christians in his day as Scripture. St. Jerome apparently thought it was written by Barnabas but nevertheless was not Scripture (Lives of Illustrious Men 6). Scholars today generally don’t think it was written by the biblical Barnabas.
There are many fascinating things in this letter, but I’m personally rather glad that it’s not in Scripture. When allegorizing various Old Testament commandments, the author makes several scientifically inaccurate statements that I would not like to have to explain as an apologist. For example, the letter says:
“You shall not eat the hare.” Why? Do not become, [Moses] means, one who corrupts boys, or even resemble such people, because the hare grows another opening every year, and thus has as many orifices as it is years old.
Again, “Neither shall you eat the hyena.” Do not become, he means, an adulterer or a seducer, or even resemble such people. Why? Because this animal changes its nature from year to year and becomes male one time and female another.
But he also hated the weasel, and with good reason. Do not become, he means, like those men who, we hear, with immoral intent do things with the mouth that are forbidden, nor associate with those immoral women who do things with the mouth that are forbidden. For this animal conceives through its mouth (Barnabas 10:6-8).
I know that the Bible isn’t meant to teach us science, but I’m really glad that I don’t have to defend those statements!
The Shepherd of Hermas
Our 4th almost-biblical book is the Shepherd of Hermas. It is a collection of visions by a simple and sincere man named Hermas, who was a former slave living in Rome.
Although sometimes wrongly dated to the mid-second century, Hermas lived during the time of Pope St. Clement I (“The Shepherd,” Vision 2:4[8:3]). So he began receiving the visions perhaps around A.D. 80.
Many early Christians regarded it as Scripture. Around A.D. 175, St. Irenaeus of Lyons described it as “Scripture” (Against Heresies 4:20:2). About the same time, Clement of Alexandria repeatedly used the work and said it was written “by divine inspiration” (Stromateis 1:29:181:1). In the early 200s, Origen also referred to it as Scripture, though he said it was “not acknowledged by all to be divine” (Commentary on Matthew 14:21). In the 300s, it was included in Codex Sinaiticus.
Why did they think it was Scripture? Well, it’s a work of prophecy that dates to the first century! Also, many at the time believed that Hermas was the man of the same name who Paul greets in Romans 16:14. And this is plausible. After all, how many Christians named Hermas were living in Rome in the first century?
So why it isn’t in the Bible? Almost every author in the early Church who mentioned “The Shepherd” had a high opinion of it and regarded it as valuable for private reading—even those who didn’t regard it as Scripture. But ultimately, the latter came to be the majority.
Still, this took quite a while. When Eusebius summarized Christian opinion on the books of Scripture in the early 300s, he didn’t list the Shepherd as a rejected book but put it in the category of disputed books. So the opinion of orthodox Christians was mixed at this time, with some holding that the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture and others disagreeing.
Today you might propose that the visions in the book are an early example of what is now called private revelation—something of supernatural origin but with more human elements mixed in so that we shouldn’t put what the book says on the same level as Scripture.
The Shepherd is astonishingly long for a book of this period. Its visions deal with virtue, forgiveness, and the need to repent. A central theme of the book is that repentance and forgiveness are possible for Christians who have sinned.
And a major figure in the visions is an angel who appears to Hermas dressed like a shepherd and thus gives the book its title. He is identified as “the angel of repentance” (Shepherd:Vision 5[25:7]). Hermas writes:
After I had prayed in my house and sat down on my bed, there came a man glorious in appearance, dressed like a shepherd, with a white skin wrapped around him and with a bag on his shoulders and a staff in his hand. He greeted me, and I greeted him in return. He immediately sat down beside me and said to me, “I was sent by the most holy angel to live with you the rest of the days of your life” (Shepherd:Vision 5[25:1-2]).
The Apocalypse of Peter
The 5th and final almost-biblical book we’ll be looking at today is the Apocalypse of Peter (=), though it’s also known as the Revelation of Peter since the word apocalypse and the word revelation mean the same thing; in fact, they’re just different ways of bringing the Greek term apokalupsis into English.
That’s why the biblical book of Revelation is also sometimes called the Apocalypse of John. So the early Church knew both an Apocalypse or Revelation of John and an Apocalypse or Revelation of Peter.
The Apocalypse of Peter is a series of revelations allegedly given by Christ to St. Peter.
It was likely written between A.D. 132-135, during the second major Jewish war against the Romans. This was a rebellion under the leader Simon bar-Kokhba, who is likely the false Christ discussed in Apocalypse of Peter 2:7-9.
Around 200, Clement of Alexandria referred to the “Apocalypse of Peter” as Scripture (Eclogae Propheticae 41) and attributes it to St. Peter. The Muratorian Fragment, an early work dated between the late second and the fourth century, accepts both the Apocalypse of John and Peter as Scripture, but it acknowledges that “some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.” Other early churchmen also supported it.
The book’s supporters thought it was Scripture because it is an early work claiming to preserve the words of St. Peter.
But today it is not in the Bible because many recognized that it wasn’t actually by Peter—and the tradition supporting its apostolic authorship wasn’t strong enough. Thus, in the early 300s, Eusebius included it among the books “rejected” by most orthodox Christians of his time as Scripture.
The book contains prophecies about Israel, as well as descriptions of hell and heaven. Its descriptions of the punishments of the damned are particularly vivid, but the book also contains a description of the blessings of the righteous. It concludes with an account of the ascension of Christ, which says
A large, very white cloud came above us and picked up our Lord and Moses and Elijah. I shook and was terrified. We watched as this heaven opened up and men with physical bodies came to welcome our Lord and Moses and Elijah. They went into the second heaven. The saying of Scripture was fulfilled, “This generation looks for him; it looks for the face of the God of Jacob.”
There was great awe and amazement in heaven. The angels flocked together to fulfill the saying of Scripture, “Open the gates, you princes.” Then this heaven, the one which had been opened, was closed.
We prayed, and as we descended from the mountain, we praised God who has written the names of the righteous in the book of life in heaven (Apocalypse of Peter 17:2-7).
How the Bible Came Together
Many in the Protestant community find it hard to imagine the Church existing for centuries without a closed, fixed list of the books of the Bible.
This is because of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (=)—the idea that Christian doctrine should be determined “by Scripture alone.” If you use sola scriptura, then there is an urgent need to know the precise boundaries of the canon.
If you’re uncertain about the status of a book, you don’t know whether it’s authoritative for doctrine or not. You could err in either direction by ignoring statements God meant to be authoritative or treating something as authoritative when it isn’t.
But the early Church didn’t employ sola scriptura. Instead, Christians used the same principles for formulating doctrine that had been used since the Apostolic Age: Yes, Scripture was authoritative, but so was the Tradition that Christ and the apostles had passed down—and one could rely on the Church’s divinely guided Magisterium to settle cases of dispute. Therefore, pre-Reformation Christians felt no urgency to know the exact status of lesser books.
As we mentioned, in the early 300s Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea summarized the opinions of Christians in his own day by dividing books into several categories: those that orthodox Christians accepted, disputed, or rejected.
By later that century, the borders of the canon were becoming firmer. In 382, Pope Damasus I held a council at Rome that taught essentially the same canon that Catholics have today. The same list was affirmed by the local council of Hippo in 393 and the council of Carthage in 397. Pope Innocent I affirmed this list in A.D. 405, and it was endorsed by another local council of Carthage in 419.
The traditional canon continued to be affirmed down through history, such as at the Council of Florence in 1442.
When the Protestant Reformers began a major controversy about the authority of certain books, the need to define the canon became more urgent for Catholics, and in 1546 the Council of Trent infallibly defined which books the Church holds as sacred and canonical.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
And you can also help me keep making this podcast—and you can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!