Why Was Clement Epistle Excluded From the Canon?

[Carl Emerson]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

YUk.

Like all the letters, they should not have been saved. This is the best example I've seen of how and why the letters apply to who they were written for, alone.

 

[jacks]

I'd never read (or even heard) of Clement Epistle before, but I rather liked it. Thank you for posting. Sorry I have no answer as to why it wasn't included.

 

[charsan]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

Good question. The Protestant canon is missing a lot of books, while the Liturgical churches have a larger number and the Ethiopians have a huge 81 books Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon - Wikipedia

 

[summerville]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

This may help answer your question.. Note contemporary writings.

First Clement

 

[A_Thinker]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

From ...

Why were Clement's letters not included in the canon?

"Clement’s letters were not included in the canon, because it was not handed down in apostolic Tradition that his letters were inspired.

That is the sole reason. Remember, St. Paul wrote at least two other letters that were not included in the canon, because it was not handed down in apostolic Tradition that his letters were inspired. By apostolic Tradition we mean that God revealed to the apostles which books were inspired and this revelation was handed down through the bishops of the Church. This revelation was not clear, so the Church held councils to determine which books met the criteria of being handed down in apostolic Tradition as being inspired.

The Catechism teaches:

120. It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books**.**

All public revelation ended with the apostles. Thus the revelation of which books were inspired had to come from them, and they learned it from God Himself.

All the Church did was to discern which books were handed down in apostolic Tradition as inspired. The criteria was apostolic Tradition."

 

[com7fy8]

Hi, Carl >

It seems the Epistle of Clement has quotes of what is not in the Bible. So, ones might have an issue with this.

Also, possibly it was written later than Revelation, and so ones were afraid to put it in, since in Revelation it says not to add to the words of Revelation > ones could take that to mean there were to be no more Canon writings after Revelation.

It appears to say that only qualified leaders may be in the Apostolic Succession. So, possibly ones upholding Clement to be legitimate are not obeying it!!

 

[Carl Emerson]

YUk.

Like all the letters, they should not have been saved. This is the best example I've seen of how and why the letters apply to who they were written for, alone.

On that basis you would exclude Paul's letters...

 

[Carl Emerson]

From ...

Why were Clement's letters not included in the canon?

"Clement’s letters were not included in the canon, because it was not handed down in apostolic Tradition that his letters were inspired.

That is the sole reason. Remember, St. Paul wrote at least two other letters that were not included in the canon, because it was not handed down in apostolic Tradition that his letters were inspired. By apostolic Tradition we mean that God revealed to the apostles which books were inspired and this revelation was handed down through the bishops of the Church. This revelation was not clear, so the Church held councils to determine which books met the criteria of being handed down in apostolic Tradition as being inspired.

The Catechism teaches:

120. It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books**.**

All public revelation ended with the apostles. Thus the revelation of which books were inspired had to come from them, and they learned it from God Himself.

All the Church did was to discern which books were handed down in apostolic Tradition as inspired. The criteria was apostolic Tradition."

Thanks for your response, how does that apply to Jude?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

Hi Carl, I believe one reason is that it was written in the 2nd Century.

I believe you will enjoy this very well-done movie/documentary about the Bible called The God Who Speaks, which is free to watch in HD right now if you are an Amazon Prime member. Part of the video addresses the question of why certain books and epistles were included or excluded from the Canon.

Watch The God Who Speaks | Prime Video
​

--David

 

[HARK!]

I read recently, that there are a growing number of scholars who are taking a closer look at the possible authenticity of the Clementine Homilies. I stumbled onto these writings, in my never ending quest for ancient texts. As scholars had previously branded it as pseudepigrapha; I didn't dig into reading it. I did scan over it briefly, years ago. However having heard the report that more scholars are taking it seriously; I just read through it a couple of months ago. It was quite an interesting read.

 

[Charlie24]

I guess I'm old fashioned. lol I've heard several reasons why it's not included.

I believe it's not there because the Holy Spirit didn't want it there.

If He desired it to be so, rest assured it would be there.

 

[Jonaitis]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

It wasn't God-breathed, nor was he an apostle, nor those who wrote of an account on behalf of an apostle(s). I may write about true statements on this website, but that doesn't make it Scripture to be added to the canon.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

I believe it's not there because the Holy Spirit didn't want it there.

If He desired it to be so, rest assured it would be there.

That is truly the primary reason. God is in charge of choosing what is included as authoritative, and how it is preserved. That said, there are practical reasons and explanations that may help us understand how God has the word recorded and preserved.

Letters that were frequently copied and passed on from one church to another were often considered worthy to be read in the church as teaching and devotional material. Churches hesitated to pass on for general use any material which they could not trace back to a direct witness of Jesus. The contents of Clement's first epistle do not appear to have been quoted from an eyewitness of Jesus. That was enough to make church leaders skeptical of considering it authoritative.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

I get the sense from reading it again that Clement is adding conjecture to the scriptures that is based on a tradition, but not in the scriptures itself. The section on Jealousy in first clement is a good example.

Another good reason is, it doesn't really read like something out of scripture, it just sounds like some preacher's sermon.

 

[public hermit]

1 Clement is worth a read, if for no other reason than the statement, "Let us look, beloved, at the resurrection that is ever taking place" (24:2). Then, it gives the myth of the phoenix as an example (25:1-5). Classic.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I get the sense from reading it again that Clement is adding conjecture to the scriptures that is based on a tradition, but not in the scriptures itself. The section on Jealousy in first clement is a good example.

Another good reason is, it doesn't really read like something out of scripture, it just sounds like some preacher's sermon.

Yes.. I tend to agree.

I have fund J.B. Philips book "Ring of truth" helpful in this regard.

Some of the rejected writings have valuable information but Scripture is another matter.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes the Phoenix...

But then the OT has Leviathan...

 

[Carl Emerson]

But the Phoenix is definitely Mythological.

 

[charsan]

or so we moderns think.....