Anyone know why the Shepherd of Hermas, despite its popularity, was not included in the canon?

Question

if the shepherd of hermas was such a popular/important book to early christians, why wasnt it canonized?

Answer 1

I think this is because it was acknowledged it's not an apostolic book, and its origin is sort of obscure. All books in the canon are identified (their authors are well-known) and today we even know when they were written. It's all first-hand, verifiable information. I think it was a sensible choice.

Answer 2

Though there were some early acceptance of it, it seems not to have had the authenticity of Scripture.

Remarks of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria give a sense of resistance to the Shepherd among its hearers, and of a sense of controversy about it. Tertullian implies that Pope Callixtus I had quoted it as an authority (though evidently not as one of the books of the Bible), for he replies: "I would admit your argument, if the writing of the Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false." And again, he says that the Epistle of Barnabas is "more received among the Churches than that apocryphal Shepherd" (De pudicitia, 10 and 20). Though Clement of Alexandria constantly quotes with reverence a work that seems to him to be very useful, and inspired; yet he repeatedly apologizes, when he has occasion to quote it, on the ground that "many people despise it". Two controversies divided the mid-century Roman Christian communities. One was Montanism, the ecstatic inspired outpourings of continuing pentecostal revelations, such as the visions recorded in the Shepherd may have appeared to encourage. The other was Docetism that taught that the Christ had existed since the beginning and the corporeal reality of Jesus the man was simply an apparition.

Cyprian makes no reference to this work, so it would seem to have gone out of use in Africa during the early decades of the third century. Somewhat later it is quoted by the author of the pseudo-Cyprianic tract Adversus aleatores as "Scriptura divina", but in Jerome's day it was "almost unknown to the Latins". Curiously, it went out of fashion in the East, so that the Greek manuscripts of it are but two in number; whereas in the West it became better known and was frequently copied in the Middle Ages.

Answer 3

For the same reason other scriptures didn’t make it: the early Catholics didn’t like everything it said. But there’s nothing wrong with making your own canon and including it, after all, why must a bunch of bishops decide for others what god said or didn’t?

Answer 4

I imagine it was a little too esoteric. Some of the visions required considerable intrepretation. They'd already let one crazy vision book in, Revelation. Perhaps they thought that was enough.

Answer 5

Not sure....but I know one thing......I would like to take every canon and stuff it in a cannon.

Answer 6

because