. . . Irenaeus, for example calls it “Scripture” (Haer.
4.20.2). Eusebius knew this and acknowledged Irenaeus’ reception of the Shepherd
of Hermas stating: “And he [Irenaeus] not only knew but also received the
writing of the Shepherd, saying, ‘Well did the Scripture say [καλως ουν η γραφη η λογουσα] “first
of all believe that God is one who created and fitted together all things,” and
so on.’ He also made some quotations all but verbally from the Wisdom of Solomon”
(Hist. eccl. 5.8.7, LCL). What adds to a possible earlier dating of the Shepherd
is its lack of citations of NT texts in an authoritative manner, something
that developed later. He only cites the lost apocryphal Book of Eldad and
Modat (Vis. 7; II.3). Recognition of the Shepherd of Hermas also
comes from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.1.1; 1.85.4; Ecoligae
propheticae 45), who frequently quote the Shepherd of Hermas in the
same manner that he quoted other Scriptures from both the Old and New Testament
writings. IT would be strange indeed if Clement and Irenaeus accepted Shepherd
as Scripture, but the M[uratorian]F[ragment] at the same time (late
second century) rejected it and on the earliest known criterion of that age,
namely its lack of apostolic origin and its date (lines 77-80). Tertullian also
refers to the work probably as Scripture before his conversion to
Montanism, and as noted above rejected it later. We also saw that the Shepherd
of Hermas was included in Codex Sinaiticus and in the interested stichometry
in Codex Claromontanus (even though in a secondary position). Eusebius appears
to be the first church father to place the Shepherd of Hemas in a disputed
category (Hist. eccl. 3.3.6), but the MF, if earlier, strangely
rejects it as Scripture (=not “among the apostles”) and adds that it is not to
be read publicly, but only privately. Eusebius recognizes its acceptance by
Irenaeus given its widespread acceptance by well-known church fathers, and that
it was still held in high esteem much later (Hist. eccl. 5.8.7).
Eusebius himself placed it among the “spurious” (νοθος) books
(3.25.1-5) Athanasius called the book “most edifying” (ωφελιμωτατες) in his earlier De incarnatione verbi (ca. 318), but changed his
mind by the time of his famous Thirty-Ninth Festal Latter (367). Both
Jerome (Prologue to Kings [Proglous Galeatus]; Illustrious Men
10) and Rufinus (Commentary on the Apostolic Creed 38) spoke
respectfully of the book, even though they placed it in a secondary position,
that is, not as a part of the NT canon. The relegation of the Shepherd of
Hermas to a secondary position and not among the NT Scriptures (“not among
the Apostles”) is more likely a fourth-century development and not a
second-century notion. It appears that Origen, as in the case of 1 Enoch,
accepted Shepherd as a part of his collection of Christian Scriptures,
but later reversed his opinion. The inclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas
and the Epistle of Barnabas in the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus
indicates that these books continued to be read as Scripture in some fourth-century
churches even after others had excluded them. The fourth century is more likely
the context for questioning the status of the Shepherd in the churches’ Scriptures.
(Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon,
2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 2:295-96)