. . . it would be strange if the Shepherd
had been widely rejected by the time of Tertullian since other church fathers
from approximately the same time had welcomed it as scripture. For example, Clement
of Alexandria regularly cites it as scripture (e.g., Stromata 2.1; 2.9;
2.12; 4.9; 6.15 more than seventeen times). The Shepherd was introduced
and cited as scripture also by Irenaeus as “Truly, then, the Scripture declared
. . .” (Haer. 4.20.2 citing Shepherd, 2., Sim, 1, using γραφη; cf. Haer 2.2.2; cf. Mand 1.1).
Origen (see On Prin. 1.3.3 and 4.1.11) acknowledges the Shepherd as
scripture but does acknowledge that some despite it. He describes it as “divinely
sinpired” and connected its author with Hermas mentioned in Rom 16:14. While it
was later excluded from scriptural or canonical lists, as in the case of Athanasius’
Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter in 367, it was nevertheless allowed to be
read in private. The Shepherd of Hermas was later included in the
late-fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and it was also included in the
Latin list inserted in Codex Claromontanus (Dp), along with Acts
of Paul and Revelation of Peter. There is an obelus posted beside
these books, which could mean that those texts may not have been in the initial
listing or that they were not considered scriptural and only allowed for
private reading. The Shepherd was also included in the fifth-century Codex
Alexandrinus along with 1-2 Clement. (Lee Martin McDonald, Before There
was a Bible: Authorities in Early Christianity [London: T&T Clark,
2023], 161)
