Extrabiblical Writings??

[mandolin]

Hey all...
I've been studying into the apocrypha and stuff lately...and came across a ton of other books that the christian community doesn't talk about much.

What do you all think about these various books... I'm not necessecarily asking whether or not they should be in the bible...but are they trustworthy? Are they less trustworthy than cononical scriptures? if so..why?? if not..why not?? Please give me whatever opinions you might have. And if you have any concrete evidence to back your claims...it would be greatly appreciated.

What do you think of these books???

Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Peter
Secret Mark
Fayyum Fragment
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Mara Bar Serapion
Epistle of Barnabas
Acts of the Apostles
1 Clement
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Christian Sibyllines
Apocalypse of John
Secret Book of James
Preaching of Peter
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Nazoreans
Shepherd of Hermas
Passion Narrative
Lost Sayings Gospel Q

Anyways...I can safely say that I know nothing of these books. I got them (and many others off of www.earlychristianwritings.com)

Mostly...the gospel of thomas and the gospel of peter. But info on any of these would be greatly appreciated. Please respond with any opinions or information you might have. Also...feel free to bring up other early christian writings that might intrigue me.

Rock on and God bless you all!

[Bill the Cat]

try reading some here:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/

[papabryant]

The problem with these books - with the exceptions of those which made it into the Catholic canon, was verification of authenticity.

In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, no two copies are the same, which shows widespread textual alterations, which the canonical Gospels do not show. This was because the Gnostic were making changes as their "continuing revelations" gave them reason to.

These are of great value as historical documents, and there is even some spiritual value to them, but they do not belong in the Bible, as some have suggested.

If you really want to get deep into the early Church writers, find the works of Tertullian. A real wit; the W.C. Fields of his day. I love the part where he asks why should he worship a god made of stone when he knows the birds have been crapping on it all day.

Peace, Tom

[Carl Smuda]

I enjoy the apocraphyl "new testament" too. Some of it is awful. Isn't the Gospel of Mary the one with the child Jesus killing other children who make Him angry? And the Acts of Thomas was something I didn't finish. It starts with the risen Christ selling His Apostle Thomas to a carpenter who takes Thomas to India.

Don't forget the Dead Sea Scrolls. But of course that would be the older covenant. I agree the historical value is great. We get to see into the mind of the people who wrote those books.

I've only skimmed these things. But, I feel that some real value is the apocalyptic literature of the ancient Jews. My studies have told me that THAT is the context of the attitude of Jesus and His Apostles regarding the end-times. Everything has context. All the things we read in canon from Paul and Peter and John about the end-of-days, and the like had a context of ancient Jewish beliefs of the last day, or the day of the Lord, et cetera.

It is us Christians, or that is to say, our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave the revelation to His Apostles to write the New Testament that changed the end time event of the coming Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom into two events: This age, and the age to come.

Come to think of it, I don't recall much eschatology in the patristic writings. But a lot of our walk is now walking by the Holy Spirit.

The more info we can get our hands on the better equiped we are to understand everything in context. as some one else said: context is king and history is context.

[mandolin]

But why should it be regarded as awful just because we don't agree with it? Why should the gospel of thomas or the gospel of Mary not be taken into theological consideration. Why are they more valuable than the canon?

I really appreciate the comments made by everyone...but I really am looking for concrete reasoning. Just because the books don't agree with the NT canon doesn't mean they are wrong. So why are they "Wrong"? Why not regard the "apocryphal"or "pseudonymous" writings as highly as the church deemed canon? (and I'm not necessarily talking about the "catholic apocrypha")

Which books are trustworthy?? Why are they trustworthy?? Which books are ridiculously awful?? Why are they ridiculously awful??

Basically...I just want concrete evidence either supporting the doctrinal use of these books, or denoucing their trustworthiness.

Thank you all...
Rock on and God bless

[papabryant]

Today @ 09:07 PM post located here
mandolin:

But why should it be regarded as awful just because we don't agree with it? Why should the gospel of thomas or the gospel of Mary not be taken into theological consideration. Why are they more valuable than the canon?

I really appreciate the comments made by everyone...but I really am looking for concrete reasoning. ...

Which books are trustworthy?? Why are they trustworthy?? Which books are ridiculously awful?? Why are they ridiculously awful??

Basically...I just want concrete evidence either supporting the doctrinal use of these books, or denoucing their trustworthiness.

...

I thought I did!

The problem with these books - with the exceptions of those which made it into the Catholic canon, was verification of authenticity.

In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, no two copies are the same, which shows widespread textual alterations, which the canonical Gospels do not show. This was because the Gnostic were making changes as their "continuing revelations" gave them reason to.

Peace,
Tom

[mandolin]

papabryant... I know you did.

I really greatly appreciate that. Thank you very much for what you said. But what about the rest of them all?? There seem to be so many. What about them?? I appreciate your statements about the gnostic alterations. But the gospel of thomas is only one of the million things that are racing through my head. If you (or anyone else) could help clarify the authenticity and accuracy of these other books as well, it would be greatly appreciated.

Rock on... God bless

[Carl Smuda]

I used the word "awful" because Sir Anthony Buzzard did. And I'm meaning awful in the sense of some of the strangness. And it doesn't have to be wrong because it didn't make the team. It was just some of the things that happened are wierd to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

e.g. I don't have much problem with eye witness accounts of the Ascension from nonbelievers. Or, some of the basic, "O behave" stuff in the Shepard of Hermas. I did get a little creeped by that Angel telling Hermas things. Because my humble understanding of NT canon includes more direct relations with the Head of the Body.

Just start reading all that stuff man! Study all you can get yer hands on! Form an opinion. Dive in fearlessly.

I think it was "the Acts of Paul"? or something were some woman followed Paul around and wore her virginity on her sleeve. It really felt like some horn blowing for Nuns. That was when I really wanted to know WHEN some of these things were written.

I think if you can lock into a reasonably dependable date for each works writing you can go along some line of study.

compare works of approximately the same date as the canon with the canon. And then other stuff with their time frame. I dunno, things like that. It's all good fun.

If we avoid something only because we are afraid it will confuse us or weaken our faith then I'd say at least you know your limitations. A man's gotta know his limitations.

[mandolin]

Carl... I couldn't agree with you more. But I am really just hoping to be given some info. so that I don't have to go into my studies totally blind. I'm going to hardcore study them regardless...I'm merely trying to make me life a bit easier by seeing what you folks know about them.

Any info in these writings would be great.

[Bill the Cat]

Mandolin,

Here is a brief synopsys of a few on this site:

http://www.ntcanon.org/writings.shtml

Give them a look see and then start your study.

[jpholding]

Mandolin,

As an earnest student you will need to examine each of those books in terms of various criteria:

* How old is it? If it is well past the time of the first century, is it likely to have authoritative info?
* How was it treated by the church at large (people on all levels)?
* What criticisms (or compliments) were levelled against it?
* Does it show any dependency on other, earlier documents?
* Where were copies found, and how many? What is their textual history?

Your long list gets us many different answers. Some of those docs exist only in people's imaginations (Q document, for example). One at least is not even by a Christian (Mara bar Serapion) and does offer helpful historical data. Some are very suspicious (Secret Mark). I would suggest you pinpoint 2-3 that you want to discuss at a time -- posting a long list can be very overwhelming. I have resources though on about half to 3/4 of those.

[NSMinistries]

Lost Books

[mandolin]

J.P.
First let me say...you are radical. Your tektonics site blows me away every time. It has been helpful to me in so many ways.

Of these writings, which would you personally say is the "most relaible"??? and why, in your opinion, is it still not reliable enough for the canon??? (in your opinion...with evidence of course)

I know many of these are not "actual" documents, but just added them in case anyone had ample evidence about them or whatnot.

Also..thank you all for the links you have given. I can't wait to check them out.

Rock on..God bless..and thank you all

Any more help would still be totally appreciated.

[jpholding]

Gosh, mandolin, didn't know ya'd heard of me. Thanks for the kind words.

Of these writings, which would you personally say is the "most relaible"??? and why, in your opinion, is it still not reliable enough for the canon??? (in your opinion...with evidence of course)

Well, if you want evidence on each one, that would take some time. What I will do for you is note some brief stuff on each, and if I ave an article about it somewhere onsite, you can check the Encyclopedia for it. Then we can discuss evidence in detail on your choice of 2-3 at a time, OK?

Most of these are too late to include in the canon; there is little or no chance they have accurate historical information compared to the earlier documents in the NT. A canon is a collection of books that are both true and relevant. So 2+2 = 4 is true, but it is not in the canon because it is not relevant to the canon's purpose.

I would also recommend Philip Jenkins' Hidden Gospels.

Gospel of Thomas -- too late to be in canon, 150 AD -- I have an article with details
Gospel of Peter -- too late, 2nd century
Secret Mark -- Glenn Miller's ThinkTank has an item on this
Fayyum Fragment -- never heard of it
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs -- this is a Jewish work -- not relevant
Mara Bar Serapion -- secular testimony to Jesus' existence, I have an article on it
Epistle of Barnabas -- probably too late to be by the real Barnabas (90-130 AD) and uses numerology
Acts of the Apostles -- You means Acts by Luke???
1 Clement -- actually a good candidate to be in the canon, but didn't make it
Gospel of the Egyptians -- written 150 AD and appears to have been composed by a heretical group
Gospel of the Hebrews -- too late, 2nd century, and we don't have much of it to say more about
Christian Sibyllines -- I have an article on the Sybilline Oracles -- they actually started before Christian times
Apocalypse of John -- You mean Revelation???
Secret Book of James -- never heard of it
Preaching of Peter -- too late
Gospel of the Ebionites -- too late (2nd century)
Gospel of the Nazoreans -- ditto
Shepherd of Hermas -- might be a good candidate for inclusion, but doesn't seem relevant
Passion Narrative -- never heard of it
Lost Sayings Gospel Q -- already commented

Fire away!

[FirstSunday33ad]

I think what did Clement in was his use of the Phoenix as an illustration of God's work.

Which also contributes to the credibility of those works that were included in the canon.