New Testament Apocrypha

[Shermana]

Question: At what point did the "New Testament Apocrypha" (not referring to OT such as Judith and Maccabees) no longer have credence in the Christian Churches, and were the later Councils correct for rejecting them?

The Church Fathers seemed to be divided on what the official Canon should be. The Shepherd of Hermas even exists in Sinaiticus as part of their Canon

It wasn't even codified by the Council of Nicea

Works like the Acts of Thomas, Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter etc were widely circulated and accepted in the early Churches at various places.

And most scholars today (and for the last few decades), if not all except a few, assert that the Pastoral Epistles (Timothy + Titus) were not written by Paul, and circulated around 90 A.D.

Neither do we know who actually wrote Hebrews, yet it is included and Church Fathers (centuries after the fact) said it was by Paul but there is no proof. Various Church Fathers have held different opinions on what is Authentic and what is not. The Acts of Thomas were accepted by the Syriacs (though there seems to be tampering and 'additions" like the Canonical books as well), so when did New Testament Canon actually FIRST formalize and what did it LATER Formalize to be and why?

[fredonly]

To the best of our knowledge, the process began with Marcion's declaration of a canon around the year 130. Branded a heretic for his unorthodox views, this seems to have prompted apologetic responses that identified certain books as being authentic. Over the ensuing years, various bishops had their own view of which books should be used - and the set varied. Some included some of the various "apochrypha" and others did not. A milestone event was the Easter letter of Anasthasius (in the year 367) in which he identified the 27 books that we now use, as canonical. I'm unaware of any argument that supports his authority in this matter, and also unaware of any scholarly research behind his list.


Anasthasius didn't really settle the matter. Other bishops that came after him had different views. Things became more nailed down during the time of Augustine. Some books remained in passive dispute for centuries (i.e. there are some old manuscripts that exclude certain books). Matters came to a head in the 1500s when Martin Luther asserted that certain books should be excluded from the canon. This issue and other reformation issues led the Catholic Church to call the Council of Trent at which they finalized their Canon. Of course, this meant nothing for the Protestants or Eastern Orthodox.

This scratches the surface. Wikipedia has a good article.


If you're REALLY interested, Bruce Metzger has an excellent book on the topic.

[JehovahsWitness]

Question: At what point did the "New Testament Apocrypha" (not referring to OT such as Judith and Maccabees) no longer have credence in the Christian Churches, and were the later Councils correct for rejecting them?

Your question implies that these books were at one time part of the bible canon as defined by the earliest Christians (1st and Early 2nd Century). This, evidence clearly suggests was not the case.

These accounts were never part of the bible canon; Many of the apocryphal writings were written centuries after the bible canon was completed and were not recognised by first century christians*. What is incontestible is that these writings were never included in the bible canon, were never quoted or recognised by Jesus contemporaries or any aurthorities in the early church and have no place in the sacred scriptures.

Further evidence that the four gospels we now have were in fact the only four originally accepted is the Diatessaron (150 - 170 CE) written by Tatian, a student of Justin Martyr, its a composite account of Jesus’ life compiled from the same four Gospels found in our present Bibles. This indicated that he considered only those Gospels to be authentic and that they were already in circulation by that date.

*Experts are divided on the precise dating of many of the gnostic writings, some claiming they were late in the first century and others favoring the 2nd.

The Gospel of Thomas - in depth study
http://www.jehovah.to/exe/general/GThomPaper.pdf

The apocryphal writings

“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.�—M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. xii.

“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realise how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.�—G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 228.

“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition . . . of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.�—F. V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist, 1961, p. 18.

“There is no known extra-cononical Gospel material which is not (when it can be tested at all) in some way subject to suspicion for its genuineness or orthodoxy.�—C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 192.
“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added today to the Canon.�—K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, p. 24. INSPIRED OF GOD




The Epistle of Barnabas and The Gospel of Nicodemus state are recognized by all authorities as forgeries.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestio ... ssage/1510

[Shermana]

" This, evidence clearly suggests was not the case. "

Evidence suggests that many Church Fathers such as Iraneus quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture, (For OT, nearly all of them quoted the official Apocrypha and Enoch as scripture), and Apocalypse of Peter was widely circulated in most Churches. The Book of John is not quoted until Justin Martyr and never titled as by John.

Evidence also suggests that the Pastoral Epistles were not written until 110-150 A.D which was around the same time as current estimates for the Apocalypse of Peter (which may in fact be from earlier)

The Egerton fragments however, are dated as early as around when the Gospels were written themselves....and they seem to fit well despite the objections of some...

Matthew's Gospel to the Hebrews is not only unanimously attested to by the Early "Church Fathers" but it is known entirely by the fragments they quote from it.

The Gospel of Thomas is clearly out however, definitely a bogus 3rd century Gnostic forgery.

As for the Apocryphal Acts, such as Andrew, Paul, Xanthippe and Polyxena, Acts of Peter, why is Luke's second hand account in his own Book of Acts any different? Most of these are dated not too long after and comply fully with canonical scripture as well as the Antioch and Jerusalem-church.

[JehovahsWitness]

" This, evidence clearly suggests was not the case. "

Evidence suggests that many Church Fathers such as Iraneus quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture, (For OT, nearly all of them quoted the official Apocrypha and Enoch as scripture), and Apocalypse of Peter was widely circulated in most Churches. The Book of John is not quoted until Justin Martyr and never titled as by John.

Evidence also suggests that the Pastoral Epistles were not written until 110-150 A.D which was around the same time as current estimates for the Apocalypse of Peter (which may in fact be from earlier)

The Egerton fragments however, are dated as early as around when the Gospels were written themselves....and they seem to fit well despite the objections of some...

Matthew's Gospel to the Hebrews is not only unanimously attested to by the Early "Church Fathers" but it is known entirely by the fragments they quote from it.

The Gospel of Thomas is clearly out however, definitely a bogus 3rd century Gnostic forgery.

As for the Apocryphal Acts, such as Andrew, Paul, Xanthippe and Polyxena, Acts of Peter, why is Luke's second hand account in his own Book of Acts any different? Most of these are dated not too long after and comply fully with canonical scripture as well as the Antioch and Jerusalem-church.

Regardless of individual references non of these books found themselves onto any of the early (or indeed later) catalogues and were therefore clearly not accepted by the first and early 2nd century community as part of divine scripture. Their conspicuous absence from these testimonies bears credence to the conclusion they were not accepted as being of divine origin. While even bible writers make reference on occassion to non-canonical material and sources, it is these early catalogues that provided a buffer for the newly forming congregation and are an indication of what the contemporaries of those that would have been in a posistion to verify souces accepted as being of divine origin rather than merely of theological interest.

[Shermana]

clearly not accepted by the first and early 2nd century community

What do you mean ,are you saying there was an organized catalogue of all 1st and 2nd century community writings? Where is it I want to read it. Why doesn't Iraneus's catalogue count? The Vaticanus doesn't include the Pastoral epistles whatsoever.

[JehovahsWitness]

What do you mean ,are you saying there was an organized catalogue of all 1st and 2nd century community writings? Where is it I want to read it. Why doesn't Iraneus's catalogue count? The Vaticanus doesn't include the Pastoral epistles whatsoever.

As you know, no "an" organised catalogue but numerous catalogues exist which give us an overal picture of what was and was not accepted and circulated within the first century community . And yes, of course Irenaeus' writings figures amongst some of the earliest catalogues (along with Clement, Tertullian and others) . But as I said, none of these (including Irenaaus himself a stauch fighter against the gnostic movement), indicated that any of the gnostic books were of divine origin or suggest they should be part of the bible canon.

In his , “The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called,� Irenaeus defends as he put it "the power of the gospel" and puts forwards his arguments that the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures making no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. None of his writings indicate he felt the gnostic writings should be viewed as scripture (feel free to site the entire quotation in which he refers to "Shepherd of Hermas" if you feel Irenaeus was doing so to propose its inclusion in the *bible* canon).


Your earlier post seems to indicate that you feel date alone gives a particular book weight or qualifies it to be considered as scripture; the fact is that even if a book was proven to be written before the gospels, it is the testimony of eye witnesses and the link the writer had with the Apostles and their contemporaties that gives a book the authority necessary to be regarded as scripture (at least by first century standards). In short it is not merely the date (although of course relevant) but the endorsment (at least in a secular sense) of those that had a direct historical link to the eyewitensses of events, that did and still does allow us to establish the biblical canon.

=====================

The Vaticanus is a 4th century codex: What has that got to do with the price of bacon? As valuable as the Vatican Codex is it has no bearing on what books were originally part of the bible canon.

[Shermana]

Iraneus is an interesting figure, useful if anything just for his references but not his personal beliefs. I believe he had his own agenda and modified and retitled the Gospel of "John" which is not referenced by name until him. Justin Martyr quotes from "John" but never by name.

Iraneus is the first person to quote the Pastoral Epistles. There is no evidence of them or any Pauline attribution to them until him.

The "Gnostic Gospels" like Gospel of Thomas are clearly out, but some are not exactly as Gnostic as claims are made, like Acts of Thomas which even appears to show evidence of "Orthodox" (Syrian) modification.

And about your quote....

"The Vaticanus is a 4th century codex: What has that got to do with the price of bacon? As valuable as the Vatican Codex is it has no bearing on what books were originally part of the bible canon."

This is like saying that the price of Tea in China has nothing to do with the Price of Chinese Tea in California. Saying that it has no bearing whtasoever eliminates the possibility of it having bearing, as if there's a reason to simply disclude the exclusion of 3 whole books to merely the possibility of physical wear and tear or that it simply doesn't mean anything.

It does mean something. It means a lot. Especially the fact that its not mentioned until Iraneus and even then, there appears to be a disputation if there's any fact that all 3 books are coincidentally gone. Perhaps maybe, the 3 pastorals were bound together and all fell out cleanly.