Apocraphyl Gospels.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:09 pm

I was watching a documentary last night concerning the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary. Apparently here are plenty of apocryphal writings. Link .

So my questions are:

1/ Who decides which ancients writings are canonical?
2/ Are there any writings that should be included in the New Testament presently left out?
3/ If you do - why do you chose the present canon texts over the alternatives.

Muz · Post by **Muz** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:42 pm

1) The bible provides us with the criterion for inclusion in Scripture. Most notably 2 Peter 1:16-21 states that the disciples who saw Christ's glory (either in the transfiguration or ascension) and heard Christ's teachings were equal to the prophets of the OT in writing Scripture. Thus, the church needed sufficient evidence to discover the list.

2) The writings that are included have sufficient evidence to be included

3) The writings excluded are either by those who don't qualify (Shepherd of Hermes), or a pseudonymous (Gospel of Peter, et. al.)

Muz

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:13 pm

Muz wrote:1) The bible provides us with the criterion for inclusion in Scripture. Most notably 2 Peter 1:16-21 states that the disciples who saw Christ's glory (either in the transfiguration or ascension) and heard Christ's teachings were equal to the prophets of the OT in writing Scripture. Thus, the church needed sufficient evidence to discover the list.

2) The writings that are included have sufficient evidence to be included

3) The writings excluded are either by those who don't qualify (Shepherd of Hermes), or a pseudonymous (Gospel of Peter, et. al.)

Muz

Who chose Peter1:16-21 and the texts included in the bible as part of the canon?

Where does this leave Mary, Thomas, Philip?

I think I just read Cathar on another thread point out the writer of Mark is unkown. Maybe I got that wrong. Anyhow - who sets the the criteria for "sufficient evidence"?

Muz · Post by **Muz** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:49 am

Who chose Peter1:16-21 and the texts included in the bible as part of the canon?

The bible is what we call "self-authenticating", in that it is God's word and not just a collection of letters written by several individuals. Peter affirms this in 2 Peter for us.

Where does this leave Mary, Thomas, Philip?

Without anything that they wrote.

I think I just read Cathar on another thread point out the writer of Mark is unkown. Maybe I got that wrong. Anyhow - who sets the the criteria for "sufficient evidence"?

Fortunately, there was still enough institutional knowledge at the time the canon was selected to have a good idea of who wrote what.

Muz

OpenedUp · Post by **OpenedUp** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:22 pm

Muz wrote:
Who chose Peter1:16-21 and the texts included in the bible as part of the canon?
The bible is what we call "self-authenticating", in that it is God's word and not just a collection of letters written by several individuals. Peter affirms this in 2 Peter for us.

Except the Bible is written by a bunch of individuals. An individual wrote 2 Peter.

Where does this leave Mary, Thomas, Philip?
Without anything that they wrote.

So why exactly aren't they included?

I think I just read Cathar on another thread point out the writer of Mark is unkown. Maybe I got that wrong. Anyhow - who sets the the criteria for "sufficient evidence"?
Fortunately, there was still enough institutional knowledge at the time the canon was selected to have a good idea of who wrote what.

Muz

Actually Mattew, Mark, Luke, AND John were all written anonymously. As were a few other of the new testament books. And the knowledge of who wrote them was little more than a guess.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:59 am

OpenedUp wrote:Actually Matthew, Mark, Luke, AND John were all written anonymously. As were a few other of the new testament books. And the knowledge of who wrote them was little more than a guess.

Well you kind of took the words out of my mouth. But I’m a little less concerned with who really wrote what than the editorial control at play. For the bible to be inspired, not only must the writers of the different texts (whoever they were) be inspired by God, but the editors too. The editors beliefs as to what counts as the divine message must be correct. But they had no rule book to make that assessment for they were compiling the book.

It kind of makes me question whose message are Christians imbibing. The words and thoughts and actions of the hero of the piece - JC - or the beliefs, ideals and prejudices of the editors. If we go with its all the word of God then the editors choices must have been faultless. Which means that there is a thread of history running over a couple of hundred years that is a perfect trail of truthful affidavits, correct translations and interpretations, and perfect selection of content. With no one chipping in with their own self coined 2 pence.

GaHillBilly · Post by **GaHillBilly** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:42 pm

Furrowed Brow asked:

1. Who decides which ancients writings are canonical?
2. Are there any writings that should be included in the New Testament presently left out?
3. If you do - why do you chose the present canon texts over the alternatives.

1. Probably, you meant to ask, "who decided which ancient writings are canonical" or perhaps, "who has the legitimate authority to determine the canon?". Otherwise, the answer to your question is "whoever wants to do so", or "who ever has a printing press, and can publish a version of the "Bible".

Of course, the answer to my first version of your question is, "Councils of the Church, during the 4th (Western church) through the 7th centuries (Eastern church). Later the Council of Trent (Roman) ratified what had already been established. Around the same time, various Protestant gatherings ratified the same canon, minus the 'Apocrypha'".

You may also have meant to ask, "How did the church decide what was, and was not, canonical?" That's a question with a very long answer. Generally, my understanding is that the canonical books were either part of the Hebrew Scriptures or (a) thought to be authored by an apostle, and/or (b) widely used and accepted by the confessing church in the first two centuries, and (c) understood to be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures.

2. The answer is "yes", "no", or "maybe", depending on how you answer the first question. But for orthodox RC, Eastern, or Protestant churches, the answer is "no".

3. If you are choosing for yourself, you can use any method you like. It's obviously been popular recently to revise the Canon to include books thought to support ideas the revisionist likes, and to exclude books with ideas he/she finds unpalatable.

But, if you are part of the confessing Christian community, well, you aren't going to get much help. However much disagreement there is among the various Christian communities, the identity of the core canon (proto-canon) is one the points of unchallenged unanimity.

GaHillBilly

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:17 am

well for editors you take into account eusibus(oh my i probably wrangled that name).he was responsible for scribing much of what we read today in the bible.he was also quoted as saying that he willing took out anything that was written against jesus and willing inserted what he thought should be there.

Revelations won · Post by **Revelations won** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:56 pm

Here is an interesting thought to consider.

Suppose all the books currently in the canon of scripture and those which are not included remained until 2008 as separate books.

If the decision were made today to compile and select which should be included or not included, how and on what basis and by whom should that fateful choice be given?

How many today would fully agree and fully support those choices?

Who if any could claim divine right to make those choices?

To say the least, I think this would be an amusing experiment!

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:42 am

Revelations won wrote:Here is an interesting thought to consider.

Suppose all the books currently in the canon of scripture and those which are not included remained until 2008 as separate books.

If the decision were made today to compile and select which should be included or not included, how and on what basis and by whom should that fateful choice be given?

How many today would fully agree and fully support those choices?

Who if any could claim divine right to make those choices?

To say the least, I think this would be an amusing experiment!

Groups have already done that. The orthodox were the ones that made the discision while others were outlawed. I suggest we keep them all and judge that like any writings. Why leave out the Egyptian Book of the dead amd ancient ancient myths? We should be making new ones.