"Legitimate" scriptures in the Apocrypha?

[Esdra]

Hi all!

In another thread I’ve read the following:

But in the early centuries there were hundreds of gospels,letters, and acts, besides other writtings. There were the ligitimate books and the doubtful/uncertain books.

So my question is: Which books of the NT outside of the canon are “legitimate” and which aren’t. (Or: as fred writes: doubtful/uncertain.)
I mean, especially concerning the NT apocrypha it is often really hard to judge which are gnostic (like the Gospel according to St. Thomas) and which are legitimate (like the letters of St. Clement of Rome).

With the OT it’s easier, IMO. Could you even say that all OT apocrypha (I am not counting the deuterocanonical books of the CC as Apocrypha in this case!) are “legitimate”?

 

[FightingFat]

Hi all!

In another thread I’ve read the following:

So my question is: Which books of the NT outside of the canon are “legitimate” and which aren’t. (Or: as fred writes: doubtful/uncertain.)
I mean, especially concerning the NT apocrypha it is often really hard to judge which are gnostic (like the Gospel according to St. Thomas) and which are legitimate (like the letters of St. Clement of Rome).

With the OT it’s easier, IMO. Could you even say that all OT apocrypha (I am not counting the deuterocanonical books of the CC as Apocrypha in this case!) are “legitimate”?

No, the canon is the canon. Thus it has evolved. The reason Catholic Bibles include more books that the KJV is because Luther preferred the Canon of Hebrew Scripture agreed at Jamnia in 100AD.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Hi all!

In another thread I’ve read the following:

So my question is: Which books of the NT outside of the canon are “legitimate” and which aren’t. (Or: as fred writes: doubtful/uncertain.)
I mean, especially concerning the NT apocrypha it is often really hard to judge which are gnostic (like the Gospel according to St. Thomas) and which are legitimate (like the letters of St. Clement of Rome).

With the OT it’s easier, IMO. Could you even say that all OT apocrypha (I am not counting the deuterocanonical books of the CC as Apocrypha in this case!) are “legitimate”?

It helps to know a little history behind the Bible.

Before Jesus was born, the Jews had the Old Testament. It was first written in Hebrew. Eventually, there came to be a very large contingent of Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, which was like the bread basket of the Mediterranean area. Lots of commerce, etc. As time went by, most of the Jews in Egypt couldn’t read or write Hebrew, but they could read or write in Greek, which was the common language among Mediterranean nations, much like English is today, or Latin was in the Middle Ages, etc. So, the Jews commissioned some folks to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This Greek translation was called the Septuagent, which comes from the number seventy. Supposedly, seventy scholars translated seventy books in seventy days (give or take, I’m sure), to come up with the Greek version of the Old Testament. There was no canon of the Jewish Scriptures until the early second century, so there were some differences among copies of the Jewish Scriptures.

So, when the Magisterium of the Catholic Church met in the fourth century to decide on the canon of the Bible, the chose the Septuagent version of the Old Testament. Why? Because approximately 80% of the references in what became the New Testament to the Old Testament were from the Septuagent version. Therefore, it is believed that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagent version much more than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament.

Fast forward to the early 1500’s and the Protestant Reformation, begun by Martin Luther. Martin Luther, an ex-Catholic priest, decided that he didn’t care for some of the doctrines supported by the Septuagent version of the Old Testament, such as the doctrine of Purgatory. He also didn’t like some of the New Testament and tried to throw out some of that, too, especially the epistle of James, which says that “faith without works is dead.” That went against his new doctrine, which he made out of thin air, of “Sola Fides” or “Saved by Faith Alone.” Very unbiblical. His friends eventually talked him into putting James back in. But not on the Old Testament version. That’s where the difference comes from.

If you would like to know more about the history of the Bible, i.e., how did it come about, you can view the short video series, “Origin of the Bible” here:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

 

[1ke]

Hi all!

In another thread I’ve read the following:

So my question is: Which books of the NT outside of the canon are “legitimate” and which aren’t. (Or: as fred writes: doubtful/uncertain.)
I mean, especially concerning the NT apocrypha it is often really hard to judge which are gnostic (like the Gospel according to St. Thomas) and which are legitimate (like the letters of St. Clement of Rome).

With the OT it’s easier, IMO. Could you even say that all OT apocrypha (I am not counting the deuterocanonical books of the CC as Apocrypha in this case!) are “legitimate”?

Here is an article on apocrypha:

newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

The letters of Clement, Ignatius, the Didache, etc, are not apocrypha, they are patristic writings-- writings of the early church fathers.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Friend,

Your description of the history was well, until you arrived at Luther. He did not remove anything from the western canon. If you doubt me, check out the German translation he made, or any of the German Bibles through the 19th century. However, like St. Jerome, and other Fathers, he noted that some of the Scriptures were more solid for the formation of doctrine, and others less so. Luther removed nothing from the western canon, and neither did the English Reformation with the KJV. Again, just pick up an historical 1611 version of the KJV, and you’ll see the whole western canon there. It was not until much later (mostly the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when in America Lutherans and Anglicans became heavily influenced by fundamentalist protestants) when Protestant Bibles began leaving the duetercanon out. I wish they hadn’t, but that’s the way it happened.

As to the original poster’s question, I think your question might better be posed as what is useful, rather than what is legitimate. When the canon of Holy Scripture is ratified by the Church, the Church Fathers are recognizing certain aspects of those writings which make them a fomal rule of faith (hence the word “canon.”) Usually this was tied to Apostolic or Prophetic authorship, either directly or indirectly, and whether the doctrine put forward in the writing was authentic to the Apostolic Tradition. During the first few centuries of the Church, there were several other writings circulating with what would become the ratified canon of Holy Scripture, and they were held in very high regard. As you note, the epistles of St. Clement are a good example. Also among those useful writings, was the Shepherd of Hermas, most likley written by St. Barnabas according to my research-- no slouch, indeed. Another was the Didache, or Teaching of the 12 Apostles, which is a fascinating 1st or 2nd century document on how the church functioned and catechized.

There were also works which were not helpful or useful. Gnostic and heretic “gospels” or epistles floated around, but they were not, to my recollection, ever found gathered together into the collections of what the Church either called canon or found useful.

I hope that helps. Peace be with you.

It helps to know a little history behind the Bible.

Before Jesus was born, the Jews had the Old Testament. It was first written in Hebrew. Eventually, there came to be a very large contingent of Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, which was like the bread basket of the Mediterranean area. Lots of commerce, etc. As time went by, most of the Jews in Egypt couldn’t read or write Hebrew, but they could read or write in Greek, which was the common language among Mediterranean nations, much like English is today, or Latin was in the Middle Ages, etc. So, the Jews commissioned some folks to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This Greek translation was called the Septuagent, which comes from the number seventy. Supposedly, seventy scholars translated seventy books in seventy days (give or take, I’m sure), to come up with the Greek version of the Old Testament. There was no canon of the Jewish Scriptures until the early second century, so there were some differences among copies of the Jewish Scriptures.

So, when the Magisterium of the Catholic Church met in the fourth century to decide on the canon of the Bible, the chose the Septuagent version of the Old Testament. Why? Because approximately 80% of the references in what became the New Testament to the Old Testament were from the Septuagent version. Therefore, it is believed that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagent version much more than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament.

Fast forward to the early 1500’s and the Protestant Reformation, begun by Martin Luther. Martin Luther, an ex-Catholic priest, decided that he didn’t care for some of the doctrines supported by the Septuagent version of the Old Testament, such as the doctrine of Purgatory. He also didn’t like some of the New Testament and tried to throw out some of that, too, especially the epistle of James, which says that “faith without works is dead.” That went against his new doctrine, which he made out of thin air, of “Sola Fides” or “Saved by Faith Alone.” Very unbiblical. His friends eventually talked him into putting James back in. But not on the Old Testament version. That’s where the difference comes from.

If you would like to know more about the history of the Bible, i.e., how did it come about, you can view the short video series, “Origin of the Bible” here:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

 

[KathleenGee]

The Gospel of St. Thomas is the only one…that I am thinking is considered inspired but for private revelation.

The rest of the books and writings were not considered inspired at all.

The Catholic Bible, several out there, have all the books inspired for public revelation in that they encompass the whole of human existence and the universality of the human condition.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Good morning,

I’m not aware of any orthodox authority (Roman, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican…) that would promote the gnostic Gospel of Thomas as inspired, or worthy even of private meditation. It has a scholarly application for introducing the way gnostic sects began their psuedo-apostolic writing campaign to undermine the authentic Apostolic Gospel, but I could never recommend it for the general consumption of the faithful. I doubt that Rome does, either… though if I’m wrong on that, please feel free to educate me.

Blessings to you.

The Gospel of St. Thomas is the only one…that I am thinking is considered inspired but for private revelation.

The rest of the books and writings were not considered inspired at all.

The Catholic Bible, several out there, have all the books inspired for public revelation in that they encompass the whole of human existence and the universality of the human condition.

 

[1ke]

The Gospel of St. Thomas is the only one…that I am thinking is considered inspired but for private revelation.

This is not correct.

The Gospel of Thomas is not and has never been considered inspired. It is also not ‘private revelation.’

It has been *condemned *as a heretical book from the earliest centuries. It is a gnostic writing.

 

[Esdra]

The Gospel of St. Thomas is the only one…that I am thinking is considered inspired but for private revelation.

The rest of the books and writings were not considered inspired at all.

The Catholic Bible, several out there, have all the books inspired for public revelation in that they encompass the whole of human existence and the universality of the human condition.

Hi Kathleen,

I’ve always thought the Gospel of St. Thomas was gnostic and thus heretic?

 

[Esdra]

First of all, workerpriest, you are completely right, neither Luther nor the English reformators excluded the deuterocanonical books completely form their Bible translation.
I believe the first one to do so was Calvin, 'though even Calvin (Zurich Bible of 1868) included:

1, 2 & 3 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Letter of Jeremiah, as, Baruch, Ben Sirach, Wisdom, 2 Esdras, the “Additions” to Esther and Daniel, as well as the prayer of Manasseh.

• (Note: The 1993 included those written in bold. With the revision of 2007 I believe all “Apocrypha” were [again] taken out of the Zurich Bible [which is the Standard Bible among the reformed-evangelical Churches in the German speaking Area.)*

As to the original poster’s question, I think your question might better be posed as what is useful, rather than what is legitimate. When the canon of Holy Scripture is ratified by the Church, the Church Fathers are recognizing certain aspects of those writings which make them a fomal rule of faith (hence the word “canon.”) Usually this was tied to Apostolic or Prophetic authorship, either directly or indirectly, and whether the doctrine put forward in the writing was authentic to the Apostolic Tradition. During the first few centuries of the Church, there were several other writings circulating with what would become the ratified canon of Holy Scripture, and they were held in very high regard. As you note, the epistles of St. Clement are a good example. Also among those useful writings, was the Shepherd of Hermas, most likley written by St. Barnabas according to my research-- no slouch, indeed. Another was the Didache, or Teaching of the 12 Apostles, which is a fascinating 1st or 2nd century document on how the church functioned and catechized.

There were also works which were not helpful or useful. Gnostic and heretic “gospels” or epistles floated around, but they were not, to my recollection, ever found gathered together into the collections of what the Church either called canon or found useful.

I hope that helps. Peace be with you.

Thank you, friend. This is exactely what I meant!
**Is there a list with

workerpriest:

helpful/useful

** apocryphal NT (or OT) books in the internet?

I would say that the Books of the Septuagint, concerning the OT, are most definitely useful. But what about the oriental Orthodox Scriptures like the 3rd Book of Baruch or the 1st and 2nd Book of Enoch etc.?

I mean, I know this website here. But it doesn’t say which books are heretic/gnostic and which aren’t. (as it is, I suppose, a protestant website). - Concerning the NT.*

 

[WorkerPriest]

Greetings, Esdra!

I think the trouble with finding any lists regarding the useful books, is tied up in which local bishops or pastors found them useful, and which did not. Since many of these useful documents were not spread universally throughout the Church in the early centuries, not everyone agreed on their usefulness. I think this is why we can, in today’s Christian environment, peruse these books as potentially useful, but not necessarily put them on equal footing with the formal canon of Scripture (which is universally attested.)

The safest rule or canon of the faith, most universally accepted by the early Church and into the current era, are the Holy Scriptures as we have received them. These are the heart of public revelation, and hold a unique status among all Christians. The other books may or may not be useful, and any questions arising from reading them, should probably be addressed to your local pastor for doctrinal review.

For the Oriental Orthodox and their respective canon(s), I would be hesitant to endorse them too much. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon is, I think, the most expansive. However, the fact that only one or two particular churches accepts these additional documents, should give us some pause regarding their catholicity or universality in terms of doctrine. They may in fact be useful (as obviously the patriarchs of those particular churches would insist) but since they are not universally acclaimed, either today nor in antiquity, we must receive them as at best helpful or useful within their context.

Blessings be to you!

First of all, workerpriest, you are completely right, neither Luther nor the English reformators excluded the deuterocanonical books completely form their Bible translation.
I believe the first one to do so was Calvin, 'though even Calvin (Zurich Bible of 1868) included:

• (Note: The 1993 included those written in bold. With the revision of 2007 I believe all “Apocrypha” were [again] taken out of the Zurich Bible [which is the Standard Bible among the reformed-evangelical Churches in the German speaking Area.)*

Thank you, friend. This is exactely what I meant!
Is there a list with apocryphal NT (or OT) books in the internet?*

I would say that the Books of the Septuagint, concerning the OT, are most definitely useful. But what about the oriental Orthodox Scriptures like the 3rd Book of Baruch or the 1st and 2nd Book of Enoch etc.?

I mean, I know this website here. But it doesn’t say which books are heretic/gnostic and which aren’t. (as it is, I suppose, a protestant website). - Concerning the NT.

 

[Publisher]

The Gospel of St. Thomas is the only one…that I am thinking is considered inspired but for private revelation.

The rest of the books and writings were not considered inspired at all.

The Catholic Bible, several out there, have all the books inspired for public revelation in that they encompass the whole of human existence and the universality of the human condition.

While I find the GoT one of my favorite “extra-canonical” writings, I do not believe too many “conservative” believers…either Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant would find GoT belongs with the other canonical gospels…I do however believe it is probably as old as “John” and gives credence to the "Q sayings “gospel” ". For years it was claimed there was no such thing as a “sayings gospel”…and here we have Thomas.

While I personally use the Oxford Annotted Bible, which includes the Greek and Latin canon, I also find “inspiration” in some of the “apocryphal” writings of the New Testament. They cast light upon the early development of Christian thought and belief.

All scripture…no matter what “canon” it is found in, is profitable to read and study. The Word of God is more than a collection of sayings/writings bound together in black leather. The Word of God is written on each heart…and the Truth of any scripture adn it’s worth is if it inspires one to live the Truth…not just claim it’s proclamation.

 

[KathleenGee]

Take that back…about St. Thomas…I recall it was attached Nestorianism…sorry…

Actually, from what I saw of the list awhile back…don’t see how any could be viewed as even private revelation…will check back…

 

[KathleenGee]

Public revelation is for all mankind, past, present and future…universal…

We have private devotions, even approved apparitions of Mary, but are still considered private revelations…even though celebrations are made in public…Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe…

 

[Esdra]

All scripture…no matter what “canon” it is found in, is profitable to read and study. The Word of God is more than a collection of sayings/writings bound together in black leather. The Word of God is written on each heart…and the Truth of any scripture adn it’s worth is if it inspires one to live the Truth…not just claim it’s proclamation.

While I do agree (in the meantime, after being here in CAF for some time and after 800 posts) that all extra-canonical Christian scriptures are useful for study, I do have a problem with Gnostic and other heretic (i.e. Nestorianism or Marcionism) early writings. - As they are not Christian…
And actually this was the reason why I started this thread.
You see, there are so many Early writings out there - and actually, I think it is dangerous for a Christian to read heretic scriptures, as many ECF pointed out. [Okay, I am also reading LDS scriptures on the other hand. But as I had often pointed out in various LDS threads here, I think especially the BoM is “very orthodox Christian”.]
So to conclude, I can well understand sola-scriptura Protestants who condemn all other scriptures outside the bible as apocrypha. - As it can be dangerous to read such things.

 

[Publisher]

While I do agree (in the meantime, after being here in CAF for some time and after 800 posts) that all extra-canonical Christian scriptures are useful for study, I do have a problem with Gnostic and other heretic (i.e. Nestorianism or Marcionism) early writings. - As they are not Christian…
And actually this was the reason why I started this thread.
You see, there are so many Early writings out there - and actually, I think it is dangerous for a Christian to read heretic scriptures, as many ECF pointed out. [Okay, I am also reading LDS scriptures on the other hand. But as I had often pointed out in various LDS threads here, I think especially the BoM is “very orthodox Christian”.]
So to conclude, I can well understand sola-scriptura Protestants who condemn all other scriptures outside the bible as apocrypha. - As it can be dangerous to read such things.

I am not afraid of words on a page of paper. They hold no power in or of themselves.

Gnostic, Nestorianism or Marcionism WERE “Christian”, they just weren’t the type of “Christians” who eventually came to dominion of all other groups.

Many of the “extra-canonical” writings offer deep insight into the development of developing Christian thought and belief as well as insights into the historical development of that particular sect of “Christians” that came to be known as “Orthodox/Catholic”.

Just because someone claiming to have been taught by John calls another believer…different yes…but believer still…“heretic”…even though the “heretics” claim apostolic authority as well is no real surprise after being on this board a couple years.

Many are quick to label “heretic” any who disagree with their set standards of belief…I too am a “heretic”…so I feel I’m in good company among the condemned.

 

[Esdra]

I am not afraid of words on a page of paper. They hold no power in or of themselves.

Gnostic, Nestorianism or Marcionism WERE “Christian”, they just weren’t the type of “Christians” who eventually came to dominion of all other groups.

Many of the “extra-canonical” writings offer deep insight into the development of developing Christian thought and belief as well as insights into the historical development of that particular sect of “Christians” that came to be known as “Orthodox/Catholic”.

Just because someone claiming to have been taught by John calls another believer…different yes…but believer still…“heretic”…even though the “heretics” claim apostolic authority as well is no real surprise after being on this board a couple years.

Many are quick to label “heretic” any who disagree with their set standards of belief…I too am a “heretic”…so I feel I’m in good company among the condemned.

Well, then I am most certainly a heretic as well. Welcome in the club of the heretics.

But, actually, since this is a Catholic Answers Forum, I was and am more interested which early Christian writings are catholic, and which aren’t.
You see, there are so many writings around. - And people have told me to read the ECF (like Jerome, Martyr, St. Clement, St. Ignatius etc.) - BUT there are so many other scriptures around like those of Marcion, those of the Gnostics or those of the Nestorianists - and I think the Catholics that advised me that, most certainly didn’t mean that I should read Early heretic scriptures but catholic ones.

Thus, I am looking for a list where it is exactely labeled: “This column is catholic” - “This column is heretic.”

Especially when you browse protestant websites everything is called apocrypha, you see? - Even the deuterocanonical books…