New Testament Apocrypha question

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
Is there any benefit to reading the books deemed New Testament Apocrypha? I have been interested in early Christian views of the afterlife. Read the Apocalypse of Peter and the Apocalypse of Paul and they are very interesting for sure. See something I’ve realized after reading some of the Acts apocrypha is that a lot of our traditional views of how the Apostles died are portrayed in them. It may be blasphemy but at times I wonder if the New Testament should include more books than it does. Especially books such as the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas.
 
The NT should not include more books. The Canon cannot be changed, so far as I know.
 
The apocrypha are not inspired, but some of them have historical value. I ead the gospel of the birth of the BVM and found it contained the information that Catholics take for granted about Mary but are no where in the Bible.

On the other hand, some of the books are heretical; I believe the Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic gospel. If you do read any of these, do the research and find out where they come from first.

Patrick
AMDG
 
Many, if not all, were already described by the Church Fathers as heretical or forgeries.
 
The choice of which books are included, and which excluded, from the NT canon was an act of the Magisterium. Christianity would be different if we had a different canon. Some of those excluded books contain no heresy, and are fine examples of NT era faith, as you suggested. But other clearly point to a different Christ, more by what they omit than by what contain.

So I would avoid the false gospels. The problem with reading false gospels, as opposed to writings of the Early church fathers, is that the ECF’s never claim to be scripture, so they can be taken for what they are. The false gospels, and other New Testament wannabes, is that they do claim to that level of inspiration, they do compete in our minds with the real gospels.

This is even more important than it used to be, since the false gospels are creeping into college bible studies, the media, and even some churches. We have to make that distinction much clearer now, because there are people more and more currently seeking to blur those lines between canonical, and non canonical.
 
Last edited:
Jestersage said:
What about didache?
Click to expand...
Didache is fine. Read it. It is not in the Bible though. I do not recommend reading the faux gospels, because they are presented as being actual Gospels. There is a movement, including “A New New Testament”, that puts the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary right in among the “traditional” 4 Gospels. This causes confusion.
 
There are books to be avoided but many which were accepted as scripture by the Church Fathers.

Ntcanon.org has a in depth view of this especially on the table.

In Eusebius’ "Church History " (325), he gives us a look into it. See even books that ultimately made the Bible were disputed, others that didn’t make it were barely excluded. The antilegomena or “disputed writings” were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term “disputed” should therefore not be misunderstood to mean “false” or “heretical.” There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.

So yes there are books that are Gnostic and should be avoided ( much of the Nag Hammadi collection), however many works say the New Testament Apocrypha translated by M.R. James are mostly orthodox Christian works that didn’t make the Canon because of late dates of authorship or disputes in whether it was Apostolic in origin etc.
 
And ironically " The Apocalypse of Paul, written in the 3rd century which most scholars believe was an expansion of the Apocalypse of Peter, written most likely around 125 in Egypt, is the main basis of Dantes Inferno. Many of our traditional beliefs actually appear in extra canonical texts. Say the birth of Mary is in the Protoevangelium of James. The crucifixion of Peter is in the Acts of Peter and the beheading of Paul is in the Acts of Paul. Actually most extra canonical books do have some things in them that we actually take for granted as “sacred tradition”, but the source seems to come from many of these books. Especially the Apostolic Fathers collection.
 
commenter said:
Didache is fine. Read it. It is not in the Bible though. I do not recommend reading the faux gospels, because they are presented as being actual Gospels
Click to expand...
Also, The Didache was actually in consideration to be viewed as scripture as was the Shepherd of Hermas and the First Epistle of Clement. These were authentic writings being used as scripture in some churches but ultimately determined not to be inspired. These are not to be confused with the writings that were flat out rejected as heretical or forgeries.
 
ajcstr said:
Also, The Didache was actually in consideration to be viewed as scripture as was the Shepherd of Hermas and the First Epistle of Clement. These were authentic writings being used as scripture in some churches but ultimately determined not to be inspired. These are not to be confused with the writings that were flat out rejected as heretical or forgeries.
Click to expand...
The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and for that matter massive writings of the Early Church Fathers were not deemed to be inspired, to the level of Scripture. To some extent, they are reliable resources of Sacred Tradition, so you can say partially “inspired” as tradition to the extent identified by the Magisterium. But they do not rise to the level of Scripture.

They are useful for us to read, in the context of the times in which they were written. They help us understand Scripture, looking earlier, and also looking later, the development of Catholic doctrine. This is different from faux gospels that present Jesus as saying or doing things he never said or did. The false gospels either present Jesus as a Teacher only, or deny the supernatural, or make Him out to be strictly spiritual, like a ghost or vision, with no incarnation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top