Mythic denominational history.

[hedrick]

The earliest part of the list of popes.
The "Donation of Constantine."
Indeed the whole early church is full of forged documents, some of which made it into the NT.

 

[The Liturgist]

The earliest part of the list of popes.
The "Donation of Constantine."
Indeed the whole early church is full of forged documents, some of which made it into the NT.

What documents in the New Testament do you think are forged, as opposed to being written by different authors of the same name? To my knowledge, aside from controversial works of higher criticism that suggest that several Pauline epistles were not written by St. Paul, which are not widely accepted by most Christian theologians, the only text widely regarded as spurious to the point where several recent Bible translations omit it is the Longer Ending of Mark. There is also the case of the Adultery Pericope, which appears to be an interpolation, but that does not mean it is not an authentic text.

In the early church, as you doubtless know, the authenticity of the Apocalypse, James, Jude, Hebrews and 2 Peter was doubted, and these were not included in the original Peshitta, but were later added to the Western Peshitto used by the Syriac Orthodox, Maronite Catholics and various smaller churches of the same liturgical rite from the 6th century Harklean Bible translated by St. Thomas Harqel.

Also out of curiosity are there any works you think should be in the canonical New Testament which are rejected as Apocrypha?

 

[hedrick]

What documents in the New Testament do you think are forged, as opposed to being written by different authors of the same name? To my knowledge, aside from controversial works of higher criticism that suggest that several Pauline epistles were not written by St. Paul, which are not widely accepted by most Christian theologians, the only text widely regarded as spurious to the point where several recent Bible translations omit it is the Longer Ending of Mark. There is also the case of the Adultery Pericope, which appears to be an interpolation, but that does not mean it is not an authentic text.

In the early church, as you doubtless know, the authenticity of the Apocalypse, James, Jude, Hebrews and 2 Peter was doubted, and these were not included in the original Peshitta, but were later added to the Western Peshitto used by the Syriac Orthodox, Maronite Catholics and various smaller churches of the same liturgical rite from the 6th century Harklean Bible translated by St. Thomas Harqel.

Also out of curiosity are there any works you think should be in the canonical New Testament which are rejected as Apocrypha?

The Pastorals and 2 Peter are the clearest, but there are reasonable doubts about all the named authors, outside the generally accepted Pauline works. I think it likely that at least some of the books associated with John are by a prominent John, though not one of the twelve. I don’t think we have enough information for a confident judgement on every book, so I’m not going to give one.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Pastorals and 2 Peter are the clearest, but there are reasonable doubts about all the named authors, outside the generally accepted Pauline works. I think it likely that at least some of the books associated with John are by a prominent John, though not one of the twelve. I don’t think we have enough information for a confident judgement on every book, so I’m not going to give one.

Indeed, this corresponds with much of the scholarship I have read. There is quite a bit of speculation that there were three different Johns writing in the New Testament, although I personally disagree because the Greek style of the Johannine corpus is consistently flawed.

But regarding 2 Peter, it was indeed controversial in the Patristic era, like the Apocalypse.

I myself wish the now lost Gospel of the Hebrews, and the mostly lost Gospel According to Peter, had survived, and based on mostly favorable Patristic opinions of them, wish they had been included, along with the Protoevangelion of James, which corresponds with Orthodox doctrine. The early church Fathers however were extremely strict about excluding anything not written by the Apostles, even if it reflected Apostolic teaching, for example, 1 Clement and the Epistles of St. Ignatius.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The Pastorals and 2 Peter are the clearest, but there are reasonable doubts about all the named authors, outside the generally accepted Pauline works. I think it likely that at least some of the books associated with John are by a prominent John, though not one of the twelve. I don’t think we have enough information for a confident judgement on every book, so I’m not going to give one.

that is a pretty bold statemet.