New Testament Apocrypha

[The Liturgist]

Recently, I have become more interested in the idea of churches using some of the New Testament apocrypha, for two reasons: firstly, some of it, like the Protoevangelion of James and the Gospel of Nicodemus, contains actual doctrines of the ancient church, and other examples, such as the fragment of the Gospel of St. Peter (I desperately wish we had the whole thing) and some of the Odes of Solomon are in my opinion doctrinally sound, and I am convinced the Gospel of Thomas is a genuine Apostolic document that has interpolations from a sect such as the Encratites, Severians or Tatianists, and these could easily be removed. Secondly, doing this would encourage Christians to access these books from a legitimate, doctrinally correct source; I am a huge fan of the Year D concept for the Revised Common Lectionary (the readings for Christmas and Easter could use some work, but I think on the whole, the proposal would eliminate my objections to the RCL), and this could amusingly offer us a Year E (on this last point, I jest).

Since I have come to accept the fact that I am widely regarded as a liberal by a substantial number of members of the forum*, this is convenient because thus far only Liberal Christians have seriously considered using these books, to their credit. The late Fr. Boucher, memory eternal, of the Episcopal Church, quoted the Gospel of Mary as justification for a proposed liturgical change, and of course liberal theologians such as Hal Taussig, whose work I do admire, and I think it is of a much higher quality than that the work of the Jesus Seminar by Robert Funk, memory eternal, due to a statistical flaw in the latter’s voting method, is clearly a fan, with a deep love for a wide range of NT apocrypha and the canonical books, although I really wish A New New Testament included the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Peter, although I am glad he did not include the Gospel of Judas, which I think many of us might agree is too problematic to have any real value to Nicene Christians.

So I wanted to ask: are any of you familiar with any mainline parishes or other Nicene churches, such as parishes of the liberal Old Catholic churches or parishes of the Metropolitan Community Church, which are using any of the NT apocrypha? Particularly, reading them in church in any capacity?

Also, regarding NT apocrypha, which, of any of the books, do you think would be beneficial if used by a Nicene Church? I myself obviously at present can only think of four, plus a subset of the Odes of Solomon, which are among the oldest Christian hymns, and these are obviously not the canon agreed on by Hal Taussig’s New Orleans Council in A New New Testament, but I am open to ideas. I once read The Gospel of Truth, which is widely considered Valentinian, and actually found it edifying, and I am not convinced it is the same document as the one considered Valentinian, or if it is, it predates the departure of Valentinus from the mainstream of the Roman Church.

Curiously, the only examples I am aware of are both Oriental Orthodox: the Armenians consider 3 Corinthians canonical, but it is not in their lectionary as far as I am aware, and the Ethiopian Broad Canon has the Didascalia, which is very similiar to the Didache, in the New Testament, but I have never seen an Ethiopian Orthodox lectionary so I have no idea how they use it.

 

[dqhall]

Recently, I have become more interested in the idea of churches using some of the New Testament apocrypha, for two reasons: firstly, some of it, like the Protoevangelion of James and the Gospel of Nicodemus, contains actual doctrines of the ancient church, and other examples, such as the fragment of the Gospel of St. Peter (I desperately wish we had the whole thing) and some of the Odes of Solomon are in my opinion doctrinally sound, and I am convinced the Gospel of Thomas is a genuine Apostolic document that has interpolations from a sect such as the Encratites, Severians or Tatianists, and these could easily be removed. Secondly, doing this would encourage Christians to access these books from a legitimate, doctrinally correct source; I am a huge fan of the Year D concept for the Revised Common Lectionary (the readings for Christmas and Easter could use some work, but I think on the whole, the proposal would eliminate my objections to the RCL), and this could amusingly offer us a Year E (on this last point, I jest).

Since I have come to accept the fact that I am widely regarded as a liberal by a substantial number of members of the forum*, this is convenient because thus far only Liberal Christians have seriously considered using these books, to their credit. The late Fr. Boucher, memory eternal, of the Episcopal Church, quoted the Gospel of Mary as justification for a proposed liturgical change, and of course liberal theologians such as Hal Taussig, whose work I do admire, and I think it is of a much higher quality than that the work of the Jesus Seminar by Robert Funk, memory eternal, due to a statistical flaw in the latter’s voting method, is clearly a fan, with a deep love for a wide range of NT apocrypha and the canonical books, although I really wish A New New Testament included the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Peter, although I am glad he did not include the Gospel of Judas, which I think many of us might agree is too problematic to have any real value to Nicene Christians.

So I wanted to ask: are any of you familiar with any mainline parishes or other Nicene churches, such as parishes of the liberal Old Catholic churches or parishes of the Metropolitan Community Church, which are using any of the NT apocrypha? Particularly, reading them in church in any capacity?

Also, regarding NT apocrypha, which, of any of the books, do you think would be beneficial if used by a Nicene Church? I myself obviously at present can only think of four, plus a subset of the Odes of Solomon, which are among the oldest Christian hymns, and these are obviously not the canon agreed on by Hal Taussig’s New Orleans Council in A New New Testament, but I am open to ideas. I once read The Gospel of Truth, which is widely considered Valentinian, and actually found it edifying, and I am not convinced it is the same document as the one considered Valentinian, or if it is, it predates the departure of Valentinus from the mainstream of the Roman Church.

Curiously, the only examples I am aware of are both Oriental Orthodox: the Armenians consider 3 Corinthians canonical, but it is not in their lectionary as far as I am aware, and the Ethiopian Broad Canon has the Didascalia, which is very similiar to the Didache, in the New Testament, but I have never seen an Ethiopian Orthodox lectionary so I have no idea how they use it.

I studied a Nag Hammadi codices translation years ago. These were Gnostic writings. The Gospel of Thomas manuscript was of some interest, but not superior to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Tatian wrote a Gospel harmony. Clement of Alexandria was interesting. I read Jerome and Eusebius. Recently I mainly reviewed canonized sources. It is work to memorize Acts. If I turn away from it for a time, I forget. I opened Acts on my computer today and it was a wonderful sight.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Only the Ethiopians have extra NT books as far as I know. I think...

It certainly does seem like we are missing half the NT, doesn't it? It's like a wonderful story that is at it's peak....and then skips right to the end. We have Acts. Things are flowing smoothly. Then Paul takes over. James, John, and Peter have a few letters, and then Revelation. What about the other apostles? What happened next? Where is the rest of the story? It seems very suspicious to me. As if Books were removed to hide certain truths and keep the people ignorant. I wonder what is hidden in the Vatican's forbidden library?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It has been a long time since I read those books. I know that the Gospel of Thomas is not in line with early Christianity. It is a Gnostic gospel.

Are the Gnostic Gospels Reliable Sources?

What are the Gnostic gospels? | GotQuestions.org

The Top Three Heresies in the Gnostic Gospels

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Recently, I have become more interested in the idea of churches using some of the New Testament apocrypha, for two reasons: firstly, some of it, like the Protoevangelion of James and the Gospel of Nicodemus, contains actual doctrines of the ancient church, and other examples, such as the fragment of the Gospel of St. Peter (I desperately wish we had the whole thing) and some of the Odes of Solomon are in my opinion doctrinally sound, and I am convinced the Gospel of Thomas is a genuine Apostolic document that has interpolations from a sect such as the Encratites, Severians or Tatianists, and these could easily be removed. Secondly, doing this would encourage Christians to access these books from a legitimate, doctrinally correct source; I am a huge fan of the Year D concept for the Revised Common Lectionary (the readings for Christmas and Easter could use some work, but I think on the whole, the proposal would eliminate my objections to the RCL), and this could amusingly offer us a Year E (on this last point, I jest).

Since I have come to accept the fact that I am widely regarded as a liberal by a substantial number of members of the forum*, this is convenient because thus far only Liberal Christians have seriously considered using these books, to their credit. The late Fr. Boucher, memory eternal, of the Episcopal Church, quoted the Gospel of Mary as justification for a proposed liturgical change, and of course liberal theologians such as Hal Taussig, whose work I do admire, and I think it is of a much higher quality than that the work of the Jesus Seminar by Robert Funk, memory eternal, due to a statistical flaw in the latter’s voting method, is clearly a fan, with a deep love for a wide range of NT apocrypha and the canonical books, although I really wish A New New Testament included the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Peter, although I am glad he did not include the Gospel of Judas, which I think many of us might agree is too problematic to have any real value to Nicene Christians.

So I wanted to ask: are any of you familiar with any mainline parishes or other Nicene churches, such as parishes of the liberal Old Catholic churches or parishes of the Metropolitan Community Church, which are using any of the NT apocrypha? Particularly, reading them in church in any capacity?

Also, regarding NT apocrypha, which, of any of the books, do you think would be beneficial if used by a Nicene Church? I myself obviously at present can only think of four, plus a subset of the Odes of Solomon, which are among the oldest Christian hymns, and these are obviously not the canon agreed on by Hal Taussig’s New Orleans Council in A New New Testament, but I am open to ideas. I once read The Gospel of Truth, which is widely considered Valentinian, and actually found it edifying, and I am not convinced it is the same document as the one considered Valentinian, or if it is, it predates the departure of Valentinus from the mainstream of the Roman Church.

Curiously, the only examples I am aware of are both Oriental Orthodox: the Armenians consider 3 Corinthians canonical, but it is not in their lectionary as far as I am aware, and the Ethiopian Broad Canon has the Didascalia, which is very similiar to the Didache, in the New Testament, but I have never seen an Ethiopian Orthodox lectionary so I have no idea how they use it.

see other post

 

[Torah Keeper]

I certainly don't agree with Gnosticism. But perhaps there used to be more Books in the NT and now they are lost? Consider how many OT Books were lost. To name a few:

• The Book of the Prophet Iddo
• The Book of the Prophet Baruch
• The Book of the Wars of Yahweh
• The Book of Jasher (the real one)
• And all the times in the Bible we read "Behold, is it not written in the book of..."

Then we have all the NT quotes of Scripture, but no known OT source for them.

 

[The Liturgist]

I studied a Nag Hammadi codices translation years ago. These were Gnostic writings. The Gospel of Thomas manuscript was of some interest, but not superior to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Tatian wrote a Gospel harmony. Clement of Alexandria was interesting. I read Jerome and Eusebius. Recently I mainly reviewed canonized sources. It is work to memorize Acts. If I turn away from it for a time, I forget. I opened Acts on my computer today and it was a wonderful sight.

Indeed, I think the Gospel of Thomas was a legitimate document but it was corrupted by Gnostics, very possibly Tatianists, however, the majority of the content in it either matches the synoptics or is not heretical, so my idea is to purify it. Tatian’s Gospel harmony was the Diatessaron, composed before he left the Syriac speaking Church and formed his own cult. I have read reconstructions of it and it is incredibly boring. It was the primary means of access Syriac speaking Christians* to the Gospel until the translation of the Peshitta was completed in the fourth century (there were earlier translations into Syriac, but these were known for being difficult to understand, Peshitta literally translates to “simple”, and along with the Vulgate, is one of two ancient translations from the fourth century that leans more towards the Byzantine text type than the Alexandrian text type (the Vetus Latina, which the vulgate was intended to replace, but did not do so entirely, as it is from the Vetus Latina we obtain Latin liturgical phrases like “Gloria in exclesis deo” is a specimen of the poorly understood Western text type).

*Syriac Aramaic speaking Christians, who are now found in the Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, and Assyrian Church of the East, which has the world’s largest population who still speak Aramaic, at 700,000** were mostly evangelized by St. Thomas and his followers Saints Addai and Mari, who spanned a region from Edessa in Turkey to Malankara, India, where St. Thomas was martyred in 53 AD in Kerala by a Hindu ruler (Kerala was until the decades following the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 home to a Jewish community called the Kochin Jews; Vidal Sassoon is the most famous scion of this, and likewise there were Jewish communities all along the route of St. Thomas, and all of the churches in this region have a number of members of partial or, in the case of an endogamous group in India, total Jewish descent.

** The Maronite, Chaldean, and St. Thomas Christians in India used to speak Syriac, but the Maronites, Chaldeans, and the majority of Syriac Catholics and Syriac Orthodox now speak Arabic in the vernacular, using Classical Syriac as a liturgical language, much like the Coptic Church and the Coptic language. However a minority of Syriac Orthodox still speak Aramaic in the vernacular, as well as the residents of Maaloula - Wikipedia who are Melkite and Antiochian Orthodox. The St. Thomas Christians in India speak Malayalam in the vernacular, which is derived from a local family of languages not related to Hindu (and therefore not Indo-Iranian), but with heavy Syriac influence.

 

[The Liturgist]

I certainly don't agree with Gnosticism.

Nor do I. To be clear, I am not advocating for the use of any Gnostic texts, like the Protoevangelion of Thomas, or the Tripartite Tractate, or the Gospel of Judas. Rather I am interested in New Testament apocrypha that is doctrinally Nicene or was corrupted by heretics but can be restored, like the Gospel of Thomas (seriously, one could normalize it in fifteen minutes).

But perhaps there used to be more Books in the NT and now they are lost? Consider how many OT Books were lost. To name a few:

• The Book of the Prophet Iddo
• The Book of the Prophet Baruch
• The Book of the Wars of Yahweh
• The Book of Jasher (the real one)
• And all the times in the Bible we read "Behold, is it not written in the book of..."

Then we have all the NT quotes of Scripture, but no known OT source for them.

Originally there was no canon, but the Gnostics forced the creation of one. However, several books that were proposed for inclusion in the canon in the fourth century still exist, including the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, which is considered a valid Patristic writing, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Baruch* still exists actually; it is in the Deuterocanon, and John Calvin did not regard it as apocryphal. You can find Baruch in a complete version of the KJV, in the NRSV with Apocrypha, the Douai Rheims, and any translation of the Septuagint, such as the elegant 18th century Lancelot Brenton translation or the New English Translation of the Septuagint, both of which are freely available online, as well as a proprietary version available with the Orthodox Study Bible, which uses the NKJV for its New Testament and does a good job stylistically matching them.

*Unless you are talking about a different book, which I haven’t heard of. A lot of OT apocrypha is considered canonical and is preserved by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church, including 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and English translations are available. I myself accept everything the Ethiopian church accepts as canonical, as I have complete faith in their Orthodoxy.

 

[Lukaris]

Personally, I think the Bible versions that have been established within the Orthodox, Roman Catholic & Protestant Churches should remain as they stand. Some writings that you have cited like the Protoevangelion, Nicodemus, the Didache, Odes of Solomon etc. are basically sound but still not scripture. A person should at least briefly consult with their priest or pastor when reading these works.

Other works you have cited like the “gospels” of Thomas, Mary, Philip etc. I recall are usually cited with approval by gnostics like Elaine Pagels. These, I would think, should be avoided at least as far as the faith of the Nicene Creed professes. For ex. in the “gospel” of Philip, “Adam came into being from two virgins, from the spirit and from the virgin earth.” In another part, “ Some said, ‘Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?”

Years back, I read these various writings and just lost my train of thought at this point.

 

[The Liturgist]

It has been a long time since I read those books. I know that the Gospel of Thomas is not in line with early Christianity. It is a Gnostic gospel.

Are the Gnostic Gospels Reliable Sources?

What are the Gnostic gospels? | GotQuestions.org

The Top Three Heresies in the Gnostic Gospels

Many scholars including the Jesus Seminar and Hal Taussig disagree that it is Gnostic; I myself believe it is a Coptic translation of a Syriac original that at some point was corrupted, probably in Syriac (since we have Greek fragments of it, but philological analysis indicates it is a translation of a Syriac original). I believe the corruption was most likely the result of a sect such as the Tatianists and Encratites.

The reason I believe it is corrupted is because St. Hippolytus of Rome wrote a polemic against a similiar Gospel of Thomas, which had different wording in key places, which was translated by a subsect of the Ophites, called the
Naasseni and there are no traces of specifically Ophite doctrine in the Gospel of Thomas that has come down to us*. Many scholars share my view of there being multiple versions.

I would never use the Gospel of Thomas in its present form, although some would, including Hal Taussig, but there are problems in the text that you identified which I cannot reconcile with Nicene Christianity. Rather, I propose editing the text so that it contains only sayings of our Lord that are doctrinally Nicene orthodox and compatible with the canonical New Testament and Patristic sources.

This would create a restoration, or perhaps we might even call it a replica, of the original uncorrupted text.

*on the other hand, it seems to me very likely the Yazidis are actually crypto-Christians related to another sect related to the Ophites, but also not Ophite, based on a careful study I conducted of their theology. They also protected the Armenians during the genocide of 1915; in return, the Armenians allowed them to settle in Armenia, and some did; they comprise the largest ethnic minority in the country. This is very important for the survival of the Yazidis, considering the Islamic State ethnically cleansed them in Sinjar, killing all of the men and taking as slaves all the women and children who did not escape in time. The main Yazidi temple in Lalish was also in serious danger, but the Kurds protected it. In the long run, if Kurdish Muslims turn against the Yazidis and Yarsanis, who have a similiar belief system, also likely derived from the same or a similiar sect, they will survive in Armenia, because they saved Armenians from genocide.

 

[The Liturgist]

Personally, I think the Bible versions that have been established within the Orthodox, Roman Catholic & Protestant Churches should remain as they stand. Some writings that you have cited like the Protoevangelion, Nicodemus, the Didache, Odes of Solomon etc. are basically sound but still not scripture. A person should at least briefly consult with their priest or pastor when reading these works.

Other works you have cited like the “gospels” of Thomas, Mary, Philip etc. I recall are usually cited with approval by gnostics like Elaine Pagels. These, I would think, should be avoided at least as far as the faith of the Nicene Creed professes. For ex. in the “gospel” of Philip, “Adam came into being from two virgins, from the spirit and from the virgin earth.” In another part, “ Some said, ‘Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?”

Years back, I read these various writings and just lost my train of thought at this point.

So did I; I am not interested in using any material of heretical origins, nor adding any of this material to the scriptural canon or reading it in church. I mentioned the Gospel of Philip only because Hal Taussig’s work would be more useful if he had included it. The Gospel of Philip is interesting for research purposes because it reflects the widespread belief among early Syriac Christians, which was later suppressed as it is entirely wrong, that the Holy Spirit was female, because the Syriac word indicating Spirit is of the feminine gender. The work is not suitable in my opinion for Christian use, although the heretical portions might be edited away from many of these works, but in the case of the Gospel of Philip, it has numerous lacunae and what survives is very heterodox, so if one did delete the heterodox material, there might not be much left, so it is probably not worth the effort.

Indeed the only reason for “cleaning up” a work such as the Gospel of Phillip, which are both theologically severely problematic, would be to provide a version for curious Christians that would not lead them astray with false doctrine. As far as the Gospel of Mary is concerned, its status as a Gnostic gospel is rejected by a great many scholars, while another large number do think it is heretical.

All I know for sure about that work is that Fr. Boucher from the Episcopal Church used it, and I like the Episcopal church, and wish I could have met Fr. Boucher (although the specific liturgical change he wanted to make I disagree with).

 

[The Liturgist]

I studied a Nag Hammadi codices translation years ago. These were Gnostic writings. The Gospel of Thomas manuscript was of some interest, but not superior to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Tatian wrote a Gospel harmony. Clement of Alexandria was interesting. I read Jerome and Eusebius. Recently I mainly reviewed canonized sources. It is work to memorize Acts. If I turn away from it for a time, I forget. I opened Acts on my computer today and it was a wonderful sight.

I do all my scripture reading on my iPad, using Kindle, iBooks, Google Books and scribd, which is a fantastic value.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, since my original post did not make this clear, I reject and anathematize Gnosticism, I am not interested in discussing it, I follow the CF.com Statement of Faith to the letter, and I am opposed to modifying the New Testament canon, except possibly to add the Protoevangelion of James, since the entire tradition of the Nativity of the Theotokos is contained in it, but that is another thread for another day.

This thread is specifically about an idea of mine, and a question pertinent to it: the possibility of collecting NT apocrypha into a volume, which would include both Nicene-compatible texts like the Protoevangelion of James, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and doctrinally corrected versions of works deemed fixable, like the Gospel of Thomas, or the Odes of Solomon, where it is simply a question of deleting lines which are contrary to correct doctrine. This is because I would rather that people buy a collection that has been doctrinally corrected to remove heterodox content, then obtain the works in their original form, and be led astray. Efforts at discouraging the use of these texts by laity who are not well catechized are failing due to the influence of writers like Dan Brown, and the popularity of “the Historical Jesus” as a subject matter in the media; since curiosity is overpowering reason, but since most Christians still gravitate towards some degree of Christian orthodoxy, my thought is that a well marketed collection of sanitized apocrypha might allow people to access the historical Jesus as Hs is found in the canonical New Testament, while satisfying their curiosity about the apocrypha.

My question relating to this is directed to our liberal members, and is whether or not they are familiar with any liberal mainline parishes, cathedrals or chapels or other churches which are Nicene, which have used any of these texts, and which texts they have used and how they have interpreted them in a manner consistent with Nicene Christianity, and I only want to hear from our liberal Christian members like my friends @hedrick @SkyWriting and @dqhall , as well as clergy from mainline churches who may or may not know of any of this being done (I think we have a Methodist clergy member, it might be my friend @Methodized or @bekkilyn , and my friend @Deegie who I have come to greatly admire on the Traditional Theology forum, and have no doubts as to his Nicene faith, is an Episcopal Priest. By the way, if you are a liberal Christian or mainline priest and oppose the reading of these texts, then we are in agreement; I am just wondering if it happened. Conversely, if you think they are legitimate, I would love to know why, and I will seriously consider your argument. Likewise this goes for any opinions concerning my idea for a sanitized collection of apocrypha.

 

[hedrick]

By the way, since my original post did not make this clear, I reject and anathematize Gnosticism, I am not interested in discussing it, I follow the CF.com Statement of Faith to the letter, and I am opposed to modifying the New Testament canon, except possibly to add the Protoevangelion of James, since the entire tradition of the Nativity of the Theotokos is contained in it, but that is another thread for another day.

This thread is specifically about an idea of mine, and a question pertinent to it: the possibility of collecting NT apocrypha into a volume, which would include both Nicene-compatible texts like the Protoevangelion of James, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and doctrinally corrected versions of works deemed fixable, like the Gospel of Thomas, or the Odes of Solomon, where it is simply a question of deleting lines which are contrary to correct doctrine. This is because I would rather that people buy a collection that has been doctrinally corrected to remove heterodox content, then obtain the works in their original form, and be led astray. Efforts at discouraging the use of these texts by laity who are not well catechized are failing due to the influence of writers like Dan Brown, and the popularity of “the Historical Jesus” as a subject matter in the media; since curiosity is overpowering reason, but since most Christians still gravitate towards some degree of Christian orthodoxy, my thought is that a well marketed collection of sanitized apocrypha might allow people to access the historical Jesus as Hs is found in the canonical New Testament, while satisfying their curiosity about the apocrypha.

My question relating to this is directed to our liberal members, and is whether or not they are familiar with any liberal mainline parishes, cathedrals or chapels or other churches which are Nicene, which have used any of these texts, and which texts they have used and how they have interpreted them in a manner consistent with Nicene Christianity, and I only want to hear from our liberal Christian members like my friends @hedrick @SkyWriting and @dqhall , as well as clergy from mainline churches who may or may not know of any of this being done (I think we have a Methodist clergy member, it might be my friend @Methodized or @bekkilyn , and my friend @Deegie who I have come to greatly admire on the Traditional Theology forum, and have no doubts as to his Nicene faith, is an Episcopal Priest. By the way, if you are a liberal Christian or mainline priest and oppose the reading of these texts, then we are in agreement; I am just wondering if it happened. Conversely, if you think they are legitimate, I would love to know why, and I will seriously consider your argument. Likewise this goes for any opinions concerning my idea for a sanitized collection of apocrypha.

In all my years I’ve only seen a passage from DC books read in a service once. In the 1960s, I think in the Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church, or possibly Shadyside.

There was a period when a few scholars were pushing Thomas, but I don’t think that got any traction in parishes.

i consider the Protoevangelium heretical. I’m not aware of any interest in it within the mainline tradition.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you for your reply @hedrick ! I was hoping you would show up.

In all my years I’ve only seen a passage from DC books read in a service once. In the 1960s, I think in the Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church, or possibly Shadyside.

What deutorocanonical books were they reading?

i consider the Protoevangelium heretical. I’m not aware of any interest in it within the mainline tradition.

Surely you mean to Protoevangelium of Thomas? It is horrifying and blasphemous. I don’t even want to talk about the content of it, I find it so awful. It breaks my heart we have no intact copy of Origen’s Hexapla, but we have the Protoevangelium of Thomas due to some perverse twist of face.

It sometimes gets confused with the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Thomas, but it is a completely different work, and I believe based on Patristic writings it is of Manichaean origin.

The Protoevangelium of James to my knowledge contains only the EO doctrine of the nativity of the Virgin Mary; if we disagree with it, we might regard it as erroneous, but heretical seems harsh, unless there is something in it which is not in the Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

 

[The Liturgist]

Also @hedrick regarding the Gospel of Thomas, the Jesus Seminar was definitely an 80s-90s thing but Hal Taussig came out just a few years ago. Have you seen his work A New New Testament? I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

 

[disciple Clint]

Personally, I think the Bible versions that have been established within the Orthodox, Roman Catholic & Protestant Churches should remain as they stand. Some writings that you have cited like the Protoevangelion, Nicodemus, the Didache, Odes of Solomon etc. are basically sound but still not scripture. A person should at least briefly consult with their priest or pastor when reading these works.

Other works you have cited like the “gospels” of Thomas, Mary, Philip etc. I recall are usually cited with approval by gnostics like Elaine Pagels. These, I would think, should be avoided at least as far as the faith of the Nicene Creed professes. For ex. in the “gospel” of Philip, “Adam came into being from two virgins, from the spirit and from the virgin earth.” In another part, “ Some said, ‘Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?”

Years back, I read these various writings and just lost my train of thought at this point.

Why do you believe that the Holy Spirit is a woman? I agree with the rest of your post and it is consistent with by far the majority of scholars.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why do you believe that the Holy Spirit is a woman? I agree with the rest of your post and it is consistent with by far the majority of scholars.

I think you are misreading his post - he is quoting a section of the apocryphal Gospel of Mary he and I both reject and disagree with.

In the early church, some Syriac Christians did think the Holy Spirit was female, because the Syriac word used to represent Him is of the feminine gender, whereas it is of the neutral gender in Greek, however, the Nicene Creed for me confirms the masculinity of the Spirit, and I am extremely wary of the idea of a “divine feminine.”

The sexes, male and female, were created by God for purposes of reproduction, but I believe that we can assert a non-sexual masculinity on the part of God, because He is revealed to us as the Lord, the Father and the Son, and so the idea of the Holy Spirit being female is a major error. Some early heretical sects took the idea of the Holy Spirit being female to the extreme, and the Mandaeans, who think they follow John the Baptist, while like some of his disciples mentioned in the New Testament, ignore his most important instruction: to follow Christ, believe an entity with the same Aramaic name as the Holy Spirit, the word simply meaning “Spirit” or “Ghost”, is an evil female entity, and while they may not be referring to our Holy Spirit, it seems to me to come dangerously close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and for this reason, I feel we should pray for the salvation of the Mandaeans and their enlightenment with the Gospel (the real one, the canonical Gospel, to be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and not the Gospel of Mary), as well as their survival as an ethnic group (there were 60,000 living in Iraq in 2000 and now there are maybe a thousand, the rest dispersed around the world, due to Islamic persecution).

 

[disciple Clint]

I think you are misreading his post - he is quoting a section of the apocryphal Gospel of Mary he and I both reject and disagree with.

In the early church, some Syriac Christians did think the Holy Spirit was female, because the Syriac word used to represent Him is of the feminine gender, whereas it is of the neutral gender in Greek, however, the Nicene Creed for me confirms the masculinity of the Spirit, and I am extremely wary of the idea of a “divine feminine.”

The sexes, male and female, were created by God for purposes of reproduction, but I believe that we can assert a non-sexual masculinity on the part of God, because He is revealed to us as the Lord, the Father and the Son, and so the idea of the Holy Spirit being female is a major error. Some early heretical sects took the idea of the Holy Spirit being female to the extreme, and the Mandaeans, who think they follow John the Baptist, while like some of his disciples mentioned in the New Testament, ignore his most important instruction: to follow Christ, believe an entity with the same Aramaic name as the Holy Spirit, the word simply meaning “Spirit” or “Ghost”, is an evil female entity, and while they may not be referring to our Holy Spirit, it seems to me to come dangerously close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and for this reason, I feel we should pray for the salvation of the Mandaeans and their enlightenment with the Gospel (the real one, the canonical Gospel, to be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and not the Gospel of Mary), as well as their survival as an ethnic group (there were 60,000 living in Iraq in 2000 and now there are maybe a thousand, the rest dispersed around the world, due to Islamic persecution).

interesting and informative BUT God has no gender.

 

[hedrick]

Also @hedrick regarding the Gospel of Thomas, the Jesus Seminar was definitely an 80s-90s thing but Hal Taussig came out just a few years ago. Have you seen his work A New New Testament? I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

I haven’t read it, but I have read some of the documents in it. They’re interesting to see various approaches in the early church, but to be fair you’d want to include some early letters.from the orthodox tradition, and certainly the Didache. My personal preference is to narrow the canon rather than broaden it. I see no reason why 2 Peter or the Pastorals should be read in a service, which is the purpose of the canon.

The canon represents the stories that have formed our tradition. I’m not sure you can always say why some did and some didn’t, but Hal’s extra books seem to represent roads not taken, rather than things on which our tradition is based.