New Testament Apocrypha

[The Liturgist]

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.

Out of curiosity, what is your objection to 2 Peter and the Pastorals, and are there any other books you would like to see not used liturgically?

 

[hedrick]

Out of curiosity, what is your objection to 2 Peter and the Pastorals, and are there any other books you would like to see not used liturgically?

The authors are almost certainly not who they claim to be. It's hard to teach kids the importance of avoiding plagiarism while making excuses for the authors of these books. I know the argument that this was an accepted convention, but I'm not convinced that the evidence shows it. Indeed I think it's pretty clear that if the early church had believed that Peter really wasn't the author of 2 Peter they wouldn't have accepted the book.

Here's what the Word commentary says: "Of course, the authority of 2 Peter was disputed in the early church, in connection with its authorship (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.3.4; 6.25.8; Jerome, Ep. 120.11), and it was no doubt as a product of Peter’s own mind that it was generally accepted as canonical in the end. But we must reckon with a Gentile church which no longer understood the conventions of a Jewish literary genre, and which had had to sort out the genuinely apostolic from an abundance of late and often heretical pseudepigrapha. What the church actually recognized in 2 Peter was its apostolic content."

This seems pretty explicit that it was accepted only because Peter was thought to be the author, even though the commentator argues that it didn't matter. It's also not clear that even if you ignore literal authorship the content has much to do with the real Peter.

 

[The Liturgist]

interesting and informative BUT God has no gender.

Well actually, since Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Human, if one subscribes, as most Christians do, to Chalcedonian or Miaphysite Christology, this enables us to use communicatio idiomatum, which avoids the Nestorian pitfall of separation of the human and divine natures by requiring they not be divided, so, provided the two are not compounded, which indicate change and confusion, one can say that properties and actions of one nature are communicated to the other; thus, we can say God was born of a woman and is male, and there is a Human being is perfect and has existed eternally. And many other things. Communicatio idiomatum is vital in traditional Christian theology, used by Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, and most other denominations that are strongly Chalcedonian or Miaphysite, strongly invested in Christology, and have theologians who have done serious Christological scholarship.

However, my argument was not predicated on communicatio idiomatum but rather the fact that scripture reveals the divine nature of God to us in masculine terms: the Lord, the Father, the Son. This is a non-sexual masculinity, a masculinity that is not a gender so much as a quality of relationships.

 

[The Liturgist]

The authors are almost certainly not who they claim to be. It's hard to teach kids the importance of avoiding plagiarism while making excuses for the authors of these books. I know the argument that this was an accepted convention, but I'm not convinced that the evidence shows it. Indeed I think it's pretty clear that if the early church had believed that Peter really wasn't the author of 2 Peter they wouldn't have accepted the book.

Well, some didn’t. The Peshitta, for example, intially lacked 2 Peter, the Apocalypse, Jude and James. I myself believe the Athanasian canon to be correct; I believe St. Paul made some use of scribes, despite almost certainly being literate and his writing style changed, thus it is even possible he wrote Hebrews (which I think the Peshitta also omitted). St. Peter had been most likely illiterate, and might have been illiterate throughout his life; if this is the case, if he used different scribes for 1 Peter and 2 Peter, that would account for the stylistic difference. I would not be surprised if one of those scribes was St. Mark, given that church tradition establishes him as Peter’s protege and characterizes his Gospel as relying to a large extent on St. Peter’s recollection, whereas St. Luke relied more on that of St. Paul, and Saints Matthew and John relied on their own experiences for their Gospels.

This is also a major reason why I believe the Gospel of Thomas is a corruption of a legitimate, orthodox original. It is logical that each of the Apostles had scribes with them on their journeys, and St. Thomas, Addai and Mari evangelized the Syriac speaking Jews and Gentiles of the East, traveling as far as Kerala, India, where St. Thomas was martyred by a javelin in 53 AD. The large number of synoptic sayings in the Gospel of Thomas to me suggests that other sects (the evidence indicates more than one, as I described above) simply inserted their own doctrines into it, claiming them to be of Christ, in order to “piggyback” off of the inherent legitimacy the synoptic content contains. I therefore propose to restore the Gospel of Thomas by deleting the heterodox statements which cannot be reconciled with the canonical Scriptures or Nicene Orthodoxy.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way @hedrick, in case you missed the post where I said it, I expressly stated I was not in favor of expanding the canon or reading these books in church. But I would be interested to meet any liberal Christians who did have such an interest, chiefly to see how they doctrinally reconciled the material.

 

[hedrick]

You may be right about Thomas, but in its current form it seems significantly different from anything Thomas could plausibly have taught. I hope you're not saying it should be considered canonical.

 

[The Liturgist]

You may be right about Thomas, but in its current form it seems significantly different from anything Thomas could plausibly have taught. I hope you're not saying it should be considered canonical.

Indeed I am not. As I now find myself posting for the fourth time, I am adamantly opposed to adding any of this material to the canon or reading it in church.

Rather my idea is to restore the Gospel of Thomas, the Odes of Solomon and anything else that could be restored, because the media keeps hyping them, and I would rather Christians read a doctrinally corrected version than go out and buy overpriced translations of the “originals” with glamorizing commentary by the likes of Karen King and Bart Ehrman.

 

[hedrick]

There's quite a range of people called "liberal." You read in the news about people interested in Gnostic or new age spirituality, for whom some of the non-canonical material might be interesting. But I don't see that kind of thing in real mainline churches. Maybe it's just places I never see. I know there are a few oddball churches in the PCUSA, but I don't think there are many.

 

[Lukaris]

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 was quoting from a gnostic writing to show how wrong that writing is.

 

[PloverWing]

However, my argument was not predicated on communicatio idiomatum but rather the fact that scripture reveals the divine nature of God to us in masculine terms: the Lord, the Father, the Son. This is a non-sexual masculinity, a masculinity that is not a gender so much as a quality of relationships.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't debate at length on this, but I do feel compelled to register my dissent on this point. "Non-sexual masculinity" is not a meaningful phrase to me.

If you want to say "God has qualities A, B, and C, and many human men also have qualities A, B, and C", then I'd be willing to agree to that much.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't debate at length on this, but I do feel compelled to register my dissent on this point. "Non-sexual masculinity" is not a meaningful phrase to me.

If you want to say "God has qualities A, B, and C, and many human men also have qualities A, B, and C", then I'd be willing to agree to that much.

If you want to discuss this, I would love to have a Socratic dialogue with you on the subject, as opposed to a polemical debate, for our mutual edification. What forum would be right for that? I think either this one or maybe Controversial Christian Theology, but I think this one might be better, as our thread would likely get completely derailed in CCT.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's quite a range of people called "liberal." You read in the news about people interested in Gnostic or new age spirituality, for whom some of the non-canonical material might be interesting. But I don't see that kind of thing in real mainline churches. Maybe it's just places I never see. I know there are a few oddball churches in the PCUSA, but I don't think there are many.

Do you know of any specific ones? I have been trying to identify denominational outliers of all sorts, ranging from a high church Methodist parish with holy water fonts, to conservative UCC parishes, to Episcopal parishes still using the 1928 BCP even though strictly speaking they aren’t supposed to. However, I have been unable to find any remarkable PCUSA parishes, good or bad, and it is becoming frustrating. So I would really like to know about these oddball parishes, good or bad (for example, if there is a high church “Scoto-Catholic” or “Mercersburg Theology” parish in the PCUSA with an intense emphasis on liturgics, like the former cathedral in Glasgow, which does choral evensong almost like the Anglicans.

 

[PloverWing]

If you want to discuss this, I would love to have a Socratic dialogue with you on the subject, as opposed to a polemical debate, for our mutual edification. What forum would be right for that? I think either this one or maybe Controversial Christian Theology, but I think this one might be better, as our thread would likely get completely derailed in CCT.

I'd enjoy that too. This forum is probably a good one. In most CF forums, a discussion on this subject would bring the misogynists out of the woodwork, and that would interfere with having a civil, adult conversation. WWMC is safer that way. Even though I still don't think you're a Liberal.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well actually, since Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Human, if one subscribes, as most Christians do, to Chalcedonian or Miaphysite Christology, this enables us to use communicatio idiomatum, which avoids the Nestorian pitfall of separation of the human and divine natures by requiring they not be divided, so, provided the two are not compounded, which indicate change and confusion, one can say that properties and actions of one nature are communicated to the other; thus, we can say God was born of a woman and is male, and there is a Human being is perfect and has existed eternally. And many other things. Communicatio idiomatum is vital in traditional Christian theology, used by Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, and most other denominations that are strongly Chalcedonian or Miaphysite, strongly invested in Christology, and have theologians who have done serious Christological scholarship.

However, my argument was not predicated on communicatio idiomatum but rather the fact that scripture reveals the divine nature of God to us in masculine terms: the Lord, the Father, the Son. This is a non-sexual masculinity, a masculinity that is not a gender so much as a quality of relationships.

Very good answer, it clears the question, I agree with your conclusions.

 

[PloverWing]

If you want to discuss this, I would love to have a Socratic dialogue with you on the subject, as opposed to a polemical debate, for our mutual edification.

I have started a thread for continuing the gender discussion here: The Gender of God (note: WWMC forum)

 

[disciple Clint]

I was quoting from a gnostic writing to show how wrong that writing is.

Thanks my error.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'd enjoy that too. This forum is probably a good one. In most CF forums, a discussion on this subject would bring the misogynists out of the woodwork, and that would interfere with having a civil, adult conversation. WWMC is safer that way. Even though I still don't think you're a Liberal.

Well a large number of other members seem to treat me as if I were Chairman Mao (when in fact I admire General Chiang Kai-Chek, although I believe he could have averted the revolution by focusing more on human rights, although he did not by any means neglect them, especially in comparison with Mao, who was entirely totalitarian).

Perhaps it might be best to think of me as a classical liberal of the 18th or early 19th century. For example, I sympathize with the faction of Whigs in the House of Commons who were known as the Radicals. I even have begrudging respect for Gladstone, despite his disastrous failure in the Sudan; I feel he failed for the right reasons (keeping Britain out of the Sudan) and could not have known that the Mahdi was a genocidal homicidal lunatic

 

[Lukaris]

Thanks my error.

It’s all good.

 

[XianGoth1334]

I have read Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels and several books by John Dominic Crossan. Interesting stuff. I wish we had covered more of this stuff in History of Christianity. For me, there is a wider corridor of beliefs which can be accepted as Christian. It is not so much that I am personally espousing any of it - it is just - I am more laidback. We all see in a mirror dimly and are doing the best we can.

 

[Lukaris]

If someone wants to read additional writings than the New Testament, I would recommend those that support it. Such writings uphold Biblical faith and testify that the orthodox ( small “o”) faith was basically understood from the get go & not patched together through some clearing house under Constantine.

A good collection basically reproduced from a long lost ( from about 1450-1880?) collection is in a book titled: Early Christian Writings. This collection is about 200 pages.

Early Christian Writings

The writings in this volume cast a glimmer of light upon the emerging traditions and organization of the infant church, during an otherwise little-known period of its development. A selection of letters and small-scale theological treatises from a group known as the Apostolic Fathers...

www.penguin.co.uk

For a good overview of why the early Church approved or disapproved certain writings, a book: The Books the Church Suppressed by the late Anglican Pastor: Michael Green. This book is from 2005 & about 200 pages.

Amazon.com

Clearly Pastor Green’s bibliography is a good source for further reading if desired.