New Testament apocrypha

[roger1440]

If Jesus gave authority to the 12, why don't we have more books by the other disciples.

[FONT=&quot]If you read closely into the canonical Gospels you will notice most of the 12 Apostles say nothing, do nothing and contribute nothing to the story. It could be there were never 12 Apostles. The 12 may represent the 12 tribes of Israel. I’m not saying Jesus didn’t have any disciples at all. Someone had to live to tell the tale. That’s a given. [/FONT]

 

[te_lanus]

yes it would. We could analyse exactly how the apocrypha contradict what Christ had taught.

It'll depend if the book is gnostic or not. Since stuff like the revelation of Peter was in the bible, but was later removed (without any known reason, except what's written in the muration canon) or stuff like the epistle of barnabas (was also in certain editions opf the bible) where it's no longer in the bible, yet the letter of hebrews is, since it's accepted by a majority of theologians that barnabas wrote it

 

[Desert Snake]

yes it would. We could analyse exactly how the apocrypha contradict what Christ had taught.

O.k. thread up...keep in mind, I haven't read those books, so not much of an opinion on my part.

 

[Pegg]

It'll depend if the book is gnostic or not. Since stuff like the revelation of Peter was in the bible, but was later removed (without any known reason, except what's written in the muration canon) or stuff like the epistle of barnabas (was also in certain editions opf the bible) where it's no longer in the bible, yet the letter of hebrews is, since it's accepted by a majority of theologians that barnabas wrote it

yes but thats the whole point isnt it, there were many writings which had crept into the congregations... they weren't necessarily true or inspired by God. Thats why they had to determine which ones to make official christian scripture.

Those that they took out were deemed to be false to christian teachings. They contradicted christs teachings so were rightfully removed.

 

[Shiranui117]

yes but thats the whole point isnt it, there were many writings which had crept into the congregations... they weren't necessarily true or inspired by God. Thats why they had to determine which ones to make official christian scripture.

Those that they took out were deemed to be false to christian teachings. They contradicted christs teachings so were rightfully removed.

Not all extra-Biblical writings contained falsehood. 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas are perfectly orthodox writings, and completely agree with Christian teaching and doctrine.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not all extra-Biblical writings contained falsehood. 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas are perfectly orthodox writings, and completely agree with Christian teaching and doctrine.

Are you implying that some do contain falsehood? I started a thread for that topic.

 

[Pegg]

Not all extra-Biblical writings contained falsehood. 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas are perfectly orthodox writings, and completely agree with Christian teaching and doctrine.

the author of the Epistle of Barnabas interpreted the Mosaic Law as if it were mere allegory. Jesus didn't.

So what does that say about the writers adherence to the views of Jesus? Doesn't it tell you that he was not in tune with Christs views?

Therefore, could we consider that piece of writing as inspired by God...or as under instruction by Christ? Of course not.

 

[Shiranui117]

the author of the Epistle of Barnabas interpreted the Mosaic Law as if it were mere allegory. Jesus didn't.

No. Perhaps you're not aware of this, but in Biblical exegesis, there are multiple levels of interpretation, and these views have been around since Christians began interpreting the Old Testament--in other words, from the very start. You have the literal level, the moral level, and the spiritual level. Everyone can see the literal level, but Barnabas wanted to show us the lessons that the Law teaches us, beyond the rote "Don't wear clothes made of this and that, and refrain from eating this, and you have to do this when your neighbor is in that situation, and you should treat your family this way, and your servants that way, and your neighbors in this way". Barnabas is saying, "When we follow x part of the Law, we should keep in mind how we can apply this commandment to other parts of our lives that don't concern this literally, but have the same meaning."

In fact, St. Paul does the exact same thing Barnabas does in taking the Law and giving it a figurative application! See 1 Corinthians 9:

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?
8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”[a] Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?
Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.

So what does that say about the writers adherence to the views of Jesus? Doesn't it tell you that he was not in tune with Christs views?

Christ upbraided the Pharisees for their overly legalistic and literal view of holding the Law. Barnabas shows how even the more apparently legalistic parts of the Law can be understood to teach us love, mercy and justice, which Jesus taught were the most important parts. Jesus says in Matthew 23:23...

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

So no, Barnabas and Christ are not at all in disagreement with one another. Barnabas shows how to better follow the commandments of Christ regarding the law.

Therefore, could we consider that piece of writing as inspired by God...or as under instruction by Christ? Of course not.

Actually, we can. You just have to actually read it and compare it to the Gospels.

 

[Pegg]

Gospel of Barnabas

Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah."
—42:2

Do you know who the Messiah is according to the gospel of barnabas?

Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called?" [Jesus answered] "Muhammed is his blessed name".
—Chapter 97

The messiah was changed from a son of David to a son of Ishmael:
Whereupon Jesus said: "Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: 'God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies.' If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac."

—Barnabas 43:10


Do you need me to go on???

 

[Shiranui117]

Gospel of Barnabas

Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah."
—42:2

Do you know who the Messiah is according to the gospel of barnabas?

Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called?" [Jesus answered] "Muhammed is his blessed name".
—Chapter 97

The messiah was changed from a son of David to a son of Ishmael:
Whereupon Jesus said: "Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: 'God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies.' If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac."

—Barnabas 43:10


Do you need me to go on???

The Epistle of Barnabas is NOT the same thing as the so-called Gospel of Barnabas. You can at least get that much right.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html

 

[Pegg]

The Epistle of Barnabas is NOT the same thing as the so-called Gospel of Barnabas. You can at least get that much right.

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation J.B. Lightfoot)

Nope, i really did think we were talking about the gospel of barnabas which im sure you can see is quite full of false teachings.

Do you imagine that the epistle of barnabas was actually written by the Apostle Barnabas?

 

[Shiranui117]

Nope, i really did think we were talking about the gospel of barnabas which im sure you can see is quite full of false teachings.

It also happens to be a Muslim forgery dating back to the 1500's.

Do you imagine that the epistle of barnabas was actually written by the Apostle Barnabas?

It could have been, though that is not the majority opinion. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that Hebrews was written by Paul. The author of Luke-Acts was also not one of the Twelve, but was rather a second-generation Christian who was compiling eyewitness accounts of Jesus and some records of early Church history.

 

[roger1440]

You might find this interesting:

Q: Is the "Epistle of Barnabas" inspired? Shouldn't it be part of the Holy Scriptures?
Church of the Eternal God - Question and Answer

 

[te_lanus]

You might find this interesting:

Q: Is the "Epistle of Barnabas" inspired? Shouldn't it be part of the Holy Scriptures?
Church of the Eternal God - Question and Answer

Somethings on that article makes one wonder if they understood what they wrote IE

t was never referred to by Jesus or any of the New Testament writers as Scripture, and it was not included in the New Testament by the apostles.

How would Jesus quote something written between 30 and a 100 years after his death? Also no new testament writer quotes any other nt writer. The final part of the quote also is wrong, the apostles never collected (no proof that I've seen) each others writing, nor any proof that they told anyone what books should be in the NT

 

[Pegg]

It also happens to be a Muslim forgery dating back to the 1500's.

It could have been, though that is not the majority opinion. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that Hebrews was written by Paul. The author of Luke-Acts was also not one of the Twelve, but was rather a second-generation Christian who was compiling eyewitness accounts of Jesus and some records of early Church history.

you know a big difference between the book of hebrews and the epistle of Barnabas... Hebrews was in circulation before the end of the first century and therefore the time of its writing was very early which contributes to the likelihood that it actually was written by the Apostle Paul.

The epistle of Barnabas was written in the middle of the 2nd century long after the death of the Apostle Barnabas therefore very unlikely to have been written by him.

 

[te_lanus]

you know a big difference between the book of hebrews and the epistle of Barnabas... Hebrews was in circulation before the end of the first century and therefore the time of its writing was very early which contributes to the likelihood that it actually was written by the Apostle Paul.

The epistle of Barnabas was written in the middle of the 2nd century long after the death of the Apostle Barnabas therefore very unlikely to have been written by him.

It was wriiten between 80ad-150ad if on look at the internal evidence
Epistle of Barnabas

 

[Pegg]

It was wriiten between 80ad-150ad if on look at the internal evidence
Epistle of Barnabas

yes but that doesnt mean it was written by Barnabas, does it?

Anyway, the writer of this says that Christians are the only true covenant people, and that the Jewish people had never been in a covenant with God which is quite false and contrary to what the scriptures and the Apostles taught.

Paul said at Romans 1:15 so I am eager to declare the good news also to you there in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

The writer of Barnabas obviously didn't like jews which is not a Christian quality.

 

[roger1440]

Somethings on that article makes one wonder if they understood what they wrote IE



How would Jesus quote something written between 30 and a 100 years after his death? Also no new testament writer quotes any other nt writer. The final part of the quote also is wrong, the apostles never collected (no proof that I've seen) each others writing, nor any proof that they told anyone what books should be in the NT

I don't understand that either. But the author does bring up some interesting points.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

The Pe****ta originally adhered more or less to the Antiochian Canon, as did once Constantinople. But both the Syriacs who use the Pe****ta and the Ethiopians hold to the same Orthodox Christian faith. The Ethiopians also don't use anything like the Gnostic writings, and a large amount of their broader canon concerns proper church order--something otherwise absent from the NT.

It is most certainly clear-cut that the Gnostic writings never ever had any place in the Church.

It should be said that much of the Apocrypha is not Gnostic (itself a somewhat nebulous term). The Gospel of St. Thomas, for example, is not meaningful Gnostic. It is essentially orthodox. There are many other Apocryphal works that are basically orthodox. I would agree that, though they might contain genuine spiritual nourishment, they are largely superfluous and there was no need to add them to the Scripture.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Why are some books in the NT and some books equally ancient not? Why is IS overthrowing mainstream Islam? Most people are rather attached to their heads and squeamish about folk getting all stabby with them.

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas may be 'Gnostic' (Which only seems to have meaning as a term of abuse,) but one only has to compare the corresponding Sayings of the surviving Greek fragments of a couple of centuries earlier to see that the work has undergone considerable redaction. The meaning has been shifted greatly across these few sayings; what was originally written and meant in the rest at present we have no way of knowing. What we can say is the existence of such divergent versions of one text would have done nothing for it's credibility.

Which is a shame. What is left of the Greek version contains a saying that looks to pre-date the received text of Matthew.

Apart from a third to a half of the Pauline corpus, none of the New Testament writings can be attributed to the authors assigned to them by tradition. If they even existed, they would most probably have been dead at the time of writing. They didn't get in the NT because a disciple wrote them; they acquired the authors to give an excuse for them being included.

Didache is instructive. When I reread it some months ago it struck me as resembling Matthew without Jesus. The teaching we are to imagine as coming from the Twelve in Didache seems to have been put into the mouth of Jesus in Matthew. Didache is itself in part a reworked Jewish text.

Why is the gospel of John in the NT and even Coptic Thomas isn't? 1:18 is at odds with Genesis and Exodus. No one has seen God, several people have seen Yahweh-Elohim, including Moses and Jacob. Indeed Jacob has wrestled with him: that is the meaning of his alternate name, Israel. 8:44 makes clear what is going on here.

'You are from the father of the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of the father. That one was a murderer from the beginning and he did not stand by the truth because there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks from his own characteristics, because he is a liar and so is his father.'

We are in the presence of a Two Gods theology; Jesus and his father, God; and the Jews and their father, Yahweh. 'My Bible doesn't say that!' you cry. Go and look at the Greek; translations go to lengths distorting the meaning.

If you are going to argue texts were excluded because of late dates and lies about who wrote them; you have to toss out at least half the Pauline corpus or your just 'lying for Jesus' yourselves. The consensus is six of them are forgeries and there is considerable doubt about another three. Not to mention interpolations, and some of the letters being spliced together from what were originally separate works.

The ending of Luke cannot be reconciled with the beginning of Acts. Acts contradicts Paul's autobiographical statements and his teaching practice. Which should you throw out?

Luke rewrites Matthew; who in turn rewrites Mark; who appears to have created his gospel by conflating Paul with the Tanakh and even bits nicked from Homer. None of these can be made to cohere with one another.

Apart from what was mentioned earlier, John shows considerable signs of going through a couple at least of major edits. Like Thomas; we have no way of saying what it might have looked like originally.

The reasons for books being in or out turn out to be largely spurious and those included just as dubious if not more so than those excluded. The difference is an accident of the advocates of the included having spear-wavers making their case for them. If Constantine and Theodosius had taken a shine to Basilides, Marcion or Valentinus; we would have a different canon.