Apocraphyl Gospels.

[Furrowed Brow]

I was watching a documentary last night concerning the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary. Apparently here are plenty of apocryphal writings. Link .

So my questions are:

• 1/ Who decides which ancients writings are canonical?
  2/ Are there any writings that should be included in the New Testament presently left out?
  3/ If you do - why do you chose the present canon texts over the alternatives.

[McCulloch]

Here is an interesting thought to consider.

Suppose all the books currently in the canon of scripture and those which are not included remained until 2008 as separate books.

If the decision were made today to compile and select which should be included or not included, how and on what basis and by whom should that fateful choice be given?

How many today would fully agree and fully support those choices?

Who if any could claim divine right to make those choices?

To say the least, I think this would be an amusing experiment!

The various Christian churches now don't agree and Christian leaders in the first, second, third and fourth century didn't agree, so while it might be an amusing experiment, it would show only what we already know.

[Muz]

Who chose Peter1:16-21 and the texts included in the bible as part of the canon?

The bible is what we call "self-authenticating", in that it is God's word and not just a collection of letters written by several individuals. Peter affirms this in 2 Peter for us.

Except the Bible is written by a bunch of individuals. An individual wrote 2 Peter.

That individual would be Peter, and Peter pretty clearly exclaims that those who were witnesses of Christ's glory had the word of truth.

Where does this leave Mary, Thomas, Philip?

Without anything that they wrote.

So why exactly aren't they included?

Because we don't ahve anything they wrote.

I think I just read Cathar on another thread point out the writer of Mark is unkown. Maybe I got that wrong. Anyhow - who sets the the criteria for "sufficient evidence"?

Fortunately, there was still enough institutional knowledge at the time the canon was selected to have a good idea of who wrote what.

Muz

Actually Mattew, Mark, Luke, AND John were all written anonymously. As were a few other of the new testament books. And the knowledge of who wrote them was little more than a guess.

Other than "THE GOSPEL OF X" written on the top of every copy we have, they aren't named, but it seems pretty clear who wrote them. I think the only one in question at this point is Hebrews.

Muz

[Goat]

Who chose Peter1:16-21 and the texts included in the bible as part of the canon?

The bible is what we call "self-authenticating", in that it is God's word and not just a collection of letters written by several individuals. Peter affirms this in 2 Peter for us.

Except the Bible is written by a bunch of individuals. An individual wrote 2 Peter.

That individual would be Peter, and Peter pretty clearly exclaims that those who were witnesses of Christ's glory had the word of truth.

Where does this leave Mary, Thomas, Philip?

Without anything that they wrote.

So why exactly aren't they included?

Because we don't ahve anything they wrote.

I think I just read Cathar on another thread point out the writer of Mark is unkown. Maybe I got that wrong. Anyhow - who sets the the criteria for "sufficient evidence"?

Fortunately, there was still enough institutional knowledge at the time the canon was selected to have a good idea of who wrote what.

Muz

Actually Mattew, Mark, Luke, AND John were all written anonymously. As were a few other of the new testament books. And the knowledge of who wrote them was little more than a guess.

Other than "THE GOSPEL OF X" written on the top of every copy we have, they aren't named, but it seems pretty clear who wrote them. I think the only one in question at this point is Hebrews.

Muz

Well, there is the traditional attributions to it.

Now, aside from the claims written a few hundred years later, lets see you get some actual information on who wrote it. We have tradition that makes claims about who wrote it, but there is no confirming evidence, either internally or externally that this tradition is correct.

For example, the Gospel of Matthew was taken to be matthew, because Papias is being quoted 2 centuries later that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew. However, the Gospel of Matthew that we have was written in Greek. This says wither Papias was talking about a different piece of writing, or Eusiubs, who was quoting Papias was wrong.

[Revelations won]

Here is an interesting thought to consider.

Suppose all the books currently in the canon of scripture and those which are not included remained until 2008 as separate books.

If the decision were made today to compile and select which should be included or not included, how and on what basis and by whom should that fateful choice be given?

How many today would fully agree and fully support those choices?

Who if any could claim divine right to make those choices?

To say the least, I think this would be an amusing experiment!

The various Christian churches now don't agree and Christian leaders in the first, second, third and fourth century didn't agree, so while it might be an amusing experiment, it would show only what we already know.

Well said McCulloch!