Apocryphal Writings are All Written in the Second Century or Later (#2 in a series)

Full Title: Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #2: “Apocryphal Writings are All Written in the Second Century or Later”

In the prior post, we discussed the first basic fact about the New Testament canon, namely that the New Testament writings are the earliest Christian texts we possess. We were careful to make clear that the early date of these books does not make them canonical, but the early date does show that these books were written during a time period when eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive.

In this current post, we address the issue of “apocryphal” New Testament writings. These are writings that were not included in the New Testament, but have a similar genre (gospels, acts, letters, apocalypses, etc.). And these writings are often attributed to famous individuals; e.g., the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of John.

While we cannot go into extensive detail about these various apocryphal writings, we can at least note one basic fact that is often overlooked: all of these apocryphal writings are dated to the second century or later. Thus, this post is the corollary of the prior one. Not only are all New Testament writings from the first century, but all apocryphal writings (at least the ones that are extant) are from the second century or later. And many are from the third or fourth century.

What is particularly noteworthy about this fact is that even critical scholars agree. While there is dispute over the dating of some New Testament books (e.g., 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles), there is virtual unanimity over the late date of apocryphal books. There are, of course, fringe attempts to place some apocryphal writings into the first century—e.g., Crossan argues that a “cross gospel” embedded in the Gospel of Peter is from the first century—but these suggestions have not been widely received.

The observation of this simple fact quickly calls into question sensationalistic claims about how these “lost” books contain the “real” version of Christianity.

Of course, one might argue that later texts can still preserve authentic first-century Christian tradition. After all, a text doesn’t have to be written in the first century to contain material from the first century. True. But, we would still need to have a compelling reason to accept these later texts over our earlier ones. And when it comes to these apocryphal writings, compelling reasons are in short supply.

For one, we know that many of these apocryphal writings are outright forgeries, pretending to be written by someone who was clearly not the author. That fact alone raises serious questions about the reliability of their content. Second, many of these apocryphal writings contain obvious embellishments and legendary additions. For example, in the Gospel of Peter, Jesus emerges from the tomb as a giant whose head reaches the clouds, and he is followed by the cross itself which then speaks (!). And third, many of these apocryphal writings contain a Gnostic-style theology that did not even emerge until the second century, and therefore could not represent authentic first-century Christianity (e.g., Gospel of Philip).

To be clear, this does not suggest that it is impossible, in principle, for an apocryphal writing to be first century (it’s just that we have not found one yet). Nor does this suggest that apocryphal writings could not (or did not) ever contain reliable Jesus tradition. We know that early Christians sometimes appealed to apocryphal gospels as containing some true material (more on this in a later post). But, and this is the key point, the scraps of apocryphal literature that may be reliable do not present a version of Christianity that is out of sync with what we find in the New Testament books, and are certainly not in a position to supersede what we find in the New Testament books.

In the end, apocryphal writings constitute an interesting and fascinating source for the study of early Christianity. But, largely due to their late date, they do not offer a more compelling version of Christianity than the New Testament writings themselves.

>> There are quite many *apparent* contradictions in the Protestant canon, too.<<

Not even one contradiction in scripture.

>> who are Jesus’ paternal grandparents?<<

Not there is not. One simply doesn’t mention those in between. Same as those who said Jesus is the “son of David” when Jesus asked them.

>> Revelations, and even the gospels also oppose your reading of Galatians<<

Give me one example.

>> let alone the fact that Sirach is Old Testament<<

I gave you the Old Testament contradiction to Sirach.

>> like all those laws of Moses which oppose Galatians.<<

Not even one.

If you believe those statements then you must also admit that you don’t believe the infallibility of scripture which leaves you with nothing.

You found a Catholic cardinal who ascribed to Luther’s false history... and was branded a heretic, forced to recant, and had his book excised. So Cajetan fell for Luther’s take on Jerome. Big deal; he was unaware of St. Jerome’s own contradictions of those claims, wherein he claimed that anyone who believed that those who thought he intended to deny the scriptural authenticity and canonicity of the deuterocanonicals were “fools, and slanderers.”

St. Jerome, himself, was fooled by the Jews into believing that the Septuagint was chalk full of mistakes. 1,500 years later we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls, and no know that the Septuagint was full of translational errors, but was translating a different text than the Masoretic ones. So even if St. Jerome did believe that the deuterocanonicals were apocryphal, what of it? What if we don’t believe St. Jerome’s apologia for his prefixes to the dueterocanonicals? What if the Protestant theory that St. Jerome only attested to the authenticity of the deuterocanonicals because he recanted under duress? What does that prove? That at the time of St. Jerome, the Church was so firm in its canon that it deemed a biblical researcher for denying the deuterocanonicals?

No, I’m not denying scripture. Heaven forbid. You just suffer from the very silly notion that your interpretation is the only one.

Your error is that you conflated “atonement” with “justification.” Based on the fact that you believe in only one kind of atonement, you presumed everyone shares that belief. Thus, just like the atheists and skeptics who disparage all of scripture, because they don’t understand it, you disparage the portions of God’s Word that you reject, because you don’t understand it.

Christ atoned for that sin which no man can atone for. Who can earn salvation? Only the Son of God in his infinite self could pay the price for eternal damnation. Nonetheless there are temporal reprecussions of sin: although Christ forgives all sins, he who murders his father will be deprived of the company of his father for all the years he remains on this earth. Thus, there is eternal atonement, which can be achieved only through Christ, but there is also temporal atonement, which alleviates suffering.

Actually the term “Apocrypha” (as distinguished from the “apocryphal writings” in the article) was not coined by Protestants, rather it was used by Jerome. Early catholic scholars were NEVER uniform in approving of the Apocrypha—that is the pre-Christian Jewish writings—which were (and are) rejected by the Jews as canonical.

Luther happened to follow in that Jewish/patristic/scholastic scholarly stream within catholicism which rejected the Apocrypha as God’s Word. In direct reaction to Luther—Rome thought it had to at Trent—finally formally recognize the “deuterocanonical books” in the 1560s. The idea that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS accepted the Apocrypha is just the typical historical revisionism (lie) which Protestants have gotten used to hearing from Rome for the last 500 years.

OK, well that's interesting...

2. St. Jerome (born in 347AD) who is the patron saint of translators, librarians and encyclopedists, along with the whole Church of that time, rejected the deuterocanonicals when putting together the Latin Vulgate. They used the Septuagint for the most part. Whatever was doubtful was looked upon as good information but not inspired.

3. The Latin Vulgate was accepted as the standard and used by the Church for over a 1,000 years.

4. Then came Saint Cajetan (yes, another Saint who was born in 1480) supporting Jerome and the early Church's decision, also rejected the deuterocanonicals.

5. Then came Luther (born in 1483) who supporting Jerome and the early Church's decision, also rejected the deuterocanonicals. Luther had a hard time with the book of James but it was there so he left it in. He wasn't going to mess with what was always accepted by the Church as God's word.

6. Then in the middle of the 1500s came the Council of Trent who stated that, "Oops, we've been wrong. The deuterocanonicals should be included. Everyone who supported the Latin Vulgate as inclusive are heretical." Saint Cajetan recanted. Luther did not. It was too late for Jerome who was duped (along with the whole Church of that time).

7. And now Trent's decision is confirmed as the correct decision based upon the admittedly error-ridden Dead Sea Scrolls "found" 500 years after Trent made their decision.

Did I get the time line correct? We are talking about the infallible decisions of the Church aren't we?

Your error is that you conflated “atonement” with “justification.” Based on the fact that you believe in only one kind of atonement, ...because they don’t understand it, you disparage the portions of God’s Word that you reject, because you don’t understand it.

I would point out that the Church no longer follow the doctrine of atonement as laid out by the early church fathers. This is from the Catholic encyclopedia on the atonement:

who delight in speculating

St. Anselm again, in his "Meditations", supplements the teaching set forth in his "Cur Deus Homo?"

That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man's laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures.

New Advent on Atonement

There you have it. Hidden within all the gooblygook. The atonement is simply a work of love that we are to mirror. Not only does this view throw out all the "mystical" teachings of the early fathers, and the teachings of medieval fathers like Anselm, and denies the Nicene Creed, but it has no base in scripture.

The truth of the matter is that Catholics no longer believe in the atonement of Christ (His death being a substitution for our sins to abate the wrath of God). Even though this is what was taught by the early fathers, according to the Catholic Church they had a distorted view. I suppose it's like the Pope stated, just follow your conscience. Everyone can get to heaven if we just sacrifice ourselves like Christ. Many Catholics are trying to back peddle from the Pope's remarks yesterday but this is the true belief of the Catholic Church. Live a good life and everything will be fine.

If you can't understand the wrath of God you will never be able to understand the love of God. They are one in the same.

I just love dealing with people who just read snippets and polemicists’ proof-texts for their history!

Cardinal Catejan who fell for St. Jerome is not Saint Catejan.

Cardinal Catejan is Thomas Cardinal Catejan.

Saint Catejan is Gaetano dei Conti di Tiene.

That’s quite an impossible confusion for someone who has learned a single thing about either man, except for some out-of-context quotes. And you demonstrate a profound ignorance at what the Council of Trent was, which I find absolutely incredible.

An ecumenical council does not invent doctrine; it discerns when a doctrine is unquestionable.

The greatest schism in Christianity (Orthodox v Catholic) was created because the Catholic church began including a clarifying word (”filioque”) into the Apostles’ Creed. The Orthodox bishops unanimously assented to the notion that the Catholic meaning of having done so was orthodox, but simply because it lacked apostolic authority to insert the word, the Orthodox bishops anathematized to the Catholic bishops. But somehow the Catholics add seven books to the bible, and not only does not one single bishop in all of Catholic Christendom raise an eyebrow, but the Orthodox churches follow suit???

Record of the Council of Trent were kept. Not one bishop objected that the Council was not keeping tradition, as it was sworn to exclusively do. Not even Cardinal Cajetan. Oh, sure, we know that in later synods he eventually sided with Lutherans on several issues (not only the canon, but also condemning mandatory priestly celibacy and reception on the body of Christ through bread alone), so there is no cover-up here.

And it’s not like they all recognized a need to conspire to maintain their previous doctrinal assertions. Quite the opposite: not only did the Council of Trent require assent to doctrines found in the dueterocanonicals, it also reaffirmed where those doctrines Luther had rejected were found in the bible outside the dueterocanonicals.

Or shall we look to the Thomist churches? For 1,500 years, they grew in complete isolation from the Catholic and Orthodox churches. On their discovery, many of them affirmed their unity with the Catholic church. Some remained independent... but added seven books to their bibles anyway?

And let’s go back to those Church Fathers who you insist believed the deuterocanonicals were to be read for “edification,” but not “doctrine”: Suppose Luther and Calvin were correct about what doctrines the Church Fathers held. Suppose praying for the dead is sinful, that there is no temporal atonement, that there is no state of purgation between this life and Heaven: why would any reasonable person, then, recommend for “edification” and inclusion into church services books that specifically endorse praying and atoning for the dead so that they be spared purgation? How is edifying to include false doctrine?

The exact opposite was the case with the Church Fathers: there were many “legends” of extreme bravery and faithfulness in Early Christian culture. Every apostle had at least gospel written of them. Some were fantastic (there’s one passage that includes a lion given the miraculous ability to speak), and some had obvious heresies included by gnostics, but many were quite believable, and many had no heresies at all. And some had been read in church services since the days when the apostles still walked the Earth. But because their apostolic authority was uncertain, they were all held suspect, and they were all forbidden to be read in church services.

One last note on the dueterocanonicals:

Only those books which were found to be universally accepted throughout the entire history of the Church were mandated by the Council of Trent. You’ll note that among the “apocrypha” in the Protestant bibles which include the deuterocanonicals are certain materials which are not part of the deuterocanonicals. Since the Council could not find that they were used universally throughout Church history, the Council found that it could not bind people to believe in them BECAUSE COUNCILS MUST SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE CHURCH, THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

“B-b-but didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas create the doctrine of transubstantiation?” many people object, “Didn’t some Church fathers contradict him on it?”

No, he did not. He formulated a means of expressing what some previous Church fathers inadequately expressed. One of the Church Fathers (I forgot which) called it “transformation.” Aquinas explicitly stated that the Eucharist didn’t change its form. But that’s not a deliberate contradiction; surely the Church Father had not meant that it changed its appearance, but rather than invent a new word for the concept (as Aquinas had done), he used a word that didn’t fit exactly.

Likewise, the “immaculate conception” was Pope Pius IX’s formulation for the sinlessness of Mary. The Eastern churches may not use that formulation, since it is influenced by St. Augustine’s formulation of original sin which is alien to them, but they absolutely believe in the unique sinlessness of Mary. And yes, they also believe she was assumed into Heaven.

Once again, you insist on quoting New Advent as if it were the canons of the ecumenical councils. It's the work of an American layman in 1913 Protestant-dominated America, made famous only because it could be put on the internet for free because no-one ever bothered to renew its copyright, just like the cheesy movies that they used for Mystery Science Theater 3000.

But what's hilarious is you stick to your reading of it, even though in the very article you're citing, the author attempts to make clear precisely that he's not saying precisely what you otherwise could reasonable misread his sloppy explanation for saying:

The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:
Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).

And just in case anyone misses the point, because of the use of Catholic terminology:

Gamecock objects to the Catholic Encyclopedia writing, “But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate.” He seems to think that this means that the MST3K Catholic Encyclopedia is herein denying the realness of Christ’s sacrifice.

The problem is that that the encyclopedia is addressing is that “satistfaction” and “propitiation” is a concept borrowed from Greek mythology to express the need for a sacrifice. In Greek mythology, the gods hated a man until his offences were propitiated. In Christianity, loved the world so much, that he sent his only Son to redeem men; he loved men BEFORE they were propitiated, not BECAUSE they were propitiated.

Gamecock curiously excluded this passage from the encyclopedia which would have clarified this : “But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.”

I can’t read Gamecock’s mind to know why he would not have read and included that passage, being the huge fan of St. Augustine that he claims to be.

In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification.191 B.F. Westcott comments:

At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html

Thanks bkaycee; unlike Gamecock’s useless and wilfully ignorant rants, you posted something useful which spurred me onto further research.

I googled your first paragraph and found you verbatim pasted from http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html. That in turn cited, A General History of the Canon of the New Testament by Westcott, without actually quoting the preface. That’s where it gets interesting:

Ximines, like JErome, was interested in converting the Jews. As such, he expressed the same concern as Jerome, using the same language as Jerome. His contemporaries, on the same project, were more careful to clarify Ximines’ language: (emphasis mine): The books which are without the canon OF THE HEBREWS, which the Church reads for edification, are given only in Greek.” Hence, were they separated from the rest of Ximinez’ Hexalpa. This is why Hexalpas have several times separated the deuterocanonicals: Because they did not have the Jewish versions of the deueterocanonicals at hand, since they were rejected by the Jews.

Now why would a book about the New Testament canon go to such lengths about the Old TEstament canon? Because the same sources also note the same thing about the New Testament deuterocanonicals: Ximines< Jerome and Luther also describe the 2-3 Peter, 1-2 John, Revelations, James and Hebrews as “not for establishing doctrine, but for the purpose of edification within the Churches.” Did Ximines and Jerome really mean to exclude seven books of the PROTESTANT canon from the bible? Luther thought so. A better explanation is that they don’t preach the proof of the resurrection from OT scripture, so they are not helpful for the conevrsions of the Jews, but they are helpful to instruct those who have already accepted Christ.

Another who took the same interpretation as Luther was Erasmus. And, of course, from Germanophones, we get the infamous 19th-century Quelle school of biblical criticism which ended up throwing out nearly the entire bible, from which all sorts of anti-Christian “Christian” scholarship has flowed (the Jesus seminar, etc.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.