Why was the apocropha excluded?

[Mystic-als]

I read a post that Arrow started that asked why the NKJV and another version of the bible had some different books.

So I ask the question. Why was the apocrapha excluded from the final church approved cannon?

Someone told me that it was because there were contradictions in the apocrapha and not in the other books.
Someone else tod me that it was because the apocrapha didn't acknowledge Jesus as part of the trinity.
Now I don't know what the real reason is.
So please help me and others with the same questions?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The apocrypha was excluded mainly (if not exclusively) to save printing costs because the Protestants did not use the apocryphal books in worship, like many Catholics before them.

The apocrypha is from the intertestamental period before the NT - so there would be no mention of Jesus or the Trinity at all.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've heard that the reasons behind the establishment of what belongs in the canon and what doesn't had nothing to do with the Council of Nicea, and that there was already a large agreement between the varying Christian sects of which Gospels were canonical and which weren't - long before Constantine gave the "OK" sign, right?




Is this close to how you understand it, A_E?



Peace,
Mystic

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've heard that the reasons behind the establishment of what belongs in the canon and what doesn't had nothing to do with the Council of Nicea, and that there was already a large agreement between the varying Christian sects of which Gospels were canonical and which weren't - long before Constantine gave the "OK" sign, right?

Is this close to how you understand it, A_E?

Something like that. My views are changing as I learn more. It depends on how you define "Christian sect" - that phrase really opens the floodgates.

Here's my view:

1) Codex Sinaiticus predates Constantine or is exactly contemporary to him (fourth century). I think that the very existence of this text at this time is evidence that Christians had an idea of canon before Constantine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

2) Marcion (second century) rejected and accepted altered books of the NT and was criticized for it by the church fathers who clearly had an idea of which writings were acceptable and which ones were not. The churches that accepted the now canonical books of the NT would later become "orthodox." The churches that rejected/altered the now canonical books became heretical sects - unorthodox Christian churches like the Marcionites and Gnostics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion

 

[Elvendon]

Why was the Gospel of Thomas booted out? I've read it and it doesn't seem that gnostic. In fact, it adds an extra dimension onto the Christian faith that I didn't think of before...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why was the Gospel of Thomas booted out? I've read it and it doesn't seem that gnostic. In fact, it adds an extra dimension onto the Christian faith that I didn't think of before...

Because it is Gnostic, LOL.

Besides, for whatever reason, the Gospel of Thomas was not being used in the churches - otherwise it would have been considered for the canon.

 

[michel]

This site http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html is an interesting read on when, and why.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Something like that. My views are changing as I learn more. It depends on how you define "Christian sect" - that phrase really opens the floodgates.

Oh, I was willing to define "Christian sect" as those who identified themselves that way.

Here's my view:

1) Codex Sinaiticus predates Constantine or is exactly contemporary to him (fourth century). I think that the very existence of this text at this time is evidence that Christians had an idea of canon before Constantine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

2) Marcion (second century) rejected and accepted altered books of the NT and was criticized for it by the church fathers who clearly had an idea of which writings were acceptable and which ones were not. The churches that accepted the now canonical books of the NT would later become "orthodox." The churches that rejected/altered the now canonical books became heretical sects - unorthodox Christian churches like the Marcionites and Gnostics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion

Thanks for the links, A_E. (Wikipedia rocks) I had a feeling that there was already dissent and disagreement before Constantine, but that the numbers of dissenters were rather small compared to the sects that would eventually agree on the now canonical Gospels? However, it seems that Marcion was a wealthy man who used his money after his excommunication from the Chuch of Rome to establish his own church with himself as Bishop, and he was considered a very real threat because of his money and influence. Is that safe to say?




I am concluding that church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen would be those that are considered "Orthodox" and espousers of the certain interpretations of canonical Gospels that we see today, and Marcion and his followers would be considered heretical because of his interpretations and teachings of these same Gospels? Correct me if I'm wrong.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[Elvendon]

Because it is Gnostic, LOL.

Besides, for whatever reason, the Gospel of Thomas was not being used in the churches - otherwise it would have been considered for the canon.

It didn't strike me as very Gnostic when I first read it... no mention of demiurges or anything like that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks for the links, A_E. (Wikipedia rocks) I had a feeling that there was already dissent and disagreement before Constantine, but that the numbers of dissenters were rather small compared to the sects that would eventually agree on the now canonical Gospels?

That has been the traditional view. To be honest, the evidence may suggest that the orthodox group was just a big or smaller than other major groups. Christianity before the major councils was extremely diverse.

Here is an excellent source that I use. I have recently found some criticisms of this work, but I've forgotten what they are.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/

However, it seems that Marcion was a wealthy man who used his money after his excommunication from the Chuch of Rome to establish his own church with himself as Bishop, and he was considered a very real threat because of his money and influence. Is that safe to say?

I did some extensive research on Marcion last year - I can email you a paper on it if you like. You've just stated the majority view that best explains how Marcion could have spread his views across the world at a rapid pace. I disagree with it, but the evidence really can go either way.

Personally, I think that certain churches were purists and only accepted the earliest Christian writings that came to their area, possibly with the first missionaries. As edited versions of the same writings began to circulate, they rejected these edits. The ancient world was used to edited works - there are thousands of edited versions of Homer, and grammar schools would teach students how to locate the earliest and most dependable readings. Marcion may have done this to the NT, and his message was welcomed in churches that had already been suspicious of edited and late NT writings floating around.

I am concluding that church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen would be those that are considered "Orthodox" and espousers of the certain interpretations of canonical Gospels that we see today, and Marcion and his followers would be considered heretical because of his interpretations and teachings of these same Gospels? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Peace,
Mystic

That's right.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Fascinating. Thanks, A_E. :flower:



*continues to pick up pieces of brain tissue after head explosion*



Don't mind me. Learning new things is great.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[James the Persian]

Mystic-als,

Are we talking about what the Protestants call the apocrypha (the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament) or the New Testament apocrypha, otherwise known as the Gnostic Gospels etc.? If it's the former, they were not excluded from the canon. The vast majority of Christians in the world have all or the majority of them in their canons (Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox - bar the Ethiopians - use all, RCs and Ethiopians have most). Only the Protestant reformers threw out the deuterocannon and even they did so quite late. The original KJV, for instance, includes these books.

If the latter, then they were rejected because they were considered to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Church and hence not valid components of Holy Tradition. They did not teach normative Christianity. A canon is a measure, after all, and hence the canon of Scripture is simply the collection of writings against which other writings and teachings should be compared.

Someone mentioned Nicea. You're quite right that this council (and Constantine) had nothing whatsoever to do with canonising the New Testament. The canonisation of Scripture was a long and organic process which had resulted in a core group of commonly accepted canonical texts long before Nicea but was not complete until about a century after that council. None of this process, though, had anything to do with the OT. The original Church's OT was the Septuagint and remained so until the Reformation. Rome, for reasons I do not know, dropped a few Deuterocanonical texts at some point and the Ethiopians dropped some books and added others, but all of these Old Testament canons were considered valid while the Church was one. The idea of their being a single fixed canon at any point in he Church's history is simply not accurate.

James

 

[Mystic-als]

I was taught that these were evil books and that I was to stay away. The bible does say to "flee form every appearence of evil" so we shouldn't play with the devil's toys.

I don't believe this but it is what was taught to me.

Maybe this is a stupid question. But WHY SHOULD THE APOCRYPHA BE INCLUDED?

 

[James the Persian]

I was taught that these were evil books and that I was to stay away. The bible does say to "flee form every appearence of evil" so we shouldn't play with the devil's toys.

I don't believe this but it is what was taught to me.

Maybe this is a stupid question. But WHY SHOULD THE APOCRYPHA BE INCLUDED?

Again, Iask, what do you refer to as the apocrypha? If you do mean the Deuterocanon, say 1 Maccabees, for instance, then the answer is simple. They should be included because they are part of the Septuagint. This is the OT that was used by the early Church from the beginning, is clearly part of the 'all Scriptures' quote from Timothy that is so beloved of sola scripturalists (ironically) and is the version of the OT almost exclusively quoted in the NT. The question, then, is not why should they be included but, by what authority could they be excluded some 1600 years later.

James

 

[Mystic-als]

by what authority could they be excluded some 1600 years later.

I totally agree. But it is only my opinion. I want to hear people who think differently.

I am talking about both. Esspecially the NT one though

 

[James the Persian]

I totally agree. But it is only my opinion. I want to hear people who think differently.

I am talking about both. Esspecially the NT one though

The situations with the OT and NT 'apocrypha' are quite different. With the former, Protestants and those who follow that canon need to justify why they excluded books held as canonical by the Church from the beginning. With the latter, anyone who wishes to include them must justify why they would add books that were never considered canonical by the Church. If you read the vast majority of the non-canonical NT era books, it's patently obvious why the Church excluded them. There are certain books, such as the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas that are not so clear cut but whilst these were never part of the canon they were always considered useful texts. We still consider them as such and place them in Holy Tradition. The issue is not a black and white canonical = inspired, non-canonical = uninspired one as many sola scripturalists would have you believe.

James

 

[Mystic-als]

That is interesting! Where can I or someone else find a list of these books? Again all of the Apocrypha books. Is there a website/s you know of?

 

[James the Persian]

That is interesting! Where can I or someone else find a list of these books? Again all of the Apocrypha books. Is there a website/s you know of?

You can find the majority of the Deuterocanon in any RC Bible or the original KJV. They're probably online somewhere but I've never had cause to look for them as they are in my Bible at home (most in my English Bible and all in the Romanian one).
You can find most if not all of the NT era apocrypha and other texts such as those I mentioned above here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Hope this helps.

James

 

[Mystic-als]

Great! thanks a lot for this!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It didn't strike me as very Gnostic when I first read it... no mention of demiurges or anything like that.

See Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

Though debate continues, I think Ehrman makes a very compelling argument for the Gnostic character of the Gospel of Thomas.​