Talk:New Testament apocrypha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Notice to All Editors 2 Discussion 3 Diatessaron 4 Definition of "Namesake" 5 move corpus from gospel 6 A mess 7 Trying to make sense out of the article 8 further Armenian texts

[edit] Notice to All Editors

Please maintain the following notice at the top of this Talk page.

Before changing the names of any headings on this page, please note that the article Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture has headings linked directly to these subheads. Any changes here should be duplicated there so as to maintain hyperlinks. Thanks! --The Editrix 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This is the kind of article I'd call a trunk. Much more than a mere disambiguation. It needs more "For Main article, see..." headers, IMO. --Wetman 23:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The author is not aware of the meaning of "New Testament apocrypha". Since when are e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas, the Book of Enoch, the Didache, The Book of Nepos considered as apocrypha? And since when do all documents, found in Nag Hammadi, count as apocrypha? Besednjak

The term Apocrypha ("hidden writings") covers all the contemporary writings on sacred subjects not included in the canon. Selections are sometimes printed and bound as companions to New Testaments. Those texts may be more familiar than others. Compare also pseudepigrapha. --Wetman 17:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Your definition would include even writings on Greek and Roman philosophy, as these are ancient and deal with sacred subjects. You should adhere to a more accurate definition.

In order to be considered as NT apocrypha the writing must:

• not be included in a (not the!) canon;
• clearly aim at being part of the NT;
• be written in the first centuries;
• be considered or presented as writings of the apostles (like John, Thomas, Mary Magdalena).

Few examples where the article is wrong: The Book of Enoch is an Old Testament apocrypha, not a New Testament apocrypha. The Shepherd of Hermas was written by a Christian in Rome, not by an apostle and had never claimed to be part of the NT (how could it, as the author clearly identifies as a non-apostle). Same goes for Epistles of Clement. Writings from the apostolic fathers, church fathers etc. cannot be considered as NT apocrypha, nor can ancient writings in general be considered as NT apocrypha if they do clearly not "want to belong" to the NT. This is a normal definition among scolars. Besednjak 19:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the Book of Enoch is thought to have originated in the New Testament era (i.e. after 1AD), even though it concerns the Old Testament (more precisely, the Nephilim). Even though the Shepherd of Hermas, and Epistles of Clement were clearly not written by apostles, they were nethertheless included in early (i.e. pre 5th century) lists of biblical canon, so count amongst the apocrypha. Indeed, these two (and the Epistle of Barnabas) especially, as they were originally considered more canonical than the book of Revelations (which only just scraped into the bible, and was not on the earlier lists, unlike Shepherd of Hermas). ~~~~ 19:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say that even though the Shephard of Hermas and Epistles of Clement were clearly not written by apostles, they were nevertheless included in lists of biblical canons. 1) If they were included in the canon, than they cannot be treated as apocrypha. 2) If they had been clearly identified as not written by the apostles, they could never have been put on that list. Just another note: On the list there finds itself even the Toledoth Yeshu. A sane mind cannot possibly think that it is supposed to be part of the NT, nor that it aimed to be. On the list we see merely a collection of writings, mostly findings from Nag Hammadi. How interesting and important these may be, it does not make them automatically apocrypha. Besednjak 07:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diatessaron

I wonder whether the Eastern Orthodox practice of composite readings (from various books) at vesperal services for certain important feasts were inspired by the practice of harmonizing the gospels (or at least the synoptics). Eddieuny 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "Namesake"

I'm a little concerned about the parenthetical following the two Gospels of the Egyptians. It says, for example,

"Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (Not to be confused with its namesake, the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)" It previously says the same thing (but vice versa) about the Greek gospel of the Egyptians.

I don't think the author of this section quite understood the meaning of the word "namesake." The namesake of something is what it was named after not something that shares its name. This is confusing, and, one way or the other, should be edited.

All "translations" in Christian Antiquity were broader than modern ones, and—unlike pagan translations—were partly driven by ideological politics. How different are the Coptic and the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians is the essential question. --Wetman 22:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] move corpus from gospel

There is a section in Gospel that discusses the matter of apocryphal gospels and has a list. That list is more complete that this article so I thought it's more appropriate here. I moved all of it here, but I didn't take care of duplicates. Pictureuploader 10:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A mess

This article is a mess and much of it is misleading. Simply because a book has "gospel" in front of it, it does not necessarily make it part of the New Testament Apocrypha. If so, let's see some citations. I had a college major in Religious Studies and have never seen Gnostic Gospels listed as "New Testament Apocrypha". Gnosticism is not a branch of Christianity, and it is this kind of thinking which leads a lot of people to question why these "gospels" weren't included in the Bible. (This question comes up almost daily on Yahoo Answers: "Why isn't the Gospel of Mary in the New Testament?"). I think a lot of this came up in The Da Vinci Code, which is fiction, not legitimate history.

The "debatablility" of the Book of Enoch being in the New Testament Apocrypha: where is someone arguing it is? Everything single thing I have ever seen it mentioned in includes it in the Pseudepigrapha (which is Old Testament), not in the New Testament Apocrypha. Squad51 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are apocrypha. They are sacred writings contemporary (roughly)to the the composition of the canonical gospels and about the same subject matter. There cannot be a more exacting definition of the term, since by nature it is a vague term and will include many bordeline cases. I personally think it would be best to include boderline cases in this list. It should be noted that this does not include the Apocrypha included on the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church, which doesn't even define those books as Apocrypha. Neither must one fear that designating a book as apocryphal endows it with some sort of authenticity or credibility. And apocryphal gospel containing heresy is still heresy. Zach82 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone vandalised the article in December, and deleted most of the content. It has just been restored.

[edit] Trying to make sense out of the article

This is not my subject. But, observing that the article had nothing that could possibly pass for an introduction, I have written one. It may need tidying up, but can I suggest that this is the sort of statement an introduction should make. Not a long winded waffle about what the modern reader my glean from the fact that such things as something known as the apocryphal gospels exist. The information in that paragraph is valuable, but it isn't a suitable intro, and it has been slightly adjusted.

I don't know whether the links to the headings and subheadings will still work. The words remain the same, but there are new subheadings, and the size of the headings has been adjusted. The Gnostic writings have been put further down. I do not know for sure whether the list of writings beginning with those pertaining to Mary, now above the Gnostic writings, are actually Gnostic writings and should be listed below that heading. My impression is that they are not, but someone who is expert in the subject should look at this and place them correctly if I have done the wrong thing. --Amandajm 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is a difficult read - with some run-on sentences and awkward wording. I would definitely encourage anyone knowledgeable about the subject, who has some grammatical skills, to attempt a rewrite. gnomelock 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] further Armenian texts

What about the Dormition (Repose) of St John and the Prayer (Plea or Colophon) of Eutalius (Euthalius) which are in some editions of the Armenian New Testament?