Talk:New Testament apocrypha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[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)
- 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)
[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)
