The Apycrypha

[Charlie in Dayton]

There was an interesting program on The History Channel this evening, entitled Banned From The Bible, a history of what books did and didn't make it into the Bible, and why.

The books that didn't make it are examined, and I must say, there's some very interesting things there. Variants of the Bible stories...parallel stories from other cultures' texts, from earlier and later times than the Bible versions...books that were written to explain the puzzling aspects of the Bible stories (Cain's wife was his sister???)...books that just flat didn't make it into the Bible because they were deemed not to be 'The Word Of God' (apparently they just didn't agree with the teachings of the time).
Do these books answer questions? According to the broadcast, some questions are answered, some questions are not, more new questions get posed, and numerous corners to get painted into appear.

For those of you interested in perusing these texts (and believe me, I'm gonna be doing some very heavy reading), they are available online at The Apocrypha Index (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/).

Edited to add::
I've found some additional links with more texts mentioned in the show.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html)
Scroll down for 'The Protovangelium of James (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/TOC.htm#TopOfPage)

In the link about the Apocrypha, check 'The Gospel of Mary' -- interesting...guess who was left in charge?
And it turns out that The Book of Revelation just barely made the Bible. The number one contender was The Apocalypse of Peter (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-mrjames.html). It details Jesus's trip to Hell during the three days. Trouble is, Hell wasn't depicted as...hellish...it was actually rather pleasant for the righteous (everyone went to hell for awhile). But blasphemers, fornicators, and usurers (among others) were in for some nasty times...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Before there was The Bible as such, there were all sorts of sacred writings with varying reputations.

By 100 BCE or so, all the "Old Testament" writings were pretty much in their current form, but not collected into a single group.

The rabbinic Council of Jamnia c 90 CE made a "final" determination of what went in and what was left out of the OT. The rejected works were not banned as heretical or anything like that, merely held not to be inerrant.

The book of Esther and the Song of Solomon almost didn't make the cut.

The book of Judith and the first two books of Maccabees almost made it in. These are respected as "accurate" yet not held to be divinely inspired.

Others are just preserved for cultural reasons rather than faith.

Thus, the apocrypha. Included in some Roman catholic Bibles, BTW.

The "New Testament" apocrypha are another story I'll leave to someone else.

[Mercutio]

The show is just ending--I watched it. Some I already knew, some was very new to me.

Last summer, I got in a...discussion...with my sister-in-law, about the bible. She is religious, and I know so much more about the bible than she does. To me, the history of the bible books themselves is actually more interesting than the stories written therein; after all, the stories of the books actually happened.

[BeProf]

Canon formation is something that I tend to take pretty seriously. Overall, I thought it was a good program.

[Charlie in Dayton]

While watching the show, I asked myself a question, which led to asking a more important question.

Why was it that the early authorities didn't believe the versions contained in these books?

And this led to the other question:

Why was it that early authorities DID believe the versions contained in the other books?

Inquiring minds STILL want to know...

[Mercutio]

And this led to the other question:

Why was it that early authorities DID believe the versions contained in the other books?

What makes you think they did?

I am actually being serious...

[Mercutio]

What makes you think they did?

I am actually being serious...
Eww...I quoted myself...

For the second time today, I find myself quoting Edgar Rice Burroughs, in Tarzan and the Leopard People (I think). Tarzan is talking to the High Priestess of the Leopard People, who tells him "the more you know about a religion, the less you believe in it. And I know more about my religion than anyone else." Or words to that effect.

It could apply here. But it is, I admit, terribly cynical.

[HeyLeroy]

Has anyone heard of the 'secret' gospel of Mark, which some people use to suggest that Jesus may've been gay?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_miss.htm

full search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=secret+mark+gospels&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

[BeProf]

While watching the show, I asked myself a question, which led to asking a more important question.

Why was it that the early authorities didn't believe the versions contained in these books?

And this led to the other question:

Why was it that early authorities DID believe the versions contained in the other books?

Inquiring minds STILL want to know...

I could post a long drawn out discussion of this issue, or I could just post a link to an excellent article from over at tektonics.org:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

Basically, it all came down to acceptance. Did the church as a whole accept a document as being apostolic and authoritative? 20 of the 27 books in the New Testament made it in easily on that criterion alone. Only one book that was left out, the Didache, was at all "questionable" to the church as a whole in the 4th century.

All of the other "lost gospels" were pretty much unversally seen as being 2nd or 3rd century forgeries produced by the Gnostics.

EDIT -- A short terminology note:

The term Apocrypha is generally only applied to the "deuterocanonical" books that are accepted by Roman Catholics, but not Protestants.

The "NT Apocrypha" (as well as things like the Book of Enoch that aren't accepted by either Protestants or Catholics) is usually refered to as the Pseudepigrapha.

[chance]

Have a good read of this one, the “Book of Susanna”, it’s exclusion seems an early attempt at what?

Susanna is accuse of adultery, or pre marital sex, read on……

1:41 Then the assembly believed them as those that were the elders and judges of the people: so they condemned her to death.

1:42 Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be:

1:43 Thou knowest that they have borne false witness against me, and, behold, I must die; whereas I never did such things as these men have maliciously invented against me.

1:44 And the Lord heard her voice.

1:45 Therefore when she was led to be put to death, the Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young youth whose name was Daniel:

1:46 Who cried with a loud voice, I am clear from the blood of this woman.

1:47 Then all the people turned them toward him, and said, What mean these words that thou hast spoken?

1:48 So he standing in the midst of them said, Are ye such fools, ye sons of Israel, that without examination or knowledge of the truth ye have condemned a daughter of Israel?

1:49 Return again to the place of judgment: for they have borne false witness against her.

1:50 Wherefore all the people turned again in haste, and the elders said unto him, Come, sit down among us, and shew it us, seeing God hath given thee the honour of an elder.

1:51 Then said Daniel unto them, Put these two aside one far from another, and I will examine them.

1:52 So when they were put asunder one from another, he called one of them, and said unto him, O thou that art waxen old in wickedness, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light.

1:53 For thou hast pronounced false judgment and hast condemned the innocent and hast let the guilty go free; albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and righteous shalt thou not slay.

1:54 Now then, if thou hast seen her, tell me, Under what tree sawest thou them companying together? Who answered, Under a mastick tree.

1:55 And Daniel said, Very well; thou hast lied against thine own head; for even now the angel of God hath received the sentence of God to cut thee in two.

1:56 So he put him aside, and commanded to bring the other, and said unto him, O thou seed of Chanaan, and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart.

1:57 Thus have ye dealt with the daughters of Israel, and they for fear companied with you: but the daughter of Juda would not abide your wickedness.

1:58 Now therefore tell me, Under what tree didst thou take them companying together? Who answered, Under an holm tree.

1:59 Then said Daniel unto him, Well; thou hast also lied against thine own head: for the angel of God waiteth with the sword to cut thee in two, that he may destroy you.

1:60 With that all the assembly cried out with a loud voice, and praised God, who saveth them that trust in him.

1:61 And they arose against the two elders, for Daniel had convicted them of false witness by their own mouth:

1:62 And according to the law of Moses they did unto them in such sort as they maliciously intended to do to their neighbour: and they put them to death. Thus the innocent blood was saved the same day.

Thoughts anyone.

[Tez]

This is kind of neat: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/bel001.htm

In short: Daniel debunks the priests' claim that a statue is eating food and drink. The king seals the room containg the statue, but the priests enter via a hidden doorway at night and consume the food. The king gets all excited in the morning that the statue really has consumed the food, until Daniel points out the footprints in the dirt to him. So its bye-bye to the charlatans...

[kmortis]

This is kind of neat: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/bel001.htm

In short: Daniel debunks the priests' claim that a statue is eating food and drink. The king seals the room containg the statue, but the priests enter via a hidden doorway at night and consume the food. The king gets all excited in the morning that the statue really has consumed the food, until Daniel points out the footprints in the dirt to him. So its bye-bye to the charlatans...
Soooo, this is claiming that David was the first recorded Jewish skeptic?

[Darat]

An easy but scholarly read is Elaine Pagels "The Gnostic Gospels" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140134689/qid=1137156806/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-7089992-0022235) - a great over view.

[Beerina]

This is kind of neat: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/bel001.htm

In short: Daniel debunks the priests' claim that a statue is eating food and drink. The king seals the room containg the statue, but the priests enter via a hidden doorway at night and consume the food. The king gets all excited in the morning that the statue really has consumed the food, until Daniel points out the footprints in the dirt to him. So its bye-bye to the charlatans...

So...priests of organized religion were pulling BS on people back then, even kings?!?!?

What...what...what other religious things might also have been BS?

Oh. My. God. Moses came down with some chisled tablets, claiming he, and only he, saw a burning bush. Maybe he was BS-ing them.

Maybe Saul, riding through the countryside, realized a good thing when he saw it, and seized control of the newfound religion, BS-ing all along the way, in exchange for being in charge of the ever growing pot of donations.

Nahhh, couldn't be.

[Tricky]

For the second time today, I find myself quoting Edgar Rice Burroughs, in Tarzan and the Leopard People (I think). Tarzan is talking to the High Priestess of the Leopard People, who tells him "the more you know about a religion, the less you believe in it. And I know more about my religion than anyone else." Or words to that effect.
Sort of like the saying that you should never watch sausages or laws being made.

[kmortis]

Sort of like the saying that you should never watch sausages or laws being made.
Or frozen ravioli...I couldn't eat frozen ravioli for about a year after I worked in a pasta plant.

[jjramsey]

Has anyone heard of the 'secret' gospel of Mark, which some people use to suggest that Jesus may've been gay?

Yes. More likely than not, it was a hoax perpetrated by Morton Smith:

http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2005/12/kyle-smiths-critique-of-gospel-hoax.html

[Tricky]

Or frozen ravioli...I couldn't eat frozen ravioli for about a year after I worked in a pasta plant.
Maybe I shouldn't ask, but why not?

However, having worked in a number of restaurants, I can probably guess.

Frankly, though, I'm glad I saw those things. Now it is nearly impossible to gross me out. (The "Mr. Creosote" scene in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life being a notable exception.)

[kmortis]

Maybe I shouldn't ask, but why not?

However, having worked in a number of restaurants, I can probably guess.

Frankly, though, I'm glad I saw those things. Now it is nearly impossible to gross me out. (The "Mr. Creosote" scene in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life being a notable exception.)
Well, the "beef" filling, as it comes out of the extruder, looks like...um..*****. Not "it looks bad", it looks like feces coming out of an anus. I could take MdeC to the plant if you want an expert witness on this. It just set me off.

Nowadays, I can eat it ok. But back then...:yikes:

[Mercutio]

Sort of like the saying that you should never watch sausages or laws being made.
I'll quote you instead of me this time...but thanks to Google, I know I erred in my citation. It was "The Return of Tarzan". Here (http://www.online-literature.com/edgar_rice_burroughs/return_tarzan/). The quote is from chapter 22...

"It is the duty of a high priestess to instruct, to interpret-- according to the creed that others, wiser than herself, have laid down; but there is nothing in the creed which says that she must believe. The more one knows of one's religion the less one believes--no one living knows more of mine than I."