Writings that were not included in the bible...
 

Would you folks recommend any of the other writing, like Polycarp and Ignatius and such, not included in the NT. Are the some writings you'd reccommend and also some that should be steered clear from.

Thanks!

Re: Writings that were not included in the bible..
 

Josephus was an excellent first century historian.

Re: Writings that were not included in the bible..
 

Early writings are something I too am interested in learning more about. For example, I know Jude quotes one of the books they chose not to use as cannon, because it contradicted much of what Paul said. I have read this somewhere, but can't remember the name of the book to research it out more. Hopefully someone educated in this area sees this thread.

Re: Writings that were not included in the bible..
 

I think it is good to read the early wiritings, in fact, i believe it makes a strong case and defense for oneness and establishes the fact that it was quite a while before the trinity and all that would become "christian" came into being.

I do not think that there are any of these books that are anywhere near the quality of the scriptural writings. I think that God gave us what he intended to. For example, Polycarp mentions a bird that starts out as a worm (or something crazy like that) and lives for 500 years (the pheonix).

Re: Writings that were not included in the bible..
 

I would say that the most "important" of all the New Testament era books that one could read for a variety of reasons would be this one.

It was read so widely throughout the pre nicene council churches that it came within a hairs breadth of being included in the New Testament canon.

It WILL give you a glimpse into the mind set of that period of time in the develpment of the church as well as once again blatantly reflect the Oneness theology of that period of time.

It is called "The Shepherd of Hermas" and is really quite interesting.

One other thing concerning the books of Enoch out there that another poster referred to when he mentioned the quote in Jude. Most scholars now believe that these works (there are several quite different variations on the theme) are actually POST Jude not PRE Jude, in other words there is every likelihood not that Jude quoted from THEM but rather that THEY quoted from Jude.

Another interesting but purely fictional work is called "The Acts of Paul and Thecla" more of a conversion story than a work atempting to be taken as scripture. The interesting thing is that since it predates the trinitarian formula of water baptism in it the heroine (Thecla a rich Roman woman who had heard the preaching of Paul, believed it , yet because of fear had not made an open profession of faith and been baptized) finds herself consigned to death in the arena for the faith ANYWAY and facing the wild beasts, sees a pool of water and rushing over to it baptizes HERSELF (interesting thought there) IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST "Against the last day".

Most if not all though of the books are highly corrupted and many such as the highly touted Didache probably resemble virtually NOTHING of the original documents at all.

Many such as the Gospel of Thomas are actually the work of the wide spread Gnostic movement that Paul and John so adamantly fought in early Christianity.

Others like the protoevangelium of James show a more Mary Centered agenda than a Jesus centered one, and in fact show a Jesus (in Protoevengelium of James) who could be very mean spirited in miracles (striking fellow play mates blind because they were not kind to him) that is totally out of character with the Jesus of the gospels.

One book that I WOULD definitely recommend it lies right up there with the Shepherd of Hermas and may actually be more valuable to YOUR studies is a book which lies among the Old Testament Apocrypha (Those books and portions of books NOT included in the Old Testament Canon) is the First Book of Macccabbees. It is a highly reliable account of the time just prior to the coming of Messiah, shows the shaping of the society that Jesus encountered, has No Miracles No Prophecy No Doctrine is purely Historical in nature and indispensable to anyone wanting to grasp the MINDSET of the people in the Gospels. Second Maccabbees tends to go more into the miraculous, is where the catholics look for a hint of purgatory, praying to the saints, but is also where we find the origins of Hannukah or the Feast of the Dedication a feast that Jesus evidently DID honour in John chapter 10

I'm boring you I am sure but those are some of MY recommendations.


P.S. Many people are led into reading and believing the veracity of some of these books through various logical arguments. Primarily "Where is the Gospel of MARY? Wouldn't SHE Be the best one to write from the insiders view point? Also Where is the Gospel of Peter? Wouldn't you think HE would have written such a work of ALL the Apostles???

That is why the Protoevangelium of James is so widely read it is claimed by many to be the work of Mary and James the mother and Brother of the Lord himself. HOWEVER the real Gospel of Mary is the first portion of the Gospel of Luke, the compilation of first hand witnesses to the facts he relates. Which is why HIS Gospel carries the lineage of Jesus THROUGH Mary as well as the events of the first chapters, the annunciation, the visit to Elizabeth, The prophecy of Zacharias, etc etc.

And almost all New Testament Scholars recognize that the Gospel of Mark is undoubtedly the Gospel of Peter as DICTATED to Mark.

Anyway there you have it in another lengthy rambling post. I am so encouraged to see people with a desire to educate themselves!

Re: Writings that were not included in the bible..
 

Good stuff T! I had also heard that 1 and 2 Maccabees were often thought to be written some time after the period they represent.


Most if not all though of the books are highly corrupted and many such as the highly touted Didache probably resemble virtually NOTHING of the original documents at all.

As I am studying, it seems that this is actually likely to be the case for most of our Bible. I am studying the relation of the Church to political power, and there is no question that almost from the moment Jesus left this earth, Christianity became a power in politics, first as an obstacle, then as a tool. It concerns me that most of the major events that lead to our Bible coming together were at the direction of men who wanted to use it to rule more effectively.

It also seems like people often thought it OK to change things just a bit when it fit their theological views better. We see this even now. John 1:1 has one single letter added to it from the KJV in some bibles and it radically changes the entire verse. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was (a) God. That one letter word in the parenthesis changes everything!

My study in this area is very VERY early, and I am in a bit over my head, but I do not think every word in the Bible is the exact and true word of God anymore, which I did only half a year ago or less. It makes it very hard to have any faith in the book when you begin to study it's history.

I know some preachers who will (and I did when I used to preach) use a dictionary to drive home the emphasis of a particular word. When you actually begin to understand
the process of translation this practice seems write silly as the word you are being so exact about was simply the best fit the translator could come up with.

*Sigh* Sometimes it just gets to be overwhelming.

Anyhoo. My studies have lead me to the liniage of the papal office, and Clement is listed as like, number three I think, and I read somewhere that one of the earliest original Christian writings we have is from him. Do you know much about him, or that alleged writing? Would he really be considered a "Pope" or is this simply the Catholic Church claiming him as they do Peter?

Thanks, and anyone who can help answer these questions would be great!

Jeremy