Apostolic Fathers? Pseudepigrapha? Dead Sea Scrolls? Gnostic Gospels?

[MultifariousBirdLady]

I was very curious about all the texts that early Christians used but which didn't make it into the official canon. The Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and different apocalypses especially interested me. I found it very enlightening to take a look at the literature that "didn't make the cut." The apocalypses especially really put all of Revelations in a new light for me. It became just one example of a whole genre of literature which was popular at the time, not the scary book of predictions of the future I had been taught it was.

[Tyson]

I was very curious about all the texts that early Christians used but which didn't make it into the official canon. The Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and different apocalypses especially interested me. I found it very enlightening to take a look at the literature that "didn't make the cut." The apocalypses especially really put all of Revelations in a new light for me. It became just one example of a whole genre of literature which was popular at the time, not the scary book of predictions of the future I had been taught it was.

 

 

 

Unload some links, bro.

[1United]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[hereticzero]

Try reading the Nag Hammadi Scriptures.

Try this site too: http://reluctant-messenger.com/lost_forgotten_books.htm

[Mythra]

Modern-day orthodox xians would try to assert that there is a huge difference in the canonical and non-canonical writings. That the canonical are authentic and early. That everything else came later - as the result of human beings getting creative. Unfortunately (for them) we keep finding new texts and information that does not support the clean-and-easy version of Christianity's infancy handed down to us by Eusebius. Here is an exerpt from "The End of Biblical Studies" by Hector Avalos:

 

First, these "lost" Gospels confirm that early Christianity was so diverse and chaotic that we can no longer speak of "Christianity" but now must talk of "Christianities", a point made by, among others, Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities (2003). What these "christianities" have in common is their claimed connection with a "Christ", who is portrayed in astoundingly variegated fashion.

 

Second, we can no longer privilege just the canonical Gospels as the earliest or best sources for depicting early Christianity. This, of course, is a fundamental principle of the Jesus Seminar, and John Dominic Crossan's study of the Historical Jesus already places the gospel of Thomas and the Egerton Gospel in the earliest stratum of his sources (alongside 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and Romans). The fact remains that the earliest dated manuscript of any Gospel is a tiny fragment known as P52, which contains only a few verses from John 18. That fragment cannot tell us if the unpreserved part of that manuscript bears a gospel of John much like ours. The other three Gospels do not have manuscripts dated before the third century, and the complete ones come from the fourth.

 

However, such dates for canonical materials overlap with at least some of the dates for noncanonical Gospels. The Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas have been dated to the second century, and the Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mary have been dated to the third century. Thus, we cannot say that these Gospels have less "authentic" or "historical" material at all. And if we dismiss noncanonical Gospels as forgeries because they were probably not written by the claimed authors, then the same could be said for many books in the canon, ranging from Moses's "books" to 2 Peter. The point remains that we cannot verify or falsify many claims in these noncanonical Gospels any more than we can verify or falsify claims in the canonical ones.

 

Hector Avalos has a Masters from Harvard in Theological Studies, a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic philology, and is a professor in the Religion Department at Iowa State University.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Unload some links, bro.

 

Thanks for the links, folks.

Here are some others which might be of interest to those here:

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/index.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/index.htm

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/egypti...tica/index.html

[MultifariousBirdLady]

First, these "lost" Gospels confirm that early Christianity was so diverse and chaotic that we can no longer speak of "Christianity" but now must talk of "Christianities", a point made by, among others, Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities (2003).

 

I have a series of lectures on "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman, and would highly recommend them, by the way. It's absolutely fascinating and has prompted me to go out and get hard copy translations of some of the texts he mentions.

 

Looking into all of this sure has given me a very different perspective of the Bibles considered scripture now.

[mwc]

Hector Avalos has a Masters from Harvard in Theological Studies, a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic philology, and is a professor in the Religion Department at Iowa State University.

Sounds like a "loony" to me. But I know another guy from Harvard who's a frickin' genius...

 

mwc

[Mythra]

I noticed the same pedigrees also. You don't suppose they were classmates?

[mwc]

I noticed the same pedigrees also. You don't suppose they were classmates?

How many times does the term "stop peeing on my leg" appear in his book? That could indicate a common teacher. (I swear I'm growing literally dumber by the day having encountered that man...but this is all way off-topic here. ) If they were classmates I do imagine it ending this way ->

 

mwc

[sojourner]

I dont get the inside joke at all but the Erhman book Lost Christianities is now on my list of books to get as soon as I get out of the doghouse for all the extras Ive bought lately

 

thanks for sharing that

 

sojourner

[MathGeek]

I perused the Gospel of Thomas one time and I found it to be nothing more than a rip-off of the canonical gospel and the Book of Proverbs. I also perused the Book of Enoch. If there was ever a text that proved to me that the sacred manna of the Jews was the sacred 'shroom, it was that disturbing text. Furthermore, the book of Enoch is on a plane of strangeness that I could never before have fathomed. If you think Revelation is out there, Enoch will blow your mind away faster than any movie using a soundtrack penned by Pink Floyd.