The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

From Summa Bergania

from Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. (Page 297). Chicago: Moody Press.

During the third century Origen, like Clement of Alexandria, was faced with the problem that no conclusively fixed boundary between the canonical and noncanonical books of the Bible had been recognized by the church. He set about categorizing Christian writings so that they fell into three basic groupings: (a) anantireta (“unobjectionable”) or homologoumena (“acknowledged”), which were in general use in the church, (b) amphiballomena (“included/contested”), which were contested, and (c) psethde (“false”), which included books that were rejected as falsifications and therefore the products of heretics. This classification was later reformulated by Eusebius of Caesarea during the fourth century as (a) homologoumena (“acknowledged”), (b) antilegomena (“disputed”), which were divided into two subcategories gnorima (“acquainted with”), for those most Christians acknowledged, and notha (“illegitimate”), for those regarded as inauthentic, and (c) apocrypha (“hidden”), which were viewed as spurious. These categories of books have become settled in four categories: (a) Homologoumena, books accepted by virtually everyone as canonical; (b) Antilegomena, books disputed by some; (c) Pseudepigrapha, books rejected by virtually everyone as unauthentic; and (d) Apocrypha, books accepted by some as canonical or semicanonical.

Contents 1 Books Accepted by All—Homologoumena 1.1 The Nature of the Homologoumena 1.2 The Number of the Homologoumena 2 The Disputed Books—Antilegomena 2.1 The Nature of the Antilegomena 2.2 The Number of the Antilegomena 3 The Books Rejected by All—Pseudepigrapha 3.1 The Nature of the Pseudepigrapha 3.2 The Number of the Pseudepigrapha 3.2.1 Gospels 3.2.2 Acts 3.2.3 Epistles (“Apostolic Pseudepigrapha”) 3.2.4 Apocalypses 4 Books Accepted by Some—Apocrypha 4.1 The Nature of the Apocrypha 4.2 The Number of the Apocrypha 5 Evaluation of the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 5.1 The Value of the New Testament Pseudepigrapha 5.2 The Value of the New Testament Apocrypha 6 Summary and Conclusion 7 See Also

Books Accepted by All—Homologoumena

The Nature of the Homologoumena

The Homologoumena are those books that have been universally acclaimed as canonical from their beginning. They have appeared in virtually every ancient version and orthodox canonical list, as well as having been widely quoted as Scripture. None of these books was deliberately deleted from the circulating canon in orthodox circles or brought into question by any prominent Father. Of course, the exact number of these books will vary depending on one’s definition of “orthodox” and “prominent”; but for the most part, there is little disagreement on this point.

The Number of the Homologoumena

Generally speaking, twenty of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament canon are considered to be undisputed. This includes all of the books from Matthew through Philemon, plus 1 Peter and 1 John. It is true that some have also included the latter three books (Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John) among the disputed books; however, it is probably better to refer to those as omitted rather than disputed books (see chap. 16). A disputed book is characterized as one that is retained and yet questioned, not merely one that is not quoted nor included in a given list. Unless there is clear evidence that a book was absent from a canonical list or from a Father’s quotation (or enumeration) because it was considered of doubtful authenticity or authority, it would be better not to classify it as Antilegomena. In either event, if the seven disputed books were extended to ten, they, interestingly enough, would still be among the last books in the order of the New Testament canon.

The Disputed Books—Antilegomena

The Nature of the Antilegomena

It has already been implied that the reason for certain books having been classed as Antilegomena consists in the fact that these books possessed neither uniform nor universal recognition in the early church. They were books that became the subject of canonical controversity and had, as it were, their canonical “ups” and “downs.” It should be said, however, that these books were seldom considered anticanonical, or even uncanonical. Instead, they were given a sort of semicanonical status, as has sometimes been accorded to the Old Testament Apocrypha (see chap. 15).

The Number of the Antilegomena

There are seven books in the Antilegomena, that is, seven books that may be properly called “disputed books.” Concerning the possibility of including three more books in this list, it should be noted that there is good early evidence for the canonicity of 1 Peter, 1 John, and even the brief epistle to Philemon (see chap. 16). Certainly there is almost no evidence that those who possessed the three books did not consider them authentic and apostolic. The seven books that came in question for various reasons are Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. In order to clearly understand the issue at stake, the books “spoken against” (Antilegomena) must be care fully and individually considered.

Hebrews - This book was questioned because of its anonymity. In the East, where it was considered Pauline, it was readily received. The West was slower, however, because of uncertainty as to its apostolic authorship, and possibly because individuals in the heretical Montanist sect appealed to Hebrews for one of their erroneous doctrines. In the fourth century, through the influence of Jerome and Augustine, the West finally recognized the epistle as canonical. One other reason that the West was slow in its deliberation was its stress upon apostolic authorship rather than apostolic authority as the correct test of canonicity (see chap. 15).

James - James was questioned as to its veracity, although some questioned its authorship as well. The supposed conflict with Paul on justification by faith held back full acceptance as late as the time of Eusebius. Even during the Reformation period, Luther had doubts about James, calling it “flatly in contradiction to St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture.” Luther placed it at the end of his New Testament, with Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, in a lesser position. As a result of the work of Origen, Eusebius (who personally favored James), Jerome, and Augustine, the West finally recognized its complementary nature to Paul’s epistles and hence, its canonicity.

2 Peter - The genuineness of 2 Peter was questioned. In fact, no other book in the New Testament has been questioned as persistently. Even Calvin seemed to be unsure of it. Jerome stated that the hesitancy to accept 2 Peter was due to dissimilarity of style with 1 Peter.5 Whether, as Jerome thought, this characteristic is due to a different amanuensis may never be fully settled. It is clear, however, that ample evidence is now available to attest that this epistle is rightly attributed to the apostle Peter.

1. Another reason for rejecting 2 Peter has been the claim that it is a second century work. However, W.F. Albright has pointed out the reminiscences of Qumran literature in 2 Peter and dates it before a.d. 80.
2. The discovery of the Bodmer manuscript (P72), which contains the earliest known copy of 2 Peter (late third century), reveals that it was in use and highly respected by Coptic Christians in Egypt during the third century.
3. Besides the possible allusions to 2 Peter in Pseudo-Barnabas 15:4 (cf. 2 Peter 3:8), there is the testimony of Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine, which finally triumphed. Benjamin B. Warfield perceptively observes that there is more evidence for 2 Peter than there is for Herodotus and Thucydides.
4. Furthermore, there is positive internal evidence for the authenticity of 2 Peter. For although there are some marked differences, there are some close similarities to 1 Peter both linguistically and doctrinally.

2 and 3 John - These books were also questioned as to their genuineness (see chap. 20). Because of their private nature and limited circulation, they did not enjoy a widespread acceptance. The author identified himself not as an apostle but as an “elder,” another fact that hindered its acceptance. All these difficulties notwithstanding, these two epistles were more widely recognized than 2 Peter, being acknowledged in the Muratorian Canon as well as by some of the Fathers in the second century. Furthermore, the similarity of style and thought to 1 John, and the use of “elder” by apostles on other occasions (1 Peter 5:1), argues strongly for the Johannine authorship.

Jude - This was disputed on the question of authenticity (see chap. 20). The majority of those who questioned Jude did so on the basis of its alleged references to the Pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch (vv. 14-15; cf. Enoch 1:9), and possibly also to the Assumption of Moses (v. 9). Origen hints at this, and Jerome specifically says this is the reason it was challenged. It is interesting to note that Tertullian defended Jude as authoritative because it did refer to Enoch.12 However, “the explanation which has most commended it is that Jude’s citation of Enoch does not demand approval of the work as a whole, but extends only to those portions that he utilizes for his purpose. This situation is not materially different from Paul’s references to pagan poets (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12).”13 The external evidence for Jude is widespread from the time of Irenaeus (c. a.d. 170). Like 2 Peter, the Bodmer papyrus manuscript P72 from Egypt confirms the use of Jude during the third century. In fact, traces of Jude’s influence may be found in the Didache (2:7).

Revelation - The Apocalypse (Revelation) was included in the Antilegomena because its authenticity was challenged. The doctrine of chiliasm (millennialism) was the focal point of the controversy, which lasted longer than that over any other New Testament book. It is a curious thing that Revelation was one of the first books to be recognized in existing writings of the apostolic Fathers, and one of the last to be questioned.

Evidence for the immediate reception of Revelation in the first century is understandable, because the “seven churches” (Rev. 2-3) to which it was addressed would naturally want to preserve a work that related to them so directly. There is external evidence for its recognition from the time of the Shepherd of Hermas, continuing on into the second century until the Montanists began to attach their unique form of millennialism to it. Around the middle of the third century, Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, raised his influential voice against the Apocalypse. His views prevailed through the time of Eusebius of Caesarea to the time of Athanasius and the Council of Carthage (a.d. 397) when this trend was reserved. It seems clear that the question was not one of inspiration, but interpretation and association with particular doctrinal emphases that occasioned the dispute. Once this was understood, the authentic apostolic authority of Revelation was vindicated.

As with Revelation, so with all of the disputed books: once the question of authenticity or genuineness was settled, there was no problem about their canonicity. If it was clear that a book was written by a prophet of God, and it told the truth about God, man, and so on, then it was recognized to be the Word of God.

The Books Rejected by All—Pseudepigrapha

The Nature of the Pseudepigrapha

During the first few centuries, numerous books of a fanciful and heretical nature arose that are neither genuine nor valuable as a whole. Eusebius of Caesarea called these “totally absurd and impious.” Virtually no orthodox Father, canon, or council considered these books to be canonical and, so far as the church is concerned, they are primarily of historical value, indicating the heretical teaching of gnostic, docetic, and ascetic groups, as well as the exaggerated fancy of religious lore in the early church. At best, these books were revered by some of the cults and referred to by some of the orthodox Fathers, but they were never considered canonical by the mainstream of Christianity.

The Number of the Pseudepigrapha

There was apparently a large number of non-canonical books even in the first century (cf. John 21:25; 2 Thess. 2:2). By the ninth century Photius listed some 280 of them, and more have subsequently been discovered. The following list includes some of the more important Pseudepigraphal books of the New Testament:

Gospels

There are more than fifty Pseudepigraphal gospels. However, many are known only by name and others by a few scattered citations in the church Fathers. A discussion of the more significant of these follows.

The Gospel of Thomas - (early second century) The Gospel of Thomas was known to Hippolytus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Irenaeus. There were at least two versions of this collection of sayings, one of which shows Gnostic influence. Like other accounts of the infancy of Christ, the Gospel of Thomas contains fanciful stories of alleged childhood miracles of Jesus:

This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. . . . Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. (2:1–4)

Another tells how He cursed a lad to wither like a tree:

And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? Behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph’s house.(3:2–3)

Again, when a “child ran and dashed against his shoulder, Jesus is said to have been provoked and said unto him: ‘Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit., go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died.’” These accounts reflect a dimension of personality in Jesus that is utterly at variance with that as set forth in the New Testament gospel accounts.

The Gospel of the Ebionites - (second century) This work was noted by Epiphanius in his Refutation of All Heresies (fourth cent.). The Ebionites were a Jewish sect of Christians who stressed the law of Moses, denied the deity of Christ, and are said to have accepted only one gospel. They were vegetarians and rejected the idea that John the Baptist ate locusts, claiming: John was baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had raiment of camel’s hair and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat (it saith) was wild honey, whereof the taste is the taste of manna, as a cake dipped in oil.

The Ebionites also believed that Jesus was a mere man whom God adopted at the time of His baptism:

After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light.

According to the Gospel of the Ebionites, it was

on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created, as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of angels and of all things made by the Almighty.

The Gospel of Peter - (second century). Origen, Eusebius, and Theodoret all refer to this Pseudepigraphal gospel. Only fragments of it have been preserved. Eusebius identified it as docetic, which means it denied the true humanity of Christ.

The Gospel of Peter teaches several things that fail to concur with the New Testament. That includes the following examples: (1) That Pilate was guiltless for the death of Jesus and only the Jews were answerable for it. (2) That Jesus felt no pain when crucified. “And they brought two malefactors and crucified the Lord in the midst between them. But he held his peace, as if he felt no pain.” (3) That Jesus referred to the Father as “My power.” And the Lord called out and cried, “My power, O power, thou hast forsaken me!” (4) That Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were from a first marriage of Joseph, a view long held by Roman Catholic scholars. In addition, the Gospel of Peter contains an embellished account of the resurrection of Jesus, which asserts that

in the night in which the Lord’s day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw nigh to the sepulchre. That stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulchre started of itself to roll and give way to the side, and the sepulchre was opened, and both the young men entered in. When now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders for they also were there to assist at the watch. And whilst they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, “Thou hast preached to them that sleep”, and from the cross there was heard the answer, “Yea.”

Protevangelium of James - (late second century). This book is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many other early Fathers. Only one manuscript copy is preserved, in the Bodmer papyrus collection at Oxford University. It is characterized by a particular devotion to Mary. Among its many features are the following: (1) A very early form of devotion to Mary, which included belief in her miraculous birth (not the immaculate conception) and her perpetual virginity. (2) That Mary was born after only six months in the womb and walked (seven steps) only six months after birth. (3) “That Mary was sixteen years old when all these mysterious things [virgin birth, accouncement, conceptions] happened.” (4) The text contains one of the most outlandish miracle stories found anywhere. Speaking of Jesus’ birth it says,

And I looked up at the vault of heaven, and saw it standing still and the birds of the heaven motionless. And I looked at the earth, and saw a dish placed there and workmen lying round it, with their hands in the dish. But those who chewed did not chew, and those who lifted up anything lifted up nothing, and those who put something to their mouth put nothing (to their mouth), but all had their faces turned upwards. And behold, sheep were being driven and (yet) they did not come forward, but stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them with his staff, but his hand remained up. And I looked at the flow of the river, and saw the mouths of the kids over it and they did not drink. And then all at once everything went on its course (again).25

The Gospel of the Hebrews - (second century). The Gospel of the Hebrews is a false gnostic gospel that was known to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. It was mistakenly believed by some that this was the original Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew, which many believe to have been written prior to the Greek version. According to Irenaeus, it was used by the Ebionites to exalt the Old Testament law and to repudiate the apostle Paul. Some claimed this gospel was the same as the Gospel of the Ebionites (based on Epiphanius’s statement) but the two have significant differences, including dissimilar accounts of the baptism of Christ.

Some of the features of the Gospel of the Hebrews include the following: (1) A special appearance of Christ to James, who, contrary to the canonical gospels, is said to have been at the Last Supper. (2) Reference to the Holy spirit as our “mother.” Jesus said, “Even now did my mother the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me away unto the great mountain Thabor.” (3) That Mary was only seven months pregnant with Jesus. (4) It embellishes the voice at the baptism of Christ, saying, “My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever.” (5) An account of the Shroud of Christ, which says,

And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him.... And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: he took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.

The Gospel of the Egyptians - (second century). This spurious gospel is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. It survives in only a few fragments. Like most of the Pseudepigraphical gospels, the Gospel of the Egyptians is heretical. It purports that Jesus “showed his disciples that the same person was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” There seems to be an early ascetic tendency in the cult that produced the work, as reflected in a dialogue between Salome (the mother of James and John) and Jesus: when she had said, I have done well, then, in not bearing children?’ (as if childbearing were not the right to accept) the Lord answers and says: “Every plant eat thou, but that which hath bitterness eat not.” In addition, this gospel has a gnostic disdain for Jesus’ body that is evident on several occasions. For example it states, When Salome inquired when the things concerning which she asked should be known, the Lord said: “When ye have trampled on the garment of shame, and when the two become one and the male with the female is neither male nor female.” In another instance it asserts, “The Lord said to Salome when she inquired: ‘How long shall death prevail? As long as ye women bear children’, not because life is an ill, and the creation evil: but as showing the sequence of nature: for in all cases birth is followed by decay.”

The Gospel of the Nazaraeans - (early second century). The Gospel of the Nazaraeans is closely related in content and compass to the synoptic gospels. It was referred to by Jerome as “the Gospel which the Nazarenes use,” or more often as “the Jewish Gospel.” Some of its features include the following: (1) That the man with a withered hand was a mason who said, “I was a mason and earned [my] livelihood with [my] hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore to me my health that I may not with ignominy have to beg for my bread.” (2) It says (contrary to Matthew 12:40) that Jesus did not spend “three days and three nights” in the grave. (3) It declares, as Jerome notes, that “in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew characters we read not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of wondrous size collapsed.” (4) It claims that thousands were converted at the cross when Jesus said, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34): “At this word of the Lord many thousands of the Jews who were standing round the cross became believers.” (5) It gives the reason that John was known by the high priest was that “he had often brought fish to the palace of the high priests Annas and Caiaphas.” (6) There is an embellishment in the story of the rich young ruler:

But the rich man then began to scratch his head and it [the saying] pleased him not. And the Lord said to him: How canst thou say, I have fulfilled the law and the prophets? For it stands written in the law: Love thy neighbor as thyself; and behold, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are begrimed with dirt and die of hunger and thy house is full of many good things and nothing at all comes forth from it to them!

The Gospel of Philip - (second century). This is a gnostic gospel known only by one citation until a fourth-or fifth-century manuscript was found in the Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi, Egypt (1945). It narrates the manner of the ascent of a soul through seven successive spheres of hostile “powers” (planetary archons). Its expressions resemble the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry (c. 232-c. 303), a disciple of Plotinus (c. 205-70) who was a fellow classmate of Origen (in the third century). It contains some noncanonical sayings of Christ, such as, “A disciple one day asked the Lord about something worldly. He replied: Ask thy mother, and she will give thee strange things.”

The Book of Thomas the Athlete - A gnostic-like gospel containing an alleged dialogue of Jesus and Thomas that occurred between the resurrection and ascension, this book contains condemnations of the flesh, womanhood, sexuality, and promises of a future rest in the kingdom of heaven. It begins, “The secret words spoken by the Saviour to Judas Thomas, and which I have written down, I, Matthew, who heard them while they spoke together.”

The Gospel According to Mathias: The Traditions of Mathias - Here is another work known to Origen, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Jerome. Quotations from it are preserved by Clement of Alexandria: (1) “Wonder at what is present.” (2) “Strive with the flesh and misuse it, without yielding to it in any way to unbridled lust, but to increase the soul through faith and knowledge.” Again there is a Gnostic influence manifest.

The Gospel of Judas - (late second century). This gospel was known to Irenaeus and Epiphanius (c. 315-403), bishop of Salamia. The product of an antinomian Gnostic sect, it may have contained “a Passion story setting forth the ‘mystery of the betrayal’ (proditionis mysterium) and explaining how Judas by his treachery made possible the salvation of all mankind.”

Epistle of an Apostle (Epistula Apostolorum) - (second century). Unknown before a Coptic text was found in Cairo in 1895, this presents a dialogue between Christ and the eleven disciples after the resurrection. Hennecke summarizes its contents as follows:

He entered into the womb of Mary in the disguise of the angel Gabriel. After his resurrection also He sent His power in the form of Gabriel to free Peter from the prison for one night. The reality of Christ’s body is strongly maintained (against Cerinthus and Simon, whom the apostles warn against), but at the same time the unity of the Son and the Father is so strongly emphasized that one could justifiably speak of identity. During Christ’s descent He took on, in each of the heavenly spheres, the form of the angel residing there, in order to reach the earth without being recognized (as also described in the Ascension of Isaiah.) As the Logos took on real flesh and also after the resurrection appears to His disciples with flesh that can be felt (so that Peter as well as Thomas can put his fingers into the nailprints of His hands), so too will His redeemed rise again in the flesh, “a garment that will not pass away.” Christ has also proclaimed the message of salvation in the underworld.

Another passage about the Incarnation reads,

At that time I appeared in the form of the archangel Gabriel to (the virgin) Mary and spoke with her, and her heart received (me); she believed and laughed; and I, the Word, went into her and became flesh; and I myself was servant for myself, and in the form of the image of an angel; so I will do after I have gone to my Father.

The Apocryphon of John - (second century). This is an apocryphal post-resurrection dialogue between a disciple and the Revealor, who says,

I am [the Father]; I am the Mother, I [am the Son]. I am the eternally Existing, the unmixable, [since there is none who] mingles himself with him. [Now am I come] to reveal to thee [what] is, what [was], and what [shall] be, that [thou mayest know] the invisible things like [the] visible, and [to instruct thee] concerning the perfect [man].

The Gospel of Truth - (second century). This early gnostic gospel may have been written by the gnostic theologian Valentinus (c. a.d. 140-145). It was the first work from the Nag Hammadi discovery to be translated.42 This gospel narrative begins, “The Gospel of Truth is joy for those who have received from the Father of Truth the grace of knowing Him through the power of the Word, which has come forth from the Pleroma, (the Word).” The basic theme is found in the words, “this ignorance concerning the Father produced anguish and terror. And the anguish became dense like a mist, so that no one could see. For this reason Error waxed strong.” Speaking of salvation by knowledge (gnosis), it reads:

Thus the Word of the Father proceeds forth into the All, being the fruit of His heart and a form of His will. It upholds the All, it chooses it, and also takes (upon itself) the form of the All, purifying it and causing it to return to the Father and to the Mother, Jesus of the infinite gentleness. The Father reveals His breast; but His breast is the Holy Spirit. He reveals that of Himself which was hidden (that of Himself which was hidden was His Son) in order that through the compassion of the Father the aeons might know Him, and cease to torment themselves in search of the Father, resting in Him since they know that this is rest.

The Gospel of Truth concludes as follows:

This is the place of the blessed; this is their place. . . . But therein shall I be, and devote myself at all times to the Father of the All, and to the true brethren, upon whom the love of the Father is poured out, and in whose midst nothing of Him is lacking. These are they who are manifest in truth . . . and which is in His Heart and in the pleroma, while His Spirit rejoices in Him and glorifies Him in whom it was for, He is good. And His children are perfect, and worthy of His name, for it is children of this kind that He, the Father, loves.

Additional Pseudepigraphal gospels - More than fifty have been cataloged and edited by Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher into several categories. A slight modification of their list is as follows:

I. ISOLATED SAYINGS OF THE LORD

II. PAPYRUS FRAGMENTS OF APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS

1. An unknown gospel of synoptic type (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840)

2. An unknown gospel with Johannine elements (Papyrus Egerton 2)

3. Sayings—collections on papyrus

Introduction

(a) Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 654

(b) Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1

(c) Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 655

4. Other Greek papyrus fragments

(a) Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1224

(b) Cairo Papyrus 10 735

(c) The so-called Fayyum Fragment

III. JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS

1. The gospel of the Nazaraens

2. The gospel of the Ebionites

3. The gospel of the Hebrews

IV. THE GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS

V. THE GOSPEL OF PETER

VI. CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES AFTER THE RESURRECTION

1. The Freer logion

2. Epistula apostolorum

3. A gospel fragment from the Strasbourg Coptic papyrus

VII. GNOSTIC GOSPELS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

A. Gospels Under General Titles

1. The Gospel of the Four Heavenly Regions or of the Four Corners of the World

2. The Gospel of Perfection

3. The Gospel of Truth

B. Gospels Under the Name of an Old Testament Figure

C. Gospels Current, Directly or Indirectly, Under the Name of Jesus, and Similar Works

1. The Sophia Jesu Christi

2. The Dialogue of the Redeemer

3. The Pistis Sophia

4. The Two Books of Jeu

D. Gospels Attributed to the Twelve as a Group

1. The Gospel of the Twelve (or Twelve Apostles)

2. The (Kukean) Gospel of the Twelve

3. The Memoria Apostolorum

4. The (Manichean) Gospel of the Twelve Apostles

5. The Gospel of the Seventy

6. Other “Gospels of the Twelve Apostles”

E. Gospels Under the Name of an Apostle

1. The Gospel of Philip

2. The Gospel of Thomas

3. The Book of Thomas the Athlete

4. The Gospel According to Matthias

The Traditions of Matthias

5. The Gospel of Judas

6. The Apocryphon of John

7. Fragments of a Dialogue Between John and Jesus

8. The Apocryphon of James (Apocryphon Jacobi)

9. The Gospel of Bartholomew

F. Gospels Under the Names of Holy Women

1. The Questions of Mary

2. The Gospel According to Mary

3. The “Genna Marias”

G. Gospels Attributed to an Arch-heretic

1. The Gospel of Cerinthus

2. The Gospel of Basilides

3. The Gospel of Marcion

4. The Gospel of Apelles

5. The Gospel of Bardesanes

6. The Gospel of Mani

H. Gospels Under the Names of Their Users

VIII. INFANCY GOSPELS

1. The Protevangelium of James

2. The Infancy Story of Thomas

3. Gnostic Legends

4. Later Infancy Gospels

A. Extracts from the Arabic Infancy Gospel

B. Extracts from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

C. Extract from the Latin Infancy Gospel in the Arundel Manuscript

D. Extract from the Life of John According to Serapion

IX. THE RELATIVES OF JESUS

X. THE WORK AND SUFFERINGS OF JESUS

1. Jesus’ Earthly Appearance and Character

2. The Alleged Testimony of Josephus

3. The Abgar Legend

4. The Gospel of Nicodemus, Acts of Pilate, and Christ’s Descent into Hell.

5. The Gospel of Bartholomew

A. The Questions of Bartholomew

B. Coptic Texts of Bartholomew

6. The Gospel of Gamaliel

By comparison with the canonical gospels, these Apocryphal writings fall far short of the quality of the inspired Word of God. Edwin Yamauchi’s summary is direct and to the point:

The apocryphal gospels, even the earliest and soberest among them, can hardly be compared with the canonical gospels. The former are all patently secondary and legendary or obviously slanted. Commenting on the infancy gospels, Morton Enslin concludes: “Their total effect is to send us back to the canonical gospels with fresh approval of their chaste restraint in failing to fill in the intriguing hidden years.”

Yamauchi cites the editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, O. Roberts and J. Donaldson: “The predominant impression which they leave on our minds is a profound sense of the immeasurable superiority, the unapproachable simplicity and majesty, of the Canonical Writings.” Quoting Joachim Jeremias with approval, Yamauchi concludes, “The extra-canonical literature, taken as a whole, manifests a surprising poverty. The bulk of it is legendary, and bears the clear mark of forgery. Only here and there, amid a mass of worthless rubbish, do we come across a priceless jewel.”

Acts

In addition to Apocryphal gospels there are also numerous Apocryphal accounts of the Acts of the Apostles.

A. Second- and third-century acts of apostles Introduction

1. The Acts of John

2. The Acts of Peter

3. The Acts of Paul (Paul is here described as a short, bald man with a large nose and bowlegged.)

4. The Acts of Andrew

5. The Acts of Thomas

B. The pseudo-clementines

C. Later acts of apostles

1. The Continuation of the Early Acts of Apostles

2. Later Acts of Other Apostles

Epistles (“Apostolic Pseudepigrapha”)

1. The Kerygma Petrou

2. The Kerygmata Petrou

3. The Epistle to the Laodiceans

4. The Apocryphal Correspondence Between Seneca and Paul

5. The Pseudo-Titus Epistle

Apocalypses

A. Apocalyptic in Early Christianity

1. Introduction

2. The Ascension of Isaiah

3. Apocalypse of Peter

B. Apocalyptic Prophecy of the Early Church

Introduction

1. The Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra

2. Christian Sibyllines

3. The Book of Elchasai

C. Later Apocalypses

Introduction

1. Apocalypse of Paul

2. Apocalypse of Thomas

Books Accepted by Some—Apocrypha

The Nature of the Apocrypha

The distinction between the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha in most cases is a valid one, but it becomes rather tenuous in some instances. For the most part, these books were not received as canonical and, like the Pseudepigrapha, they were used heretically by the sects and were even quoted by some orthodox writers. Nonetheless, on the whole they have one further characteristic, namely, they were not only part of the religious literature quoted by the Fathers, but sometimes appeared in local ecclesiastical canons and Bible translations. The first seven in the following discussion are what Alexander Souter called “Books of Temporal and Local Canonicity,” or books that “had canonicity, or something very like it, in a particular church for a particular period, but were afterward dropped.” Some of the Fathers and churches considered several of these books to be canonical. Nevertheless the testimony of the church in general, as well as the final canonical decisions, reveals that partial and local judgment was faulty. Still, local acceptance and wide circulation of some of these books manifest their value as well as their esteem.

The Number of the Apocrypha

Here again, the number is somewhat arbitrary, because it is based on two distinctions that are difficult to determine precisely, that is, the difference between the “orthodox” and “heretical” Fathers. In a general way, the latter may be determined by the canons and creeds of the church councils of the first five centures, while the former by whether or not the book was used only homiletically, or theologically and authoritatively. The following list, and perhaps more, fits into the category of books used at least ecclesiastically, and possible canonically.

Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas - (c. a.d. 70-79). This widely circulated epistle is found in the Codex Siniaticus (א) (c. 340), and mentioned in the table of contents of Codex Bezae (D) (c. 450 or c. 550, see chap. 22). It was quoted as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. It parallels the canonical epistle to the Hebrews in style although it is more allegorical and mystical than Hebrews, and there is some debate as to whether it is a first or second century document. Nonetheless, it may be concluded with Brooke Foss Westcott that “while the antiquity of the Epistle is firmly established, its Apostolicity is more than questionable.”

Epistle to the Corinthians - (c. a.d. 96). Dionysius of Corinth (60-80) says that this epistle 1 Corinthians by Clement of Rome, was read publicly at Corinth and elsewhere, and it is found in Codex Alexandrinus (A) [the Alexandrian manuscript] of the New Testament (c. 450, see chap. 22). Herbert T. Andrews sums up the situation on this epistle, saying,

Today no one would put in a plea for its recognition as Scripture, yet from a historical point of view the Epistle has no little interest for us.... It gives us a very good conception of the Christian belief at the time. . . . It contains explicit references to Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, and gives several quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and so proves that these books were widely circulated and recognized before the close of the first century.

Ancient Homily, or the so-called Second Epistle of Clement - (c. a.d. 120-40). This was known and used in the second century and is also called 2 Corinthians of Clement of Rome. In the Alexandrian manuscript (A) it is placed after the book of Revelation, with 1 Clement and the Psalms of Solomon as a sort of appendix. There is no clear evidence, however, that it was considered fully canonical, at least on any broad scale.

Shepherd of Hermas - (c. a.d. 115-40). This is the most popular of all the noncanonical books of the New Testament. It is found in Sinaiticus (א), in the table of contents of Bezae (D), in some Latin Bibles, quoted as inspired Scripture by Irenaeus and Origen, and Eusebius recognized that “it was publicly read in the churches” and “deemed most necessary for those who have need of elementary instruction.” The Shepherd has been aptly called the “Pilgrim’s Progress” of the early church. Like Bunyan’s great allegory, it ranks second only to the canonical books in its circulation in the early church and in its dramatization of spiritual truths. In other words, it is like Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) of the Old Testament Apocrypha—ethical and devotional, but not canonical (see chap. 15).

Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve - (c. a.d. 100-120). The Didache was held in high regard by the early church. Clement of Alexandria quoted it as Scripture, and Athanasius listed it among the sacred writings along with Judith and Tobit. This book is of great importance from the historical point of view, giving the opinion of the church of the early second century on the essential truths of Christianity, and it forms a bridge between the New Testament and the patristic literature; nevertheless, the verdict of history is at one with Eusebius, who placed it among the “rejected books.”

Apocalypse of Peter - (c. 150). This is perhaps the oldest of the noncanonical New Testament apocalypses, and it enjoyed great popularity in the early church. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, in the table of contents of Bezae (D), and is quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Its description of heaven is picturesque, and its pictures of hell are grotesque, depicting it as a lake of “flaming mire” or a “lake of pitch and blood and boiling mire.” Its imagery had a wide influence on medieval theology, and was a source from which Dante’s Inferno was derived. As to its authenticity, even the Muratorian Fragment raised questions, saying that some would not permit it to be read in the churches. The church in general has agreed with that conclusion.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla - (170). The Acts of Paul and Thecla was quoted often by Origen and is in the table of contents of Bezae (D). Stripped of its mythical elements, it is the story of the conversion and testimony of an Iconian lady, Thecla, based on Acts 14:1-7. It no doubt embodies a genuine tradition, as such noted scholars as William M. Ramsay and G. A. Deissmann have argued, but most scholars are inclined to agree with Adolf Harnack, who said it contains “a great deal of fiction and very little truth.”

Epistle to the Laodiceans - (fourth century?). Although the Epistle to the Laodiceans was known to Jerome, and was included in many Latin Bibles from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries, it is a forgery based on the reference of Paul in Colossians 4:6. A book by this name is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, although it may be another name for Ephesians, which does not have “to the Ephesians” (in 1:1) in some early manuscripts (א, B, P). To quote J.B. Lightfoot, “The Epistle is a centro of Pauline phrases strung together without any definite connection or any clear object.” As late as a.d. 787, the Council of Nicea (II) warned against it, terming it “a forged epistle.” It reappeared as late as the Reformation era in German and even in English Bibles. “Unlike most forgeries it had no ulterior aim. . . . It has no doctrinal peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless.”

The Gospel According to the Hebrews - (a.d. 65-100). Probably the earliest noncanonical gospel, The Gospel According to the Hebrews has survived only in a few fragmentary quotes culled from various Fathers of the church.54 According to Jerome, some called it “the true Matthew,” although this seems unlikely from its quotations, which bear little relation to the canonical Matthew. In fact, it is questionable whether it deserves to be called Apocryphal rather than Pseudepigraphal, because there is no evidence that it had any more than a homiletical usage. And, even if evidence be educed that it had a limited ecclesiastical use, it certainly was not canonical; as a matter of fact, it is not even extant.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians - (c. a.d. 108). In one sense, Polycarp is the most important of the apostolic Fathers. He was a disciple of the apostle John. He lays no claim to inspiration for himself, but says that he “always taught the things he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.” There is very little originality in this epistle, as it borrows both matter and style from the New Testament, and particularly from Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. Even though it was not considered canonical, it is a valuable testimony to the existence of most of the New Testament canon, which he interweaves into his writing.

The Seven Epistles of Ignatius - (c. a.d. 110). These letters indicate a definite familiarity with the teachings of the New Testament, but have a marked peculiarity of style. Their teaching shows a strong belief in the unity of the visible church, with a bishop-centered government. Bishop J.B. Lightfoot has ably defended the genuineness of these epistles, but vitually no one contends for their canonicity.

Evaluation of the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

A brief evaluation of each classification of this vast body of early Christian literature will serve to focus on each one’s significance in the early church as well as for the church today.

The Value of the New Testament Pseudepigrapha

In general, these books have no positive theological value, and almost no historical value, except as they reflect the religious consciousness of the church during early centuries. Their value may be summarized as follows:

1. They contain, no doubt, the kernel of some correct traditions that, by careful “demythologizing,” may furnish some supplementary historical facts about the early church.
2. They reflect the ascetic, docetic and gnostic tendencies, and heresies of early Christianity.
3. They show a popular desire for information not given in the canonical gospels, such as information about the childhood of Jesus, and the lives of the apostles.
4. They manifest an illegitimate tendency to glorify Christianity by means of pious frauds.
5. They display an healthy desire to find support for doctrinal interests and heretical teachings under the guise of apostolic authority.
6. They reveal an wholesome attempt to fill up supposed lacks in the canonical writings.
7. They demonstrate the incurable tendency of depraved curiosity to arrive at heretical and fanciful embellishments of Christian truth (e.g., Mary worship).

The Value of the New Testament Apocrypha

There is no doubt that the theological and historical value of most of these books is much higher than that of the Pseudepigrapha. In brief, they are valuable, but not canonical.

1. They provide the earliest documentation of some of the canonical books of the New Testament.
2. They reveal beliefs within the subapostolic church.
3. They form a bridge between the apostolic writings of the New Testament and the patristic literature of the third and fourth centuries, thus providing some clues to that transition.
4. They possess hints as to the rise of later false teachings and heresies (e.g., allegorical interpretation in Pseudo-Barnabas, or baptismal regeneration in the Shepherd).
5. They contain much of historical value about the practices and policies of the early church.

With the above values in mind, it should be emphasized that none of these books is to be considered canonical or inspired. Several reasons may be proffered in support of that contention. (1) None of them enjoyed any more than a temporary or local recognition. (2) Most of them never did have anything more than a semicanonical status, being appended to various manuscripts or mentioned in tables of contents. (3) No major canon or church council included them as inspired books of the New Testament. (4) The limited acceptance enjoyed by most of these books is attributable to the fact that they attached themselves to references in canonical books (e.g., Laodiceans to Col. 4:16), because of their alleged apostolic authorship (e.g., Acts of Paul). Once these issues were clarified, there remained little doubt that these books were not canonical.

Summary and Conclusion

On the question of New Testament canonicity, twenty of the twenty-seven books were never seriously questioned in orthodox circles, namely, the Homologoumena. The other seven books, called Antilegomena, were questioned by some Fathers for a time, but were finally and fully recognized by the church generally. There are numerous books that were never accepted by anyone as authentic or canonical, which are called Pseudepigrapha. The final class of books is called Apocrypha. These books were of good quality and integrity that had a local and temporary acceptance, although they were never widely nor finally considered to be canonical.

See Also

• Lost, Forgotten Books and Ancient Sacred Texts
• Lost books of the Bible, so-called