Subject: Re: Apocrypha

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:59:52 -0500 (EST)

At 12:09 PM 4/14/97 -0400, you wrote:

>As to Christian Apocrypha, I would imagine that the entire collection 
>of  manuscripts recovered from Nag Hammadi in 1947(?) might meet
>everyone's defintion.
>
>HILL
>

I don't think that Gnostic material qualifies as apocrypha, does it?
Apocrypha are materials written by Jews or Christians which are of an
orthodox character- but which were not included in the Canon.  I do not
think that Nag Hammadi qualifies here.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (HILL R KAPLAN)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:45:35 EDT

>I don't think that Gnostic material qualifies as apocrypha, does it?

I specifically referred to this subset as CHRISTIAN  APOCRYPHA.

>Apocrypha are materials written by Jews or Christians which are 
>of an orthodox character- but which were not included in the 
>Canon.  I do not think that Nag Hammadi qualifies here.

The very fact that Gnostic writings were proscribed denies their
orthodox character.

Since they are Christian in nature, and dated after 70 CE, the date
of the destruction of the Temple, they could not be included in 
the LXX canon of the Hebrew Bible.

Moreover, since they are "Early Christian writings not included in the
Christian Bible"  they decided fall into Category 2b of the definition of
APOCRYPHA in WEBSTER's SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY.

Remember, Catholics refer to material in the LXX as
Deuterocanonical and other writings as Apocryphal while
Protestants often refer to writings in the LXX as Apocryphal and
other writings as pseudepigraphic.

HILL