no, people have also tried to advocate for the canonicity of clement's letter to the corinthians, the didache and the shepard of hermas among others...Jay2004 said:Is the NT Apocrypha made up only of gnostic scripture?
Not to mention the protroevangelion of James, an excellent read by the way.II Paradox II said:no, people have also tried to advocate for the canonicity of clement's letter to the corinthians, the didache and the shepard of hermas among others...
ken
I agree Liz. it is odd terminology, though I understood the intent of the OP. Thanks for a bit of clarification.Crazy Liz said:"New Testament Apocrypha" ...
Now there's a phrase I haven't heard in years and years. There really isn't any specific collection of books that is considered the New Testament Apocrypha, like the collection of Deuterocanonical books included in some Bibles, generally having been written during the Second Temple period, as the name seems to imply. Rather, for many years I have heard scholars only refer to specific books, or to categories of books, such as Gnostic gospels, infancy gospels, protogospels, acts of saints, Early Church Fathers, etc.
PaladinValer said:No; much of the NT Apocrypha contains a great deal of Holy Tradition