I ran across this web site, and it appears to contain a lot of information concerning early christian writings, of which a lot is not in the “bible”.

My question is directed towards those with a much larger understanding and knowledge base on the origins of the bible, and how it was assembled. Is this a valid reference source?

Of course, no single reference source is to be trusted, they must support each other.

I’ve heard about this site.

Thanks for the link.

Again, no expert - BUT my “bet”…it’ll be accurate with “facts”.

It is a christian site, so I expect some “editing” and some stuff left out.

In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century. The terminus a quo can be more precisely determined through the time of origin of 4 Est. (about 100 A.D.), which was probably used in the Apocalypse of Peter (cf. 4 Est. with c. 3), and 2 Peter, the priority of which was demonstrated by F. Spitta. We thus come, with H. Weinel, to approximately the year 135 as the probable time of origin,

regarding the Apocalypse of Peter which is fresh in my memory

I can’t find a copy of the manuscript though…(yet)…just source material

One of the links…appears copy and pasted on the earlychristian website

Not the least bit surpised

The religion which is called Christianity was only one among many sects teaching ‘the way’. Each had their own canon, with not all agreeing.

Today’s Canon was mostly decided by on by one person, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria. This was ratified at the first Nicene Council (called by Constantine) in the 325 ce From I can gather he included common books, and added a few.

Today’s flavour of 'the way" only became the faith after being declared the state religion by Emperor Theodosius 1, also in the fourth century. It was he who approved and encouraged the persecution of ‘heretics’ and eventually anyone who disagreed. So the early church solidified its position by the simple expedient of murdering anyone who disagreed and burning their books. This practice continued for the next 1000 years.

Now I can’t remember where or when I read this, so take it as anecdotal by all means . It is my understanding that it was the emperor Theodosius 1 who popularised the name ‘christianity’ for the new faith. Makes sense, “christ” is a title (anointed) not a name. Strictly speaking it should ne Jesus the christ.

Haven’t looked at the site and don’t think I’ll bother. I remember the the reaction of the Catholic church especially to ‘The Gospel Of Thomas’, found at Nag Hamadi . There are sayings not included in the canon. The attitude was and remains that because of the differences, the gospel of Thomas is apocryphal , rather than new information about what Jesus said.

Anything accepted as revealed text will agree with the canon, whether or not if it did before the christian scholars found it. According to Bart Erhman, that kind of thing happened to some degree for the entire time copies had to be written manually .

The ratification of the canon had little if anything to do with revealed text. Its purpose was to unite the early church and make its focus Rome rather than Constantinople. Anyway, that’s how I understand it.
That by the fourth century the church had already become ineffably corrupt far as I can tell


All the apocrypha in one place!! I’m so excited. I have read much of this stuff and love it. The site is probably as reliable as the translations they are using. All you can do is look for alternate translations… but why bother… the stories are great.