The "alternative" books of the Bible are always good for stirring up controversy. Were they suppressed, or did they simply not make the cut? Is it a power-play, or is it quality control? There's been some discussion lately on the Apocalypse of Peter.
I'd like to suggest a straightforward test for its value: Read it. It takes very little time. It's not long. Read it, then ask yourself: Did it teach one worthwhile thing about Jesus or his apostles? Did it teach anything edifying? And if not, why should the church have included it?
People try to make a controversy out of the fact that the early church eventually took a pass on that, among other books. And based on their notes about why they made their decisions, it wasn't suppression, it was quality control. Of the books people claim were "suppressed," most were actually preserved by the church. That's not suppression. And when people stopped bothering to make copies of those books, it wasn't that anyone minded supplemental Christian books. There are libraries full of them. It's because the books weren't that interesting or useful, and might misrepresent themselves. Consider one measurable fact: how many claims are there that the book was suppressed, compared to how many claims that it contains anything valid and useful?
No comments:
Post a Comment