Three Fundamental Reasons Extracanonical Writings Are Deemed Insignificant…

The Three Primary Arguments Given as to Why the Noncanonical Manuscripts are Considered More Credible?

1.

Argument of Age…

There’s the presupposition that these manuscripts were written considerably later than the gospels in which make up our canon; therefore, the fundamentalist would cite that because of their age they are not as reliable.

2.

Argument of Historical Reliability…

In contrast to the canonical gospels, various other texts (e.g. the Apocrypha, Didache, etc) regarding the life of Christ are said to be “fantastical” – i.e. mythical elaborations that have no basis in history. I’m not saying Christians who believe something is “too mythical” is ironic… but, then again, I also won’t argue anyone who is pointing out the irony in this.

3.

Argument of Orthodoxy (or, the lack thereof)…

Otherwise known as “The argument of the apostolic tradition” – but, okay so, this dude named Athanasius summarized this form of authoritarianistic orthodoxy saying, “These are the springs of salvation… In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them..” Then, to save you time… Athanasius goes on to warn others about how heretically unorthodox the Apocrypha is; in short, this argument is simply saying that if it’s in contrast to what we’ve already decided upon then, it’s wrong.

I hope you can see how or why this would be problematic.

Again, just a very brief and oversimplified summary of these…

[Check back, next week for my follow up on this regarding the important historical and methodological objections to these three arguments. Until then, hit me up over on the Instagram and maybe that’ll motivate me enough to start posting again.]