Historical Writings Are Not On a Par With the Bible
In this series of posts on what should rightly be included in the Bible, several examples were given of items that, while not in all Bibles are in some. Given that there has been historical and/or significant acceptance for these texts, I feel there’s reasonable justification for their inclusion in the Bible; I think that they are rightly part of the whole narrative.
But I don’t opt for inclusion in all cases. There are other historical documents that could arguably be embraced and accepted. Notably, there are other gospel accounts and other epistles (letters to churches), which although seemingly similar to what is in the Bible, have never been included or deemed to be on par with other books in the Bible. I feel that to embrace them, would be to commit the error of adding to the Bible.
Having purposefully never read these texts, I dismiss them because virtually everyone else does so—and has done so over the centuries. I see no reason why I should deviate from this perspective.
Although a bit curious, the reason I opt to not read these non-Biblical texts is that I don’t want them to distract me from what is in the Bible—nor do I want to commit the error of the Pharisees by interjecting any possibly unwise or unwarranted teachings into my pursuit of God. For me, these extra-Biblical writings are out.
Peter DeHaan writes about biblical spirituality, often with a postmodern slant. He seeks a fresh approach to faith and following God through the lens of scripture, without the baggage of made-up traditions and meaningless practices. Read more in his books, blog, and weekly email updates.