[wmfights]

Those works were not accepted by the early Church as being inspired. It doesn't mean they are necessarily devoid of truth, just that they are not authoritative.

I would disagree that there is any truth in them, especially the forgery the "Protoevangelium of James". If someone writes something 120+ yrs after the fact, trying to deceive others into believing that authorship was by one of the Apostles its clear that there was an agenda pervading the entire document.

[kawaii]

I would disagree that there is any truth in them, especially the forgery the "Protoevangelium of James". If someone writes something 120+ yrs after the fact, trying to deceive others into believing that authorship was by one of the Apostles its clear that there was an agenda pervading the entire document.

There are orther parts of the new testament that are considered canonical and are dated within the same time frame.

[Forest Keeper]

I would disagree that there is any truth in them, especially the forgery the "Protoevangelium of James". If someone writes something 120+ yrs after the fact, trying to deceive others into believing that authorship was by one of the Apostles its clear that there was an agenda pervading the entire document.

Fair enough. I just didn't want to make a sweeping statement, since I honestly haven't read most of the work that would fall into these categories. Luther seemed to take the position of not throwing everything out as a matter of course, so I was just trying to sort of take that stance. I happen to know more about the Protoevangelium of James than any other work in this category (from the Erasmus thread) and I agree that I do not see much, if any, truth in it at all. :)