No, there are no texts written after Jesus' time in the Apocrypha - it's all ancient Jewish literature.
Besides, according to Wikipedia it's not even a Gospel; it's more common name is 'The Acts of Pilate' written sometime around the end of the 2nd century. It contains a lot obviously fictional stories about Christ's time in Hell and a supposedly 'official report' made by Pontius Pilate to his superior detailing the evidence for Christ's divinity. Some scholars even believe that it was intended to be interpreted as a work of fiction by early Christians - a sort of 'pious entertainment'. Lol, I'm not sure about that, but I don't think its worth taking seriously either way.
It is important to understand the language we are using. With the terms such as "Deutrocanonical", "Apocrypha", and "Canon", two opposing sides must be taken to understand the meanings.
I hope this make sense, because it took me a bit to understand this explanation, since it's weird to see in writing rather than hearing it.
Suppose an Orthodox person is speaking to a Protestant person about the Book of Sirach.
To the Orthodox person it would be Deutrocanonical, because it is in theirs but not the Protestants'. It literally means "second canon".
And vice versa, a Protestant person would call the Book of Sirach, Apocrypha since it is "not in mine, but in yours".
Lastly, suppose an Orthodox person is speaking to a Protestant person about the Book of Matthew.
To both groups this would be considered Canon because it is believed by "my group and theirs"
Sorry to nit-pick about such a small topic. It's just I used Deutrocanonical and Apocrypha interchangeably up until a few weeks ago, it was clearly defined in one of my classes. I hope I helped someone understand it just like I learned it recently.
Comments
Besides, according to Wikipedia it's not even a Gospel; it's more common name is 'The Acts of Pilate' written sometime around the end of the 2nd century. It contains a lot obviously fictional stories about Christ's time in Hell and a supposedly 'official report' made by Pontius Pilate to his superior detailing the evidence for Christ's divinity. Some scholars even believe that it was intended to be interpreted as a work of fiction by early Christians - a sort of 'pious entertainment'. Lol, I'm not sure about that, but I don't think its worth taking seriously either way.
God bless
It is important to understand the language we are using. With the terms such as "Deutrocanonical", "Apocrypha", and "Canon", two opposing sides must be taken to understand the meanings.
I hope this make sense, because it took me a bit to understand this explanation, since it's weird to see in writing rather than hearing it.
Suppose an Orthodox person is speaking to a Protestant person about the Book of Sirach.
To the Orthodox person it would be Deutrocanonical, because it is in theirs but not the Protestants'. It literally means "second canon".
And vice versa, a Protestant person would call the Book of Sirach, Apocrypha since it is "not in mine, but in yours".
Lastly, suppose an Orthodox person is speaking to a Protestant person about the Book of Matthew.
To both groups this would be considered Canon because it is believed by "my group and theirs"
Sorry to nit-pick about such a small topic. It's just I used Deutrocanonical and Apocrypha interchangeably up until a few weeks ago, it was clearly defined in one of my classes. I hope I helped someone understand it just like I learned it recently.
Pray for me :)
Thank you for the clarification.
Ebnyasoo3