A Discussion on the Gnostic Gospels [Christianity]

Scholars debate to this day whether or not any of the Apostles actually wrote the gospels in the New Testament, especially the Gospel of John.

 

I thought it was a mater of record that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written by witnesses (but said to be written under the guidance of witnesses). I know author of the book of John is under debate, but I'm of the persuasion that it was written by St. John the devine. The style and focus is different enough from the other three, but I have no evidence to back that up. I have also heard biblical scholars state with some authority that the entire last chapter of Mark was added a few centuries after the fact (three I think).

One Book of Mary is said to be written by Mary mother of God (who was by many traditions said to be literate), and covers the so called 'missing 30 years'. A different book of Mary is said to be written by Mary Magdaline (or Mary of Magdala if you prefer), and covers some of the actions after the resurrection. The date of origin of the other non-canonical books (Gospels and otherwise) is similarly under debate, so I find it hard to say. Dismissing them under that pretext is something I am not willing to do.

There were a lot of Christians who's faith didn't make the cut, and they died for their sect of Christianity. This was not a mater of Bob down the street writing a gospel, this was the faith that men carried as they were killed by the Roman lions and as they were killed by other Christians after Constantine. Some historians say that Christians killed more Christians after the Nicean Council than Romans killed Christians. Food for thought.

 

Early Christianity was very different indeed from the Westernized Christianity I have come to know. It was far more mystical in many aspects--but still just as divided.


For those not familiar with these gospels, you can read them here and study various commentaries:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html

 

Neo-Paladin, that's not "some historians," that's Foxe's Book of Martyrs. It's quite well acknowledged that more people were martyred for being "Christians" after the Roman persecutions than before.

However, that has little to no relevance here.

This is an issue of whether these gospels (and also the now-extinct sects) represented a legitimate part of Christianity, as understood by its founders and inheritors, or whether this was something else altogether, merely inspired by Christianity. That is to say, would the founders of Christianity (Jesus, his apostles, etc) have approved of the beliefs taught herein?

If not, then they have rightfully been excluded.

 

That's true. My point was that, since the four canonical Gospels are all 1st-century documents, it is possible that they were written by the Apostles. But since the Gnostic Gospels are all 2nd-century (or later) documents, it is impossible that they were written by the Apostles. That's the simple reason that the Church excluded all the Gnostic Gospels from the canon: They were written too late to even possibly be apostolic.

The authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is another issue that is quite interesting. I take the commonsense point of view that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Consider:

1. These four Gospels were all written in the 1st century.

2. Somebody in the 1st century had to have written them.

3. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were "big names" in 1st-century Christianity.

4. No other names have ever been attached to the four Gospels. (For example, nobody ever said that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Andrew.)

That, to me, adds up to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being the authors. What's the alternative?

1. That the most important figures in 1st-century Christianity wrote...nothing.

2. The most important documents in 1st-century Christianity were written by...nobodies.

One has to admit that that's pretty funny.

 

Pardon my confusion, but Thomas was indeed one of the original Twelve Apostles/Disciples? Therefore his Gospel would just be as legitimate as the four synoptic gospels? The question is, I suppose, why was John's chosen over Thomas by the founding fathers of the church? There are many theories as to why this is. I wish I had time to go into all of them tonight--perhaps later in the weekend.


If we assume that the disciple who was the one that Jesus loved most was Thomasas some scholars believe and not John , the Gospel of Thomas would have even more bearing.



Binary_Sunset, pardon me if I'm not following tonight as I'm working at the same time, but John was written after Thomas--at least that is what some modern scholars argue.

 

saerah, there was indeed a disciple of Jesus whose name was Thomas.

However, as you pointed out with John, the question is whether that disciple Thomas was in fact the author of this so-called Gospel of Thomas. I've not been able to find much scholarship on this issue. Whereas, I have found that apparently, there were warnings sent out in early church history that these writings which were attributed to Thomas were not, in fact, written by him. I'm not saying that those warnings should be used to dismiss these texts off-hand, but merely telling you what I've ran into.

 

Tion_Meddon posted on 7/21/05 6:02pm

---

I am clueless, as usual. But I'm always curious.

Could some of you please kindly explain to me what these "lost gospels" contain? What they teach? What makes them different, heresy? [hr][/blockquote] Might be easiest to [link=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/]read them yourself[/link].

 

If the Gospel of Thomas were indeed written by the Apostle Thomas, then it would indeed be as legitimate as the four canonical Gospels. Most scholars, however, hold that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd century (thus making it impossible that Thomas wrote it). Most scholars hold that the Gospel of John was written in the late 1st century, within the lifetime of the Apostle John.

Like I said, a minority of scholars do in fact assign the Gospel of Thomas a 1st-century date. On the other hand, a minority of scholars assign the Gospel of John an early 1st-century date.

 

Most scholars, however, hold that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd century (thus making it impossible that Thomas wrote it). Most scholars hold that the Gospel of John was written in the late 1st century, within the lifetime of the Apostle John.

Where are you getting that information? So far as I know, it's more like half and half, if not a majority of secular scholars who say Thomas was written before John.

 

I refer you to the book I am reading by Elaine Pagels about the Gospel of Thomas. It goes into detail about both gospels. I am one who believes that the Gospel of John was written in the late first century to the early second century [90 to 100 CE] and written in direct response to the claims of Thomas. I would be cautious to quote any statistics as to how many scholars believe when/who wrote these gospels.

Jabber-Wocky posted:
However, as you pointed out with John, the question is whether that disciple Thomas was in fact the author of this so-called Gospel of Thomas. I've not been able to find much scholarship on this issue. Whereas, I have found that apparently, there were warnings sent out in early church history that these writings which were attributed to Thomas were not, in fact, written by him. I'm not saying that those warnings should be used to dismiss these texts off-hand, but merely telling you what I've ran into.

Who sent the warnings and were they sent out officially from the church, or from particular Bishops of the time?

 

saerah, the one I know of is from Cyril of Jerusalem, who was around for the Nicean Council. So basically, this is one of the people that was a part of the very early foundations of the Catholic Church, and operated in the 4th century.

However, that's why I mentioned that I wasn't making a strong point of that. The much more pressing concern in my mind would be the inability to find positive proof of Thomas's authorship of the works being attributed to him.

I guess my overall stance on these works is as follows. There was quite a bit more ideological diversity in the early church than there was now. There were several opinions circulating about who Jesus was, what he taught, and what his significance should be. The New Testament even refers to some of them openly: the belief that Jesus did not come in flesh and blood, but was some kind of apparition, or the belief that there would be no resurrection of the dead. The important thing is that in mentioning them, it also condemned them as incompatible with legitimate Christian teachings. So on the one hand, yes, these things should be acknowledged and researched for what they are. On the other, to claim that they are a "more legitimate" or "true" branch of Christianity strikes me as inappropriate--I would go so far as to say that they are not a part of Christianity at all.

 

It's safe to say that if you look in standard reference works (such as encyclopedias, dictionaries of religion, etc.) published by mainstream publishers, the vast majority of them will sensibly place the Gospel of Thomas in the 2nd century.

Admittedly, in the last couple of decades the Gospel of Thomas has become rather fashionable in certain circles, who find it congenial to retroject it back into the 1st century. (I'm thinking of Pagels, Koester, Crossan, and their ilk--most of them American.) They certainly don't represent a broad consensus of scholars, and their arguments strike me as quite tendentious.

Besides the paucity of Gospel of Thomas manuscripts (a single 4th-century text, along with a few fragments dating to the late 2nd century, IIRC), the Gospel of Thomas is bizarrely out-of-place in 1st-century Christianity, which was at that time simply one of many Jewish sects. The Gospel of Thomas certainly isn't very Jewish! It finds its natural place in the 2nd century when the majority of Christians were Gentiles.

 

You've got a bit of a problem there as you can't dismiss the book of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The book of Infancy I & II, the Book of Mary, et al. without dismissing the Gospel of John. They are all, in fact, Gnostic gospels. They all have similar history and are fraught with similar historical enigmas. From my understanding, John was included as a bone to the mystic sects to bring them into the party line. Paul got the obvious focus, but they wanted to appease the other sects who sought unity.

If you want to dump Thomas as it does not have a 'Jewish' feel you can write off Luke too.

I recognize I'm not going to convince anyone who's made up their mind here. As I said earlier, this is a sticky subject, and I recognize I'm pretty well stuck. Still, I will listen was as open a mind as I am able and seek further convincing arguments on both sides.

 

I suppose my question is this: If John was indeed written after Thomas, then why was Thomas not included in the NT? Was it because of it's 'heretical' tones or because of John's opposition of Thomas Christian's beliefs on who Jesus was? These gospels are in direct contention with each other. Who made this decision and under what conditions? Was it due to political concerns? The need for a unified church?

From Elaine Pagel's book:
Many scholars are now convinced that the New Testament Gospel of John, probably written at the end of the first century, emerged from an intense debate over who Jesus was--or is."


Thomas states that God's light shines only through Jesus, but, potentially at least in everyone. To believe in Jesus, but to seek to know God through one's own divinely given capacity since all created in the image of God. This did not 'offer a foundation for a unified church as did the Gospel of John."

John states that Jesus was God incarnate--and is the only Gospel that directly states so.

The first generation of readers (c 90 to 130 CE) disagreed whether John was a true Gospel or a false one:

As his narrative differs significantly from Matthew, Mark and Luke. Some of these differences are much more than a variation of a theme."

 

I don't think there's any purely secular reason for choosing one book over the other that could explain each of the circumstances. The Protevangelium of James for example has no conflict with orthodox teaching, why isn't that included in the Bible? And why is John included, for all the reasons above? One has to remember that the people making these decisions (namely the bishops) believe that the Holy Spirit will guide them to choose the authentic books, having been given the power to bind and loose by Jesus Himself. If this is their motive, no further explanation is necessary as to why they did as they did. Frankly, I don't think you could come to the same result any other way. Otherwise why did they choose A for this reason yet not B and then rejected C for this reason yet kept D?

 

I tend to think it's fairly simple, and that you've answered your own question. As you said, these two gospels are diametrically opposed on the central and defining issue of Christianity: the identity of Jesus. There is no way that both of them would be included within the same religion. It's like asking a pro-democracy advocate to start championing King James's concept of divine right, or asking a sworn Marxist to dedicate their life to promoting the ideas of Adam Smith.

That is to say, given that their disagreement was on such a fundamental issue, it was clear that only one of them could be accepted as canonical, while the other would be heretical. You can question why the particular book ended up being chosen, and the other rejected, but to me, at least, it seems quite clear why only one could have been chosen of the two.

 

If you are implying that there are any other gospels other then the ones in the Bible, I don't believe there are any.

 

Speaking for myself:
I'm not sure implying is the word. I'm asserting.
from Merriam-Webster
Gospel: 1. a often capitalized : the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; also : a similar apocryphal book c : an interpretation of the Christian message <the social gospel>

The books that were used by early marginalized Christian sects as the basis of their faith can be called nothing but Gospels. One may impugn their veracity, but that does not change what they are. If you do wish to attack their accuracy or integrity I welcome argument to that effect. Others have done so before as well, and such discussion and enlightenment is why I read the Senate boards.

To be succinct, simply stating an unfounded opinion achieves nothing for any of us.

 

I took the plain meaning of his statement to be that there are no other true/valid/legitimate/canonical gospels.

 

Yeah, I know, I probably wasn't being fair. His implied meaning is mostly clear enough. I just typically get annoyed when someone makes an unsupported assertion as if I should their opinion alone as a credible authority. I find it anathema to the discussion and enlightenment I come to these boards for. The true point I intend was the last line of my previous post.

 

The answer I am sensing here from you all is that it was solely a matter of faith and an elevated Christology from Matthew, Mark and Luke. The reason a Christian [Lutheran] friend of mine gave to men when I posed the question about Christ not being referring to himself as God incarnate in Matthew, Mark and Luke, was because to utter the name of God in early Jewish civilization was blasphemy.

Then again, my personal belief is that the Disciples/Apostles, who were quite dense when grasping Jesus' message in the first place as can be seen in the synoptic gospels, completely misinterpreted the divinity of Jesus. I don't think Jesus ever meant to say he was God, but instead was communicating the message that Thomas does in his Gospel--that because we are all made in the image of God, we all have access to the divine light just as Jesus did. But that's just my view on it.

I believe Thomas "got it," or understood the message of Jesus a bit more than the others and was the loved disciple, not John.


I guess the question I ask myself now is: IF Thomas had been chosen over John, what would Christianity be like today?

 

The reason a Christian [Lutheran] friend of mine gave to men when I posed the question about Christ not being referring to himself as God incarnate in Matthew, Mark and Luke, was because to utter the name of God in early Jewish civilization was blasphemy.

This isn't without controversy. In Mark 14: 62, Jesus replies to the sanhedrin's question: "Are you the Son of God?" He replies "I AM" invoking the name of God. This explains the utter outrage by the sanhedrin afterwards since he not only claimed to be the Messiah but God Himself.

 

I guess the question I ask myself now is: IF Thomas had been chosen over John, what would Christianity be like today?

That question goes a little too far in the direction of a "what if" thread, which doesn't really belong in the Senate.

Kimball Kinnison

 

But did he refer to himself as the Son of Man which meant the King of Israel?
Or perhaps he was alluding to the divine light within him, and as Thomas said, the same light that is within us all.

Kimball, in this case the "What if" is not to go into depth--but to follow along the lines of Elaine Pagels book on The Gospel of Thomas which compares John to Thomas, and poses the question what would be different in Christianity today if Thomas had been chosen? It's just a direct comparison between these two Gospels. Would there be a less unified church, which we have seen anyway. There are many demoninations that have broken off from the Catholic church since the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian.


And with the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and Jesus' views on gender equality therein [and the last verse in Thomas], it makes one wonder how such mysogonistic views found their way into Christianity.