Every so often someone finds (or finds that someone else has found) that there are other documents known as 'gospels.' Immediately they conclude that this somehow proves that Jesus was not the way the New Testament says He was. So what shouls Christians think of these things?
Christians should not worry about these discoveries at all, because they affect absolutely nothing. Contrary to all the hype, they have no affect at all on our understanding of who Jesus is. At best they help scholars to understand the heretical sects that produced them.
So why is there so much fuss about them? First of all, people talk about them because they can be used by unbelievers to undermine confidence in the Bible. A classic case in point is The Da Vinci Code’s claim that there were “more than 80” gospels considered for inclusion in the New Testament. This is utter nonsense. At no point was there ever a meeting that decided which books belong in the New Testament. But to say that the early Christians held various radically different views of Jesus means that we can pick and choose which Jesus we want to believe in ourselves. It is a way of avoiding Jesus’ claims.
Second, people love a good conspiracy theory. This is why The Da Vinci Code sold as well as it did. The conspiracy theory TV series The X Files ran for years. We live in a day and age when people tend to distrust authority, and so the claim that the truth about Jesus was covered up is a sure seller.
Thirdly, most people today, even Christians, are woefully ignorant about the Bible. A poll showed that the best-known Bible verse among modern American is “God helps those who help themselves” – which is not in the Bible at all. Thus people can make the wildest and silliest claims about these documents, and people still believe them.
One of the problems is with the language used of them. What we understand by a Gospel is a narrative like that in our Canonical gospels. The so-called “Lost gospels” contain nothing of the sort. Instead they are usually collections of sayings attributed to Jesus. My advice to anyone who is worried about the lost gospels is that they should read one or two of them. I have read all of the most popular ones myself. You will soon see that they are a radically different sort of literature from the canonical gospels. Another name they are known by is the “Gnostic gospels”. This refers to the fact that they are the product of a varied movement known as Gnosticism that flourished from the 2nd century and into the 4th century. The name comes from a Greek word meaning “to know”. To the Gnostics salvation was a matter of having esoteric knowledge – and that is what these Gnostic texts teach. Secondly, the “Lost Gospels” are all very late documents. None dates from before about AD 150, while our Gospels, particularly Matthew, Mark and Luke, can all be dated with confidence to before AD 70. Matthew and John were written by people who knew Jesus. There is an old tradition that Mark’s Gospel is based on the preaching of the Apostle Peter, and Luke explicitly states that he interviewed eye-witnesses. In contrast the Gnostic gospels were not written until more than a century after Jesus’ death, and have no connection at all with the eye-witnesses. No Christian group ever accepted any of them, for their teaching utterly contradicts the canonical Gospels. The Jesus of the Gnostic gospels came to give deep teaching, the true Jesus came to die for our sins. The Gnostic Jesus would never have been crucified.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An Eccentric Calvinist View
Strict and Particular Links
- Albert Mohler
- Alpha and Omega Ministries (James White)
- Bethel Evangelical Church, Hanley
- Christian Focus Publications
- Evangelical Press
- Fighting for the Faith
- Free St George's
- Gospel Standard Publications
- New Street Evangelical Church, Welshpool
- Some of my Sermons
- The Banner of Truth Trust
- The Carter Lane Declaration of Faith, drawn up by John Gill
- The Churches of Great Britain and Ireland (Photographs)
- The White Horse Inn
- Writings of Dr. Gill
About Me
- Highland Host
- I am the minister at Bethel Evangelical Free Church, Hanley, Stoke on Trent. My connection to the Highlands is highly dubious, and relates to a direct ancestor some generations back on my mother's side - my family actually comes from Chesire. I have an inordinate interest in theological works of high quality and Reformed bent. An interest in history is the all-but-inevitable result of being the son of a history professor.
6 comments:
You're book has no proof of god any more then see spot run as any proof that spot exists.
Arguing about gospels is much like arguing who would win in a fight, spider-man or batman.
Wow, profound. I'm sorry, but I have no idea where to begin with such arrant nonsense. First of all, the Gospels claim to be (and are) historical documents. They record a remarkable life, and make claims that, if true, are earth-shattering.
What they are NOT is fiction. The genre of fiction as presntly understood did not exist in the ancient world. They are either true, or deliberate falsehood. I am convinced that they are true, and can be shown to be historically trustworthy.
PS. You have anonymity, my friend. I doubt you have much of an audience.
If ALL parts of the gospel are true then talking snakes should be in a biology book.
"They record a remarkable life, and make claims that, if true, are earth-shattering."
But they're not true which is why nobody cares but jesus freaks.
"What they are NOT is fiction."
You said the claims the gospels "if true," now you state it is if it's a fact, which is it?
"The genre of fiction as presntly understood did not exist in the ancient world."
Fiction has always existed, fiction is simply, that which is not true. I might as well say that people were unable to lie a couple of thousands of years ago. It's pretty much the same thing.
"They are either true, or deliberate falsehood."
Exactly my point. Where is the proof that Jesus is zombie? That's not true so the latter must be correct.
"I am convinced that they are true, and can be shown to be historically trustworthy."
Because there's a higher chance that some super being exists then people lie? I'm convinced too. Convinced that you are an idiot.
"PS. You have anonymity, my friend. I doubt you have much of an audience."
Look at me caring. Can't you tell how much I care?
My dear "mm1", you make a number of errors, and have failed to understand what I wrote.
1. There are no talking snakes in the Canonical Gospels, that's the book of Genesis.
2. I use the word "Fiction" to describe a genre. That is, fiction is defined as "imaginitive writing that does not claim to be true." Think of a novel or short story. It is in THIS sense that the Gospels are certainly not fiction. If I was less than clear at this point, I apologise. In terms of genre, they are historical writings. As we all know, there is such a thing as fraud in historical circles. But the Gospels are written by four different men, at different times, and probably in different places. That four men ALL committed fraud is considerably less reasonable than that they all recorded real events. For many events in ancient history we have only one record, by one interested author.
3. You speak of proof. We have the same proof for Jesus' death and resurrection as we do for Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain, for Cleopatra's suicide, and for countless other events in antiquity - someone wrote about them. In fact we have MORE proof. We know about Caesar's invasion of Britain from a book he wrote. We havemore than half a dozen ancient witnesses who state that Jesus died and rose from the dead. If you want anything more than the documents, tough.
One can of course be sceptical of everything that ever happened, and regard history as all made up. Do you doubt the existence of Julius Caesar? And if not, why not?
P.S. As to my claim "The genre of fiction as presntly understood did not exist in the ancient world", I would have thought that would be clear enough. Yet you responded: "Fiction has always existed, fiction is simply, that which is not true. I might as well say that people were unable to lie a couple of thousands of years ago. It's pretty much the same thing."
Note the word "genre", referring to a type of writing. What did not exist in the ancient world was the modern type of imaginitive fiction, with its long narrative passages and attempted realism. Thus to claim that the gospels are fiction on the level of "See Spot run" or Spider-man and Batman (the answer's Batman, by the way), is impossible. That is to say, they were INTENDED to be read as history, while the GENRE of fiction makes no such claims.
Post a Comment