Who Wrote The Gospels?

[boyntonstu]

Who Wrote The Gospels?

Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if that is the case, who did write them?

Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels? These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written.

But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles.


Excerpted from Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman.

Show this to the missionaries and ask them to explain it.

BoyntonStu

Do not post copyrighted material.

[Dancing David]

Great post, welcome.

I had always been taught that he gospels were written oral tradition 60 years after the fictional events.

[Towlie]

Isaac Asimov covered that subject quite well in the second volume of Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Of course I can't reproduce it all here, but a couple of the points I remember are that (1) the author of Luke is also the author of Acts of the Apostles (not particularly controversial), and (2) Mark was almost certainly written before Matthew, or at least both drew upon the same work which was subsequently lost.

Matthew incorporates most of Mark with added material apparently intended to make as much of Jesus' career as possible appear to have been prophesied by the Old testament. According to Asimov, the author of Matthew made quite a few errors in his effort to achieve that goal.

[Dancing David]

Welcome Towlie!

[MG1962]

I think any discussion like this needs to consider context. The four Gospels handed down to us today are from a larger group, who's inclussion dates from a far later era. Some seem to be lost, or only theorised, others such as the Gospel of Thomas, simply excluded.

Having read the Gospel of Thomas I can see why it is excluded. It does not carry the style of the other four Gospels and is simply a series of writings...Jesus said this, Jesus said that.......... Extremely dry reading for an audience largely illiterate and relying on someone to tell them a story.

I have felt that a large amount of material was lost during the sacking of Jerusleum about a generation after Christ's death. I obviously cant prove that, but given one of the earliest schisms in the Church is mentioned in the Bible there was definately factions already appearing.

The people who wrote the Gospels, and those later that included them as the Christian Bible, were not stupid, they knew elements within the four books didn't gel together. So there had to be reason and process to be considered. If the whole Bible was a huge hoodwink, I believe all the books would have been in accord.

Do the four books represent the four major factions emerging within the early Church and the promotion...ie the Gospel according to Luke, an attempt to improve the credentials of the writing

[JoeTheJuggler]

These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written.

I just wanted to highlight this part which seems not to have received the emphasis it deserves.

There is pretty strong evidence that these things were written down for some period BEFORE they were attributed to these names.

So a brief time line:

-purported events of the gospels

-some 40 to 60 years later, the oral accounts written down (some with obvious knowledge of one or more of the others) but known only as anonymous accounts

-another period of time later (approx. 160 AD) they're referred to as memoirs of the apostles

-some 20 years later than that (approx. 180) comes the first explicit references to the gospels as being written by the named evangelists

In fact, from the text we can pretty well rule out that they were written by eyewitnesses. There's evidence that the authors were ignorant of the geography of that region. There are parts that are clearly fiction. (The Agony in the Garden is one of my favorite passages, but it's clearly NOT written from the point of view of a witness. We're told that the apostles couldn't stay awake and Jesus went away from them to pray. The omniscient narrator and the 3 repetitions not only reads like fiction but makes an eyewitness account impossible.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

The people who wrote the Gospels, and those later that included them as the Christian Bible, were not stupid, they knew elements within the four books didn't gel together. So there had to be reason and process to be considered. If the whole Bible was a huge hoodwink, I believe all the books would have been in accord.

I get that the criteria of embarrassment argues that the several accounts weren't written as a conspiracy, but there's plenty of space between an elaborate and well-planned hoax and that hese things are eyewitness accounts.

I think you're right, some of the discrepancies were conscious changes from one author to another. I think there was a definite agenda.

Sometimes the agenda might've been as simple as an attempt to correct an error. E.g. Matthew 8:28 attempts to correct the geographical problem of Gerasa in Mark 5:1 by moving the casting out of the demon story to Gadara which is at least more or less near the Sea of Galilee.

With John, the author definitely had an agenda that pertained more to the issues facing the early church. For example, in Mark & Matthew, Jesus is still presented as a Jewish teacher from the countryside. In John, he's almost presented as a non-Jew. In Matthew & Mark, Christianity is pretty clearly for Jews, but in John, Jesus himself appears as an outsider to Judaism (referring, for example to Jewish law as "your Law" in John 8:17).

[Holler Hoojer]

I think it fair to say that the Gospels were never intended to be written history, or even the written version of oral traditions. They were written for an audience not in Israel at least several decades after the death of Jesus. Mark, Matthew and Luke have many similarities and may represent a common "editing". Mark is thought by some theologians to have been the source, both from testimony from Peter but also by probably interviewing some of the survivors of the time of Jesus. As such, he would have likely been told "embellished" stories by people who sometimes saw things they didn't understand or possibly got second-hand. There is also evidence for a proto-Luke version.

John has a different theological perspective and may have intended to show the tie-ins with the Tanakh.

But, in all four cases, they should be seen as somewhat historical, but primarily as a means of interpreting the meaning of Jesus to folks outside Israel at a later time. From that perspective, we should expect to see some literary "flourishes".

[MG1962]

With John, the author definitely had an agenda that pertained more to the issues facing the early church. For example, in Mark & Matthew, Jesus is still presented as a Jewish teacher from the countryside. In John, he's almost presented as a non-Jew. In Matthew & Mark, Christianity is pretty clearly for Jews, but in John, Jesus himself appears as an outsider to Judaism (referring, for example to Jewish law as "your Law" in John 8:17).

And see in this instance we can actually gleen a little context. Paul influence Christianity to see itself as a stand alone faith rather than a derivative of the Jewish faith.

And if we look further to the power play between James the Just and Paul, we see a faith still in the process of defining itself. If Gospels are produced at the end of this result, incorporating certain unchanged elements while changing some elements to suit their belief

That aside I feel that the Gospels need to be picked apart. The important stuff are the teachings and stories. The fact that Jesus bought a cheeseburger in LA rather than Kansas City is really just fluff to tie everything together

As I mentioned earlier - The Gospel Of Thomas is as dry as toast because it went the other way. No fluff, all content. To a modern audience this may be more to our taste, at the time, there was a message to sell

[Lucian]

I think any discussion like this needs to consider context. The four Gospels handed down to us today are from a larger group, who's inclussion dates from a far later era. Some seem to be lost, or only theorised, others such as the Gospel of Thomas, simply excluded.

Having read the Gospel of Thomas I can see why it is excluded. It does not carry the style of the other four Gospels and is simply a series of writings...Jesus said this, Jesus said that.......... Extremely dry reading for an audience largely illiterate and relying on someone to tell them a story.

I have felt that a large amount of material was lost during the sacking of Jerusleum about a generation after Christ's death. I obviously cant prove that, but given one of the earliest schisms in the Church is mentioned in the Bible there was definately factions already appearing.

The people who wrote the Gospels, and those later that included them as the Christian Bible, were not stupid, they knew elements within the four books didn't gel together. So there had to be reason and process to be considered. If the whole Bible was a huge hoodwink, I believe all the books would have been in accord.

Do the four books represent the four major factions emerging within the early Church and the promotion...ie the Gospel according to Luke, an attempt to improve the credentials of the writing

I am confused by the highlighted text. Illiterate people read the Gospel of Thomas which was told to them and found it boring?

I assume you don't mean the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which recounts Jesus' homicidal childhood, because that's all sorts of interesting.

[MG1962]

I am confused by the highlighted text. Illiterate people read the Gospel of Thomas which was told to them and found it boring?

I assume you don't mean the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which recounts Jesus' homicidal childhood, because that's all sorts of interesting.

LOL - sometimes the brain and fingers dont work together. The Gospel is very dry reading. To sit there and have someone read it to you would be even worse

Infancy Gospel huh? - Is that the Double Day edition, cause I have not come across it?

[Bikewer]

In Lost Christianities, Ehrman refers not only to the large number of other gospels (over 100) but the wide variety of early-Christian groups or "Jesus cults".

He says definitively that the oldest documents we have are copies of copies of copies, and all circulated by oral tradition before anything was committed to paper.

Also points out that the attribution of these documents to apostles was a fairly common thing; not only lends weight to the document but supposedly honors the named author.

The Chinese did much the same, the "Yellow Emperor" apparently invented nearly everything....

[Robert Oz]

Having read the Gospel of Thomas I can see why it is excluded. It does not carry the style of the other four Gospels and is simply a series of writings...Jesus said this, Jesus said that.......... Extremely dry reading for an audience largely illiterate and relying on someone to tell them a story.


I disagree with differing style and dry reading being reasons that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded from the Bible.

Regarding differences in style, there is major differences in style between Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and John on the other. If differences in style were a reason to exclude a book, John should certainly not be in the Bible.

Regarding dry reading, much of the Bible is very dry reading. Watching paint dry is much more exciting than reading Numbers, for example. And who doesn't skip over all the "begats".

Furthermore, and most importantly, we are talking about a book that allegedly lists quotes from the mouth of God. Can you imagine facing a god in the afterlife and telling him that you left a book of his sayings out of the Bible, because you found it rather boring?

There had to have been other reasons for its exclusion. If I believed that Jesus was truly the son of God (and God himself), I would cherish every single piece of text written about him and especially text that listed words he supposedly uttered. Unless, of course, I concluded that the text was false (which is obviously what the Church decided).

[Towlie]

Regarding differences in style, there is major differences in style between Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and John on the other.Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels).

[Robert Oz]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels).


I was aware of that. The name just slipped my mind when I was composing the post and I couldn't be bothered looking it up. :)

The inclusion of John still highlights the point that inclusion in the Bible was not solely based on similarity of styles between books.

[MG1962]

Regarding dry reading, much of the Bible is very dry reading. Watching paint dry is much more exciting than reading Numbers, for example. And who doesn't skip over all the "begats".

Furthermore, and most importantly, we are talking about a book that allegedly lists quotes from the mouth of God. Can you imagine facing a god in the afterlife and telling him that you left a book of his sayings out of the Bible, because you found it rather boring?

There had to have been other reasons for its exclusion. If I believed that Jesus was truly the son of God (and God himself), I would cherish every single piece of text written about him and especially text that listed words he supposedly uttered. Unless, of course, I concluded that the text was false (which is obviously what the Church decided).

Well is the text itself -

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

Even by Bible standards it is dry - and not a begat to be found

[Robert Oz]

Well is the text itself -

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

Even by Bible standards it is dry - and not a begat to be found


I really don't see much of a difference. Some of the quotes sound quite similar to writings in the four gospels. Not in substance, but certainly in style.

Nevertheless, we are talking about words allegedly spoken by Jesus. If they were believed to be authentic, I just can't see believers excluding it for any reason. I mean, there are people out there who collect anything and everything they can find on Star Wars or Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe. Here we're talking about the son of God. If anything could be called "the word of God" surely its the words spoken by the deity himself.

[arthwollipot]

Some years ago I found an essay online with a title something like "did Jesus really exist?" I can't find it any more, but it did an analysis of the number of "miraculous" events in each of the Gospels, concentrating on the Resurrection, and showing that the later gospels contained more miraculous events, following the pattern of folklore.

Anyone recognise what I'm talking about?

[Robert Oz]

Some years ago I found an essay online with a title something like "did Jesus really exist?" I can't find it any more, but it did an analysis of the number of "miraculous" events in each of the Gospels, concentrating on the Resurrection, and showing that the later gospels contained more miraculous events, following the pattern of folklore.

Anyone recognise what I'm talking about?


I don't think I've read the article, but I do remember Richard Dawkins briefly discussing the gospels excluded from the Bible in The God Delusion, where he mentions that some of the miracles reported seemed too silly for even the faithful to take seriously.

Although, I'm at a loss as to how walking through walls (which he mentions) is any sillier than walking on water. :)

[Towlie]

Also points out that the attribution of these documents to apostles was a fairly common thing; not only lends weight to the document but supposedly honors the named author.It still is a common thing. Go to snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com), enter a search for George Carlin, and look at all of the circulating emails that are falsely attributed to him. Then try some other popular names like Andy Rooney and Dennis Miller.

[Lucian]

LOL - sometimes the brain and fingers dont work together. The Gospel is very dry reading. To sit there and have someone read it to you would be even worse

Infancy Gospel huh? - Is that the Double Day edition, cause I have not come across it?

M. R. James's translation: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancythomas-a-mrjames.html

ETA The above is a translation of one of the texts. For much, much more: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html

[CurtC]

Some years ago I found an essay online with a title something like "did Jesus really exist?" I can't find it any more, but it did an analysis of the number of "miraculous" events in each of the Gospels, concentrating on the Resurrection, and showing that the later gospels contained more miraculous events, following the pattern of folklore.

Anyone recognise what I'm talking about?

Ehrman's books (referenced in the OP) make this point.

[dropzone]

Infancy Gospel huh? - Is that the Double Day edition, cause I have not come across it?Try this: gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

"All sorts of interesting" merely scratches the surface of its woo. Makes Mark--hell, it makes JOHN--look like a piker.

ETA: I'm a noob. Delete spaces where inappropriate.

ETAA: Hey, curtc! Home grew too boring.

[MG1962]

Clearly we are talking about two seperate documents

From

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/289058

The "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" is a non-canon (http://forums.randi.org/6862998)ical text that was part of a popular genre, "aretalogy", of the 2nd and 3rd centuries— a miracle literature of Infancy gospels that was both entertaining and inspirational, written to satisfy a hunger for more miraculous and anecdotal stories of the childhood of Jesus than the Gospel of Luke provided. Later references by Hippolytus of Rome and Origen of Alexandria to a "Gospel of Thomas" are more likely to be referring to this Infancy Gospel than to the wholly different "Gospel of Thomas" with which it is sometimes confused. Some of the episodes from the Infancy Gospel were topics of mediaeval art.

The article goes on to cast serious doubt about authorship and motives of this document

The "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" is, like many such texts, a pseudepigraphical work, for it claims within itself to have been written by "Thomas the Israelite" (in a medieval Latin version). The biblical Thomas (or Judas Thomas, Didymos Judas Thomas, etc.) is very unlikely to have had anything to do with the text. Whoever its initial author was, he seems not to have known much of Jewish life besides what he could learn from the "Gospel of Luke", which the text seems to refer to directly in ch. 19; Sabbath (http://forums.randi.org/17709) and Passover observances are mentioned.

[Lucian]

Clearly we are talking about two seperate documents

From

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/289058

The "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" is a non-canon (http://forums.randi.org/6862998)ical text that was part of a popular genre, "aretalogy", of the 2nd and 3rd centuries— a miracle literature of Infancy gospels that was both entertaining and inspirational, written to satisfy a hunger for more miraculous and anecdotal stories of the childhood of Jesus than the Gospel of Luke provided. Later references by Hippolytus of Rome and Origen of Alexandria to a "Gospel of Thomas" are more likely to be referring to this Infancy Gospel than to the wholly different "Gospel of Thomas" with which it is sometimes confused. Some of the episodes from the Infancy Gospel were topics of mediaeval art.

The article goes on to cast serious doubt about authorship and motives of this document

The "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" is, like many such texts, a pseudepigraphical work, for it claims within itself to have been written by "Thomas the Israelite" (in a medieval Latin version). The biblical Thomas (or Judas Thomas, Didymos Judas Thomas, etc.) is very unlikely to have had anything to do with the text. Whoever its initial author was, he seems not to have known much of Jewish life besides what he could learn from the "Gospel of Luke", which the text seems to refer to directly in ch. 19; Sabbath (http://forums.randi.org/17709) and Passover observances are mentioned.
Yes, I know, but it's one of my very favorite apocryphal works.

[SezMe]

Although Erhman is an excellent author, probably the best layman book for this topic goes directly to the OP topic, Who Wrote the Gospels? by Randel Helms. Good read...he makes many of the same points as Erhman.

One of his main points I found interesting is that the gospels tell us more about the authors than the topics of the gospels themselves.

[dafydd]

We have not had the expert's opinions yet,Greatest I Am,Kathy and Doc will tell us who wrote them.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

We have not had the expert's opinions yet,Greatest I Am,Kathy and Doc will tell us who wrote them.

I was wondering when one or more of these personalities would show up. :D

To this point the discussion has been interesting and logical. Shortly, I suppose, that we will be told that it is all God's Word. :sigh:

[dahduh]

Are Mathew, Mark, Luke and John
Authors of a great big con?
"No they aren't!" we have to say:
They did not write them anyway.

[TimCallahan]

As Randel Helms notes in "Who Wrote the Gospels?" a variant of the Documentary Theory for the origins of the Torah exists, called the "Four Source Theory," for sources of the Synoptic Gospels. The term "Synoptic," meaning "seen together" was coined by an eighteenth century scholar by the name of Johann Greisbach, because of the similarities between the texts of Mark, Matthew and Luke. Much of the narrative material shared between them is virtually word-for-word.

To make a long story short, Mark is the source of the common narrative material in the three Synoptic Gospels. In addition a hypothetical "sayings gospel" called "Q" (for Quelle, the German word for "source") is the probable source of the teachings and sayings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew, Luke and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Dr. Dennis MacDonald thinks that Mark might have also incorporated som material from "Q," though he thinks that Mark largely eschewed using Q material in favor of writting a narrative. In addition, there is material exclusive to both Matthew and Luke - such as the two opposing Nativity stories - that is called "M" and "L," respectively.So, a source diagram for the Synoptic Gospels would look like this:

Q ------> Thomas
/ : \
M / Mark \ L
\ / / \ \ /
Matthew Luke

[TimCallahan]

Sorry, the diagram I attempted got somewhat garbled by the natural repositioning in the posting. The sources for Matthew are :Q, M and Mark. The sources for Luke are Q, L and Mark. Mark, Q, M and L are the four sources of the "Four Source Theory."

[fuelair]

Stephen King or Charles Dickens. I'm pretty sure the argument is still going on.

[boyntonstu]

"Unicorn" is mentioned about 5 times in the King James.

A 'tiny' error?

BoyntonStu

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"Unicorn" is mentioned about 5 times in the King James.

A 'tiny' error?

BoyntonStu

Unicorn is a mistranslation of "Rhinoceros". AKA One Hell of a Big Animal with a Horn. ;)

[Hokulele]

Unicorn is a mistranslation of "Rhinoceros". AKA One Hell of a Big Animal with a Horn. ;)


And strangely enough, not one of those mentions, translated properly or not, can be found in the gospels.

*Eyes thread title*

[maddog]

Who Wrote The Gospels?

Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them.

Actually, the Catholic Church has been actively trying to disseminate this information in the past couple decades. In addition to my own study on the topic, I have heard this from the pulpit in at least four different parishes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it fair to say that the Gospels were never intended to be written history, or even the written version of oral traditions.


That aside I feel that the Gospels need to be picked apart. The important stuff are the teachings and stories. The fact that Jesus bought a cheeseburger in LA rather than Kansas City is really just fluff to tie everything together

I'm not sure I totally agree with this (two different versions of saying that the gospels weren't meant as history, more or less).

Big pieces of them are told as narrative with historical sounding stuff (the ancestry tracing Joseph back to David, incidents having to do with named historical figures and so on).

I think the other points or lessons of these works should take into account the historical whoppers. Granted that Jesus was in LA rather than KC isn't important to the point, but if someone was careless with facts like that, and reported them as factual, I would take the rest of it with a grain of salt. I see no reason to believe that someone comfortable with telling lies (or fictionalize accounts of supposedly true events) would suddenly become perfectly reliable in other respects.


The gospels could have been written in a different way. They could have left out all narrative and all historical events and just been a summary of the teachings of Jesus. (Some of the gnostic gospels read more like that--although that might just be because we only have fragments so some of the narrative has been lost.) That they were told as a biography of Jesus is part of what they are, and I see no value in ignoring that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, the Catholic Church has been actively trying to disseminate this information in the past couple decades. In addition to my own study on the topic, I have heard this from the pulpit in at least four different parishes.

I think the Catholic Church has long had a more reasonable view of the scriptures than many other denominations. They don't push inerrancy and literalism, for one thing. Also, they stress that revelation takes into account history, language, culture and even human psychology. (I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia somewhere that for the infinite to come into direct contact with a finite mind would be an act of violence.)

But mostly, they don't cling to points like the authorship of the gospels that we know with some certainty were not written by the named evangelists.

[Dancing David]

I disagree with differing style and dry reading being reasons that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded from the Bible.

Regarding differences in style, there is major differences in style between Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and John on the other. If differences in style were a reason to exclude a book, John should certainly not be in the Bible.

Regarding dry reading, much of the Bible is very dry reading. Watching paint dry is much more exciting than reading Numbers, for example. And who doesn't skip over all the "begats".

Furthermore, and most importantly, we are talking about a book that allegedly lists quotes from the mouth of God. Can you imagine facing a god in the afterlife and telling him that you left a book of his sayings out of the Bible, because you found it rather boring?

There had to have been other reasons for its exclusion. If I believed that Jesus was truly the son of God (and God himself), I would cherish every single piece of text written about him and especially text that listed words he supposedly uttered. Unless, of course, I concluded that the text was false (which is obviously what the Church decided).

And here we get to the first big split in the forming church. The patriarchs (primarily monastic) wanted to have a political organization and that needed the magic mumbo jumbo of the god-king, so they slaughtered the Gnostics and the Arians who taught that either we are all divine or that jesus was human.

They then chose texts that supported their world view.

[Dancing David]

Try this: gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

"All sorts of interesting" merely scratches the surface of its woo. Makes Mark--hell, it makes JOHN--look like a piker.

ETA: I'm a noob. Delete spaces where inappropriate.

ETAA: Hey, curtc! Home grew too boring.

Welcome dropzone!

[Holler Hoojer]

I'm not sure I totally agree with this (two different versions of saying that the gospels weren't meant as history, more or less).

Big pieces of them are told as narrative with historical sounding stuff (the ancestry tracing Joseph back to David, incidents having to do with named historical figures and so on).

I think the other points or lessons of these works should take into account the historical whoppers. Granted that Jesus was in LA rather than KC isn't important to the point, but if someone was careless with facts like that, and reported them as factual, I would take the rest of it with a grain of salt. I see no reason to believe that someone comfortable with telling lies (or fictionalize accounts of supposedly true events) would suddenly become perfectly reliable in other respects.


The gospels could have been written in a different way. They could have left out all narrative and all historical events and just been a summary of the teachings of Jesus. (Some of the gnostic gospels read more like that--although that might just be because we only have fragments so some of the narrative has been lost.) That they were told as a biography of Jesus is part of what they are, and I see no value in ignoring that.

The key word in my point was intended. The Gospels do contain a lot of history, but that was not their intended purpose.

[shadron]

The big reason that the Book of Thomas was excluded, as well as the books of Mary and Peter and others, had more to do with the theological schism between the catholic church mainline and the gnostic and Manichaean heresies. Gnosticism emphasized the idea that some few people are saved because they were destined to receive special knowledge (the root word of gnostic in Greek is knowledge), as opposed to anyone who had the requisite faith and performed good works. These books emphasized the mystical side of Christianity rather than the down-to-earth sort that allowed the church to put a hook into every human being, and they were banned from the church teaching early on - even before Constantine started meddling. Iraneus, Jerome and other church doctors condemned it and other books well before the first councils were convened.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And strangely enough, not one of those mentions, translated properly or not, can be found in the gospels.

*Eyes thread title*

For sure, that is passing strange. Maybe donkey is also a mis-translation for hippo? Thus Jesus did not ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys but on a creature as large as two donkeys. Makes about as much sense as any of the other folk tales. :confused: