How should (or not) the 'lost' gospels be included in church or study?

[Raphael Jauregui]

Should Christians read the 'lost' gospels in Bible study or read them in church for the purposes of a sermon, for example? Should they not be read at all? Could they be read academically, but not in church or bible study?

 

[Winken]

The "lost" scriptures have no Spiritual value, in terms of walking with Jesus and in eternal life.

 

[PropheticTimes]

I didn't participate in the poll because my answer would be this -

I feel that there are some extra-Biblical texts that widen understanding on certain topics you may wish to know more about, but they are not needed for salvation or walking in the Spirit.

Those extra-Biblical texts that do not go against canonical Scripture are very helpful to me in understanding more vague parts of the Bible and I enjoy reading them. There are others that are indeed Gnostic writings and against Scripture, and when I find those I toss them aside. Otherwise, I find them historically and, at times, spiritually helpful to me.

 

[redleghunter]

Should Christians read the 'lost' gospels in Bible study or read them in church for the purposes of a sermon, for example? Should they not be read at all? Could they be read academically, but not in church or bible study?

They were 'lost' for a reason.

 

[CrystalDragon]

The "lost" scriptures have no Spiritual value, in terms of walking with Jesus and in eternal life.

It then has you wonder how we know the ones we got are spiritually inspired.

 

[redleghunter]

It then has you wonder how we know the ones we got are spiritually inspired.

Read and compare. I've done some. For example, many liberal churches love the Gnostic gospel of Thomas yet have issues with St Paul.

Let's look at a passage from the supposed Thomas text and compare with Paul's epistle:

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Thomas 114)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:27-29)

Add to the fact most of these 'lost gospels' and NT apocrypha books were later extant developments and were not quoted in the sub-apostolic era nor by the early church fathers.

Find me a sermon by Justin Martyr or Polycarp or even Barnabas where they quote 'lost gospels' and I might consider the passage.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Read and compare. I've done some. For example, many liberal churches love the Gnostic gospel of Thomas yet have issues with St Paul.

Let's look at a passage from the supposed Thomas text and compare with Paul's epistle:

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Thomas 114)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:27-29)

Add to the fact most of these 'lost gospels' and NT apocrypha books were later extant developments and were not quoted in the sub-apostolic era nor by the early church fathers.

Find me a sermon by Justin Martyr or Polycarp or even Barnabas where they quote 'lost gospels' and I might consider the passage.

Wasn't the Book of Enoch mentioned at one point? And we don't consider that Scripture these days.

 

[redleghunter]

Wasn't the Book of Enoch mentioned at one point? And we don't consider that Scripture these days.

Portions of Enoch were quoted, but Enoch is not a lost gospel or NT apocryphal work.

 

[grasping the after wind]

"Lost" is really a bit of a misnomer. "Rejected" would be more appropriate.

 

[redleghunter]

"Lost" is really a bit of a misnomer. "Rejected" would be more appropriate.

Which ones should have made 'the cut' in your opinion?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Wasn't the Book of Enoch mentioned at one point? And we don't consider that Scripture these days.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church actually does consider Enoch to be a part of their OT canon, and they also have additional New Testament books. It's very interesting!

 

[redleghunter]

"Lost" is really a bit of a misnomer. "Rejected" would be more appropriate.

And for good reason. Here's one example, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas:

The Case for a Second Century date for Thomas
1. Dependence on the 1st Century New Testament Writings

First, the Gospel of Thomas shows dependence on the first century New Testament writings, even parts of the Gospel of Mark that were edited by Matthew and Luke.1 Craig Evans notes that the Gospel of Thomas quotes or alludes to more than half of the New Testament writings including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, and Revelation.2 This dependence indicates that the Gospel of Thomas was probably written sometime in the second century, especially since its references include later first century works such as the Gospel of John and Revelation. Evans notes, “I’m now aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament (36).”3 For example, the Epistles of Ignatius, which were written around A.D. 110, do not quote half as much material as Thomas does.

2. Possible 2nd Century Syrian Influence

Second, the Gospel of Thomas also shows evidence of having been influenced by Syrian Christianity, which, as far as scholars can tell, did not exist as a movement until the second century A.D. There are a number of reasons why Thomas shows this Syrian influence. First, Thomas appears to have been influenced by Tatian’s Diatessaron (which means “through the four”), which was a Syrian harmony of the four gospels written around 175 A.D. In fact, Tatian’s Diatessaron was the only gospel available to the Syrian Christians initially. Second, the references to “Judas Thomas” in the prologue of the Gospel of Thomas indicates that it has parallels with Syrian works such as the Book of Thomas the Contender and the Acts of Thomas which also make reference to him. Third, there is an anti-materialistic perspective in Thomas (see sayings 27, 63, 64, 65, 95, and 110) which was consistent with the ascetic or worldly denying practices of the Syrian church. Fourth, it is quite possible that the original copy of the Gospel of Thomas was written in Syriac due to the number of Syriac catchwords which would have aided memorization in the text. One scholar argues that there are approximately 500 of these Syrian catchwords in the text of Thomas.4 Also, in a Syriac version of John 14:22, “Judas (not Iscariot)” is called “Judas Thomas.”

3. Lack of References from Early Church Fathers or First Century Witnesses

Many of the early Church fathers who extensively cite portions of the New Testament show no awareness of the Gospel of Thomas in the early second century. There are no quotations or allusions from early Christian writers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, or Justin Martyr. As mentioned earlier, Craig Evans notes, “I’m now aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament.”5 Interestingly, the Epistles of Ignatius, which were written around A.D. 110, do not quote half as much New Testament material as Thomas does.

4. Heretical Nature and Gnostic-like Overtones

Third, another reason why the Gospel of Thomas does not belong in the New Testament is due to its heretical nature which disagrees with the undoubtedly authentic New Testament books.6 The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas teaches many things which are contrary to the Jesus of the canonical Gospels. For example, in the Gospel of Thomas saying 114, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’” This quote is in striking contrast to the New Testament where Jesus affirmed the value of women,7 and the fact that Paul taught that we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28).

At the link below is a comparison of the 4 Gospels to the Gnostic Thomas document:

https://carm.org/does-the-gospel-of-thomas-belong-in-the-new-testament

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

And for good reason. Here's one example, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas:

The Case for a Second Century date for Thomas
1. Dependence on the 1st Century New Testament Writings

First, the Gospel of Thomas shows dependence on the first century New Testament writings, even parts of the Gospel of Mark that were edited by Matthew and Luke.1 Craig Evans notes that the Gospel of Thomas quotes or alludes to more than half of the New Testament writings including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, and Revelation.2 This dependence indicates that the Gospel of Thomas was probably written sometime in the second century, especially since its references include later first century works such as the Gospel of John and Revelation. Evans notes, “I’m now aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament (36).”3 For example, the Epistles of Ignatius, which were written around A.D. 110, do not quote half as much material as Thomas does.

2. Possible 2nd Century Syrian Influence

Second, the Gospel of Thomas also shows evidence of having been influenced by Syrian Christianity, which, as far as scholars can tell, did not exist as a movement until the second century A.D. There are a number of reasons why Thomas shows this Syrian influence. First, Thomas appears to have been influenced by Tatian’s Diatessaron (which means “through the four”), which was a Syrian harmony of the four gospels written around 175 A.D. In fact, Tatian’s Diatessaron was the only gospel available to the Syrian Christians initially. Second, the references to “Judas Thomas” in the prologue of the Gospel of Thomas indicates that it has parallels with Syrian works such as the Book of Thomas the Contender and the Acts of Thomas which also make reference to him. Third, there is an anti-materialistic perspective in Thomas (see sayings 27, 63, 64, 65, 95, and 110) which was consistent with the ascetic or worldly denying practices of the Syrian church. Fourth, it is quite possible that the original copy of the Gospel of Thomas was written in Syriac due to the number of Syriac catchwords which would have aided memorization in the text. One scholar argues that there are approximately 500 of these Syrian catchwords in the text of Thomas.4 Also, in a Syriac version of John 14:22, “Judas (not Iscariot)” is called “Judas Thomas.”

3. Lack of References from Early Church Fathers or First Century Witnesses

Many of the early Church fathers who extensively cite portions of the New Testament show no awareness of the Gospel of Thomas in the early second century. There are no quotations or allusions from early Christian writers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, or Justin Martyr. As mentioned earlier, Craig Evans notes, “I’m now aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament.”5 Interestingly, the Epistles of Ignatius, which were written around A.D. 110, do not quote half as much New Testament material as Thomas does.

4. Heretical Nature and Gnostic-like Overtones

Third, another reason why the Gospel of Thomas does not belong in the New Testament is due to its heretical nature which disagrees with the undoubtedly authentic New Testament books.6 The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas teaches many things which are contrary to the Jesus of the canonical Gospels. For example, in the Gospel of Thomas saying 114, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’” This quote is in striking contrast to the New Testament where Jesus affirmed the value of women,7 and the fact that Paul taught that we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28).

At the link below is a comparison of the 4 Gospels to the Gnostic Thomas document:

Does the Gospel of Thomas belong in the New Testament? | carm

Thomas is actually 40% congruent with the Synoptic gospels; so, it would be a stretch to reject it entirely. The 40% that is almost the same as the Synoptic gospels is at least okay.

 

[Anto9us]

Raphael, I was aware that Ethiopian Orthodox considered Enoch canonical -- but I know nothing about "additional NT books" they have -- do you have a link?

Enoch was quoted in Jude, it's not really in same category as "lost gospels", I have read the Laurence and R H Charles translations of it; it really is an expansion of Genesis 6 story of fallen angels...

 

[Deadworm]

First, we must distinguish between lost Gospels, ancient Jewish apocrypha (see the Catholic OT), and pseudonymous early Jewish and Christian documents. Most people who urge Christians to seek spiritual edification by studying noncanonical Gospels have neither read many of them nor studied their date, authorship, and doctrinal orientation. They contain very little historically authentic material about the historical Jesus. That is the near-unanimous verdict of modern academic scholarship. A better question to ask is: What can we learn about Jesus' teaching and deeds from evidence outside our canonical Gospels? For example, do you know that the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery in John 7:53-8:11 was not originally a part of our Fourth Gospel, but rather seems to have later been lifted from the Gospel of the Hebrews and inserted into John? Nevertheless, the antiquity of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the nature of this wonderful story makes its status likely as a true story about Jesus from oral tradition. Beyond that, the Gospel with the best chance of preserving a very few new authentic sayings of Jesus is the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. But it was not written by the apostle Thomas and most of its 114 sayings of Jesus are either Gnostic inventions or independent versions of sayings preserved in our canonical Gospels. As a literary genre, this Gospel of Thomas is not a Gospel at all, but rather a saying collection like Q, the first-century sayings collection used by Matthew and Luke (but not by Mark).

Months ago, I started a thread in Apologetics on "Connections of Jesus with Eyewitness Testimony." I may well track that thread down and present the new sayings of Jesus that have the best chance of being authentic.

 

[FireDragon76]

They should not be used to bind the conscience of any Christian, otherwise, I don't see the problem with studying them.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Which ones should have made 'the cut' in your opinion?

The ones that actually did. I am firmly in the camp that accepts divine inspiration. I also am aware that those tasked with the job of biblical compilation did so using real criteria and took the job seriously.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Raphael, I was aware that Ethiopian Orthodox considered Enoch canonical -- but I know nothing about "additional NT books" they have -- do you have a link?

Enoch was quoted in Jude, it's not really in same category as "lost gospels", I have read the Laurence and R H Charles translations of it; it really is an expansion of Genesis 6 story of fallen angels...

Here is a link to their books. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

 

[Anto9us]

Wow, thx, Raphael

Looks like them Ethiopians have got EVVERBODDY ELSE WHIPPED
in terms of sheer number of canonical books -- 81 books of the Bible !!

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Wow, thx, Raphael

Looks like them Ethiopians have got EVVERBODDY ELSE WHIPPED
in terms of sheer number of canonical books -- 81 books of the Bible !!

I'd very much say so. I want to especially read their New Testament books as I never heard of any church with a different NT canon.