Left out gospels

[Umaro]

Why are there so many gospels (27 I think) that were left out of the Bible? I remember a while ago there was talk about the Gospel of Judas, but that died out quickly it seems. How were the 4 current gospels chosen to be placed in the Bible and what makes the other's unworthy? To me this seems like in the early church there was some picking and choosing to make sure the Bible didn't contradict itself (though it still does quite a bit) and that this elimination of books would be reason against believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I'm not completly sure on the origin of the Bible though, so my thoughts might be off. I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

 

[ebia]

Why are there so many gospels (27 I think) that were left out of the Bible? I remember a while ago there was talk about the Gospel of Judas, but that died out quickly it seems. How were the 4 current gospels chosen to be placed in the Bible and what makes the other's unworthy? To me this seems like in the early church there was some picking and choosing to make sure the Bible didn't contradict itself (though it still does quite a bit) and that this elimination of books would be reason against believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I'm not completly sure on the origin of the Bible though, so my thoughts might be off. I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

A lot of the ones that didn't make it were never under serious consideration. They show all the signs of being written much later, etc. The books that were included were mostly chosen very early by consensus to be reliable - they were quite simply the ones the church had always relied on. Most of the books that were contraverial are still used by the church as important early documents but were deemed not be early enough or not quite reliable enough, or just weren't of a suitable nature for reading in church.

Things like the Gospel of Judas and the gospel of Thomas were written much later - adapted from (at least in part) the canonical gospels - by later, non-mainstream groups like the gnostics. Most of them show their later ancestry by (for example) removal of narative (they tend ot be collections of sayings), removal of the clear Jewish connections that exist still in the canonical versions of the stories (even Luke), and so forth.

The idea that it took the church centuries to decide the canon is misleading - all the books that make it up were written within 100 years of Jesus death, must much earlier than that, and the church very quickly decided in practice which ones it was going to use. It simply took a bit longer to finally rubber stamp what the church was already doing and to make a final choice on the handful of books where there was some disagreement. The 4 gospels were never in dispute, neither was there ever any realy interest in any of the other so-called gospels. (Since none of them contain the "good news" it's a bit misleading to call them gospels)

 

[heron]

Flip-flop the usual way of thinking about the Bible. We usually see it as a very contained book that represents and distills an entire religion.

But when the gospel writers set out to record what they saw, they did not know that their words would end up in a formal Bible. They had Torah (Laws of Moses), Tanakh (words and stories of the prophets) and Ketuvim (writings). The Talmud was finalized after the gospels were written.

People saved and treasured writings, but they did not have all-inclusive books like we do now. Scrolls and tablets could only fit so much text. (Microfiche would have helped them immensely.)

The apostles probably felt driven to write everything down before the first-hand participants all died off! They went for many years, caught up in the real life events, before they seemed to realize the importance of recording what they'd seen and heard.

It's like family dinners, where the older people bring up information that others hadn't remembered hearing -- everyone suggests someone write it down, but then they put it off and forget they'd planned to.

In these discussions, there are always arguments --"no, he moved to Wexford to marry that floozy"... "no, he met her after he moved there, and then they inherited that castle in Bavaria." So people need to write down everything they remember, and compare stories.

There will always be people who pretended they knew, to get recognition, or those who want to distort the truth for kicks and followers, or those who have collected so many second-hand stories and expounded on them that the truth is completely lost.

It wasn't an exclusive attitute that screened out the bad ones. It was a collection of many respected believers that weeded through the muck and distortions. It had to be done. It wasn't about excluding the underdogs, but preventing distortions and mistruths from being distributed as representing Christianity.

But remember -- even though the Bible is our source of information, a living God is our real source. Prophecies and Judeo-Christian events have happened throughout history. People will continue to write about these experiences. God did not stop working in our lives at any one point.

God is bigger than the Bible.

 

[calidog]

Is The "New Testament" Complete?​

To begin with, the answer to this very important question assumes that the reader believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (see Can We Know That Jesus Was Resurrected? Six Incontrovertible Facts). The answer revolves around the issue of "canonicity", i.e., whether or not the twenty-seven books of the "New Testament" (NT) may be received as "inspired of God" or merely the works of man in the first century.
The English word canon is taken from the Greek word κανόνας (kanonas), meaning reed which signifies a rule or standard. Origen (A.D. 185-253) used the word to mean rule of faith, the standard used to determine what will be accepted as an article of belief. Hence, what we are talking about here is whether or not a source can be believed to have come from God – something in which we can invest our confidence and faith, something that it is true and irrefutable.
In the gospel according to John, Jesus is reported to have said this:
John 16 12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you."
If we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He told His disciples that they would be reminded of whatever He had taught them by the Spirit of truth, then from the start we must conclude that whatever Jesus wanted them to say, they said it or wrote it. (See also John 14:10-17; 15:26-27; 1 John 5:5-9) This gives us confidence that the Spirit was guiding not only the content but also the dissemination of scripture through the apostles of Christ.
Thus, were talking about the list of 27 NT books that were accepted by early and late Christians as the Holy Scriptures. The early Christians assigned authority to these books which was established on the basis of whether or not those books provide evidence of Divine inspiration.
In our investigation, there are a few facts that should be noted:
Jesus wrote no book, though He commanded His disciple John to write down what he saw and send it to the seven churches of Asia – Revelation 1:11;
Neither Jesus nor His apostles directly approved any list of the 27 NT books;
The teachings of Jesus and the later apostolic teachings were first transmitted and taught orally – there is no evidence of a scribe or chronicler writing these things down as they happened;
Both oral and written forms were considered authoritative by the first Christians and were known to them as tradition (from the word meaning "to deliver") – 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6;
When NT writers referred to scripture, they meant the Old Testament (OT) books – Acts 17:11, 18:24, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy. 3:15-17;
No first or second century church was ever given divine authority to pronounce the infallibility of the scriptures, at least not by either the OT, NT or any other early "non-Biblical" writings;
The true factors determining the canon of the New Testament lie in the scriptures themselves;
The written and spoken words were confirmed by divine power through miraculous works - Mark 16:20, Hebrews 2:3-4, John 20:30-31;
THE CHURCH, apart from Christ and His apostles, DID NOT control the canon, but the canon controlled the church.
With these facts in consideration we need to take a look at whatever evidences we have available to us today. The evidences we have are referred to as internal (including circumstantial) and external evidences. The body of internal evidence includes statements or references from those sources that have been already accepted as canonical, i.e., both the OT and the NT books. The body of external evidence is everything else.
Let’s start with internal evidences:
Both the OT and NT claim to be inspired (e.g., "Thus says the Lord");
All of the 27 NT books in use today contain some claim to divine authority;
No other written works of man speak like the NT writers – in some translations of non-canonical works of the first two centuries the translators used a 17th century Shakespearean or King James English book, chapter and verse style making these works have the appearance of other Biblical works (The Lost Books of The Bible, Bell Publishing Company, New York; The Lost Books of the BIBLE and the forgotten books of EDEN, World Bible Publishers, Inc.);
There’s unity in diversity – each book contributes, without contradiction, to an overall message.
On this last point, see our article: Are the "Four Gospels" Reliable? A comparison is made in that article between the four accounts of the resurrection to illustrate how apparent differences may be reconciled.
There is also a great deal of circumstantial evidence that inspired writings were already being gathered together and regarded as authoritative scripture in the first century, while the apostles were still alive. In his letter to the church in Colossæ, the apostle Paul wrote:
Colossians 4 16 When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.
And, the apostle Peter wrote this about Paul’s letters:
2 Peter 3:14-16 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
This shows widespread dissemination and collection. In fact, the body of Paul’s letters is contained in the Corpus Paulinum. This is believed to be the earliest collection of Scripture in circulation – also called in Greek, Apostolos.
In addition, in one of Paul’s letters to Timothy he quotes a passage from the gospel according to Luke saying, "… the laborer is worthy of his wages" (1 Timothy 5:18; Luke 10:7). Thus, Paul regards Luke’s writings as authoritative and in Timothy’s possession.
Combining this circumstantial evidence from (a) 2 Peter 3, 1 Timothy 5 with (b) what both Paul and Peter later say about scripture, and with (c) the promise of Jesus in John 14, 15 and 16: the evidence becomes even more robust.
2 Timothy 3 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
This brings us to a brief discussion of external evidences. Much as been written on this subject that is beyond the scope of this article. Only a list of very significant points is provided with link to other source materials.
At first, there was no concept of a New Testament – however, the prophets spoke concerning another law – Isaiah 2:3, Heb. 10:9.
The Bible used by the early church was the Old Testament (Hebrew and LXX) – their teachings were based on the authority of Christ represented in His apostles.
The letters written by inspired men to individuals and churches were eventually grouped together, the four Gospels were added, and finally all the other writings.
Collections of these writings were made at different times and places – their contents (subject, style, form) were not always the same – so the authority of some writings was questioned.
Early Christian writers (Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp) all clearly distinguished themselves from the apostles -- they named no other apostles aside from Paul and the Twelve.
About the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr stated that on Sundays in the Christian worship assemblies, the memoirs of the apostles were read together with the writings of the prophets. When the church was first established it had no concept of a New Testament. Its Bible was the Old Testament and its teachings were based on the authority of Christ represented in His apostles.
When inspired men, such as the apostle Paul, wrote letters to individuals and churches, these letters were eventually grouped together. Then the four Gospels were added, and finally all the other writings. Since these collections were made at different times and places, their contents were not always the same. This caused the authority of some of the writings to come into question; particularly: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Other early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus and Polycarp all clearly distinguished themselves from the apostles, and they named no other apostles than those within the circle of the Twelve.
Can the New Testament writings be traced back to the writers whose names they bear? The books must be at least as old as their earliest existing copies. The copies which have been found are in many cases only partial. To know exactly what was regarded by the early church as being authoritative and of apostolic origin, we may also use any lists that name these writings. These are called the catalogs. The books and writings mentioned in catalogs had to exist for the author of the catalog to know about them. Some catalogs are found in the acts of various ecclesiastical assemblies where they regarded certain books as the true word of God. Before this, the catalogs must be obtained from various writers who held certain books or collection of books to be of divine origin.
This table shows the earliest catalogs (or lists) – see also Appendix B - Catalogs:

1.​

​

Clement of Rome
----------------------

c. A.D. 100​

​

2.​

​

Marcion of Rome
----------------------

c. A.D. 140​

​

3.​

​

Justin Martyr
----------------------

c. A.D. 140​

​

4.​

​

Papias of Hierapolis
----------------------

c. A.D. 140​

​

5.​

​

Polycarp of Smyrna
----------------------

A.D. 56 – 156​

​

6.​

​

Muratorian Fragment
----------------------

c. A.D. 180​

​

7.​

​

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons
----------------------

c. A.D. 180​

​

8.​

​

Clement of Alexandria
----------------------

A.D. 150 – 215​

​

9.​

​

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage
----------------------

c. A.D. 250​

​

10.​

​

Origen of Alexandria
----------------------

A.D. 185 – 253​

​

11.​

​

Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea
----------------------

A.D. 260 - 340​

​

12.​

​

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
----------------------

A.D. 326 - 373​

​

13.​

​

Cyril of Jerusalem
----------------------

A.D. 315 - 386​

​

During the second century the scroll gave way to the codex (or book), which offered a compactness making it possible for the writings to be bound together. This prompted the scribes to be careful about what they included.
In 303, bitter persecution was unleashed against the church by Diocletian, the Roman emperor. When he confiscated and burned the sacred writings, Christians had to decide which books were worth dying for. By this time the NT canon was formally settled in the minds of Christians and its basic outlines had been agreed to. So these Christians would turn over writings to the authorities, which they did not believe to be of divine origin.
In 367, Athanasius published a list of the writings which were deemed to be divine: the Old Testament and our present 27 New Testament books. About 385, Jerome recognized this same New Testament collection in his translation to the Latin Vulgate. Finally, two North African councils – at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 – officially acknowledged the canons of both Testaments, including the 27 books, and forbade any others to be read in the churches.
Eusebius (c. 260 - 340) is widely regarded as the father of church history. As Bishop of Caesarea, he wrote volumes of books in which he quoted from Papias and referred to the writings of Clement of Alexandria. He said the entire church received Hebrews as Pauline except the West, and there the whole question revolved around the point of authorship. Besides Hebrews, other books under controversy were James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John and the Apocalypse. He said, "though they are not canonical but controversial, they are nevertheless constantly recognized by the most of our ecclesiastical authorities." He was commissioned by Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for the use of the Churches in Constantinople. (See Appendix A, a quotation from Eusebius.)
Having now examined the principle evidences, let us now take a look at how the New Testament was compiled or assembled.
The earliest documents are apostolic letters to their converts and other Christians.
Mark’s gospel was written in Rome, Matthew’s gospel in the East, then Luke’s two books to the Gentiles.
John’s gospel was written near the close of the 1st century.
These four gospels were eventually collected into a single volume called the Fourfold Gospel.
Paul’s writings were collected into a single volume called The Apostle or the Corpus Paulinum.
Luke’s two books were actually split, the second becoming the Acts of the Apostles.
Finally, the other writings and the Apocalypse came to be received as inspired of God.
During the 2nd century, further developments have been discoveries have come to light through archaeology and ancient libraries. (Some of these have already been mentioned.)
In the 2nd century, the codex began to dominate, eventually replacing the scroll – so the scribes were very careful about what they included.
A.D. 100 – Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Papias of Hierapolis knew one or more of the apostles.
A.D. 140 – Marcion taught that Paul was the only true apostle and edited Luke, removing OT references.
A.D. 180 – Irenaeus, brought up at the feet of Polycarp, held that most books should be considered canonical.
A.D. 180 – The Muratorian Fragment provided an early list of books.
All New Testament books in use today were in existence no later than A.D. 200.
A.D. 230 – Origen of Alexandria disputed the inclusion of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude.
A flood of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works began to be read publicly during the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
So what about all these extra-Biblical, non-canonical works?
We know that Clement of Rome did not regard his letters to the church at Corinth as authoritative, inspired of God. There was no document from an uninspired pen so highly prized by the church of the early centuries as the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. It is written in the name of The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth. This epistle, being written before the death of the apostle John, is dated about A.D. 96 or 97 and makes reference to Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. Besides this, he also made various quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, Ephesians, I Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, I and II Peter. He was a bishop of the church in Rome who had been acquainted with some of the apostles. He died in A.D. 101.
As for Irenaeus (140–203), he became bishop of Lyons in Gaul in A.D. 177. His writings attest the canonical recognition of the fourfold gospel and Acts, of Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy and Titus, of I Peter and I John, and of Revelation. He also produced a Latin translation. His doctrine of scripture was clear. He referred to the writings of evangelists and apostles which the Gnostics twist as they do the Law and the Prophets. He ascribed to the Holy Spirit the work of inspiring the apostles, not the work of testifying to the authority of their writings. He established two tests of canonicity (see endnotes).
Polycarp of Smyrna (56–156) is one of the most conspicuous characters of the church. Irenaeus, who when a boy knew him, says that "he was instructed by apostles;" that he had "conversed with many who had seen Christ;" that he was appointed an overseer of the church in Smyrna by apostles; and that he suffered a glorious martyrdom. He probably knew the apostle John in Ephesus and Philip in Hierapolis. He wrote a number of epistles to the churches of which only that to the Philippians has been preserved. It is written in the name of Polycarp and the presbyters with him, and it is addressed to the church of God sojourning at Philippi. He alludes to Paul’s epistle to the Philippians and exhorts the brethren to observe it precepts. He quotes or references Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, all of Paul’s epistles except Philemon, I Peter and I John indicating the genuineness of those books.
Tertullian (155–222) was a great jurist-theologian of Carthage who in his writings shows clear traces of a Latin version of the Scriptures. In A.D. 200, he said that the originals of the New Testament books could still be inspected in the churches founded by the apostles. He affirmed that in reference to the letters of the apostles to the churches that in these their own authentic letters are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them separately. We have some portions of the New Testament from near his day and one fragment from even 70 years earlier. He, as did others, regarded the Gospel of Mark as originating with Peter and not Mark, even though it was agreed that Mark penned it himself. He also wrote that the Epistle to the Hebrews bears the name of Barnabas, Paul’s companion, indicating that Barnabas, as Mark, wrote what was authored by the apostle.
Clement of Alexandria (150–215) was originally, he was a student of pagan philosophy. Upon conversion to Christianity, he became proficient under eminent Christian teachers. Eusebius says that he used all the books of our New Testament except 2 Peter and 2 John and gave more or less elaborate explanations of all the books. He said, "We have as the source of the teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospels, and the blessed apostles, in divers manners and at sundry times, leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end." He speaks of the ministry of the apostles, including Paul, as ending with Nero.
We can now add a list of other known writings as follows (see Early Christian Writings for details):
The Gospel of the birth of Mary and The Protevangelion
Infancy Gospel of James(reportedly giving the history of the infancy of Jesus Christ)
Infancy Gospel of Thomas (the early history of the life of Jesus by Thomas)
Christ and Abgarus (a purported correspondence between Jesus and the king of Edessa)
The Gospel of Nicodemus, formerly called the Acts of Pontius Pilate
The Apostles' Creed (a short list of alleged acknowledgements of the faith of the apostles)
The Epistle (letter) of Paul to the Laodiceans
The Epistles of Paul to Seneca, and of Seneca’s to Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
1, 2 & 3 The Shepherd of Hermas
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The Lost Gospel According to Peter
It is not the purpose of this article to provide an analysis of each to illustrate whether or not they should be considered canonical. The early Christians did not even though a flood of these apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works began to be read publicly during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. That includes most of the authors of these works.
Summary
Canon is a word to mean rule of faith, the standard used to determine what will be accepted as an article of belief.
Jesus promised His disciples that the Spirit of truth would be sent so that the word He wanted disseminated would be either spoken or written.
27 NT books were accepted by early and late Christians as the Holy Scriptures.
Neither Jesus nor His apostles directly approved any list of the 27 NT books.
The true factors determining the canon of the New Testament lies in the scriptures themselves.
The written and spoken words were confirmed by divine power through miraculous works.
The church, apart from Christ and His apostles, DID NOT control the canon, but the canon controlled the church.
All of the 27 NT books in use today contain some claim to divine authority.
Combining the circumstantial evidence from 2 Peter 3, 1 Timothy 5 with what both Paul and Peter later say about scripture and with the promise of Jesus in John 14, 15 and 16, the evidence becomes even more robust.
Collections of the writings were made at different times and places – their contents (subject, style, form) were not always the same – so the authority of some writings was questioned.
Other early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus and Polycarp all clearly distinguished themselves from the apostles, and they named no other apostles than those within the circle of the Twelve.
The books and writings mentioned in catalogs had to exist for the author of the catalog to know about them.
The Christians would turn over writings to the authorities, which they did not believe to be of divine origin during times of persecution.
Two North African councils – at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 – officially acknowledged the canons of both Testaments, including the 27 books, and forbade any others to be read in the churches.
Some early Christians who lived during the lifetimes of the apostles claimed that they knew them.
Conclusion
Many today claim that the NT is either incomplete, edited or of human origin – that there may be Holy Scriptures which have yet to be discovered, attempting to transfer their lack of faith to others in order to create doubt about the inspiration of the Scriptures. Even a casual examination of other contemporary works of the first and second century should lead one to realize that these are truly pseudepigraphal or apocryphal in nature. We have what Jesus intended for us to have. (Jude 3; Galatians 1:6-9)

​

Appendix A – Quotations From Eusebius​

Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History​

book iii. chapter xxiv.​

The order of the Gospels.​

These extracts from Clement may here suffice, both for the sake of the history and the benefit of the readers. Let us now also show the undisputed writings of the same apostle [John]. And of these his gospel, so well known in the churches throughout the world, must first of all be acknowledged as genuine. That it is, however, with good reason, placed the fourth in order by the ancients, may be made evident in the following manner. Those inspired and truly pious men, the apostles of our Saviour, as they were most pure in their life, and adorned with every kind of virtue in their minds, but common in their language, relying upon the divine and wonderful energy granted them, they neither knew how, nor attempted to propound the doctrines of their master, with the art and refinement of composition. But employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, working with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, displayed through them, they proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the world. They bestowed but little care upon the study of style, and this they did, because they were aided by a co-operation greater than that of men. Paul, indeed, who was the most able of all in the preparations of style, and who was most powerful in sentiments, committed nothing more to writing than a few very short epistles. And this too, although he had innumerable mysterious matters that he might have communicated, as he had attained even to the view of the third heavens, had been taken up to the very paradise of God, and had been honoured to hear the unutterable words there. The other followers of our Lord were also not ignorant of such things, as the twelve apostles, and the seventy, together with many others; yet of all the disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity. Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them, by his writings. But after Mark and Luke had already published their gospels, they say that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three gos-
pels previously written, having been distributed among all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, among the first of his deeds, and at the commencement of the gospel. And this was the truth. For it is evident that the other three evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and intimated this in the very beginning of their history. For after the fasting of forty days, and the consequent temptation, Matthew indeed specifies the time of his history, in these words: "But hearing that John was delivered up, he returned from Judea into Galilee." Mark in like manner writes: "But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee?" And Luke, before he commenced the deeds of Jesus, in much the same way designates the time saying, "Herod thus added, yet this wickedness he had committed, and that he shut up John in prison." For these reasons the apostle John, it is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account of the time not recorded by the former evangelists, and the deeds done by our Saviour, which they have passed by, (for these were the events that occurred before the imprisonment of John,) and this very fact is intimated by him, when he says, "this beginning of miracles Jesus made;" and then proceeds to make mention of the Baptist, in the midst of our Lord’s deeds, as John was at that time "baptising at Aenon near Salim." He plainly also shows this in the words: "John was not yet cast into prison." The apostle, therefore, in his gospel, gives the deeds of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the circumstances after that event. One who attends to these circumstances, can no longer entertain the opinion, that the gospels are at variance with each other, as the gospel of John comprehends the first events of Christ, but the others, the history that took place at the latter part of the time. It is probable, therefore, that for these reasons John has passed by in silence the genealogy of our Lord, because it was written by Matthew and Luke, but that he commenced with the doctrine of the divinity, as a part reserved for him, by the divine Spirit, as if for a superior. Let this suffice to be said respecting the gospel of John. The causes that induced Mark to


write his, have already been stated. But Luke also in the commencement of his narrative, premises the cause which led him to write, showing that many others, having rashly undertaken to compose a narration of matters that he had already completely ascertained, in order to free us from the uncertain suppositions of others, in his own gospel, he delivered the certain account of those things, that he himself had fully received from his intimacy and stay with Paul, and also, his intercourse with the other apostles. But this may suffice respecting
these. At a more proper time we shall endeavour also to state, by a reference to some of the ancient writers, what others have said respecting the sacred books. But besides the gospel of John, his first epistle is acknowledged without dispute, both by those of the present day, and also by the ancients. The other two epistles, however, are disputed. The opinions respecting the revelation are still greatly divided. But we shall, in due time, give a judgment on this point, also from the testimony of the ancients.

book iii. chapter xxv.​

The sacred Scriptures acknowledged as genuine, and those that are not.​

This appears also to be the proper place, to give a summary statement of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. And here, among the first, must be placed the holy quaternion of the gospels; these are followed by "The book of the Acts of the Apostles;" after this must be mentioned the epistles of Paul, which are followed by the acknowledged first Epistle of John, as also the first of Peter, to be admitted in like manner. After these, are to be placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall offer the different opinions in due time. These, then, are acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although they are well known and approved by many, is reputed, that called the Epistle of James and Jude. Also the "Second Epistle of Peter," and those called "The Second and Third of John," whether they are of the evangelist or of some other of the same name. Among the spurious must be numbered, both the books called "The Acts of Paul," and that called "Pastor," and "The Revelation of Peter." Beside these, the books called "The Epistle of Barnabas," and what are the books called "The Institutions of the Apostles." Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, "The Revelation of John," which some, as before said, reject, but others rank among the genuine. But there are also some who number among
these, the gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly delighted. These may be said to be all concerning which there is any dispute. We have, however, necessarily subjoined here a catalogue of those also, in order to distinguish those that are true, genuine, and well authenticated writings, from those others which are not only not embodied in the canon, but likewise disputed, notwithstanding that they are recognized by most ecclesiastical writers. Thus we may have it in our power to know both these books, and those that are adduced by the heretics under the name of the apostles, such, viz., as compose the gospels of Peter, Thomas and Matthew, and others beside them, or such as contain the Acts of the Apostles, by Andrew, and John, and others, of which no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has condescended to make any mention in his works; and indeed, the character of the style itself is very different from that of the apostles, and the sentiments, and the purport of those things that are advanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound orthodoxy, evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical men; whence they are to be ranked not only among the spurious writings, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious. Let us now proceed to the continuation of our history.

​

Appendix B – Catalogs​

 

[8ballwizard]

Why are there so many gospels (27 I think) that were left out of the Bible? I remember a while ago there was talk about the Gospel of Judas, but that died out quickly it seems. How were the 4 current gospels chosen to be placed in the Bible and what makes the other's unworthy? To me this seems like in the early church there was some picking and choosing to make sure the Bible didn't contradict itself (though it still does quite a bit) and that this elimination of books would be reason against believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I'm not completly sure on the origin of the Bible though, so my thoughts might be off. I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

Hi, well, it is a complex answer to your questions. I know that guy made a giant copy and paste. Prior to St. Irenaeus, there were no people who used the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" for the 4 gospels in the bible we have. Irenaeus named them, after he chose them as the 4 gospels for christians to read. The reason he chose 4 was because he thought there were 4 winds in the earth and it should be uniform to it. Also, because they were so similar, that helped his choice. The problem is that Mark is so much shorter in words than Matthew, Luke and John. There was also a document named "Q" which was where the 4 gospels got their sources for the teachings Jesus had.

Given the specific mention of Jerusalem's destruction in Mark 13, which occurred in 70 AD, then it makes sense to suggest that Mark's gospel was written at some time after 70 AD. This means that Matthew, Luke and John must have come after 70 AD as well, since they borrow from Mark. The thing is that christians have admitted that Mark was a 3rd generation author (meaning after 3 generations of christians, the author wrote the story). This means it is not an eyewitness account. Therefore, we have to conclude that neither are any of the other 3 gospels.

As far as why they kept the 4 gospels but didn't include others is political. The "canon" ultimately was decided by Constantine. Although there are a variety of Christians in history who have decided that some books were "inspired" and others were not. Martin Luther hated the book of James and changed what he didn't like in Romans (by adding "alone" to faith). The coptic christians had a letter called 3rd Corinthians. The catholics used the Gospel of James as their source for the Immaculate conception (the life of Mary before Jesus). The reason catholics didn't include the gospel of James was because if they put it before the other gospels, it would give Mary pre-eminence over Jesus, which they didn't want to do. So, they were stuck with leaving it out, but using its concepts.

Also, there are apocryphal books which Christians have divided over.

Ultimately, this leads to the question....why would an all powerful and all knowing god use the DUMBEST method of conveying a message? Don't forget, the church fathers admitted to changing what they wanted. If they were so willing to forge the writings of Josephus when referring to Jesus, how much more would they do it with scripture? The best we have are copies of copies of copies, which have interpolations, false prophecies, pseudo-authorship, and then they are poorly translated on top of it.

There are some translations which are better than others of course.

The entire process of writing scripture was to notate oral tradition and stories onto a more permanent format. However, because the "paper" they wrote on didn't last very long as far as quality goes, they had to make exact copies of it to keep it going. That is what scribes did. The one thing you don't want to do however is assume that the christian tradition and orthodoxy is automatically correct. An example of christian tradition is the idea that Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him. Yet, only 8 of the 13 letters can be verified to being the same author. In other words, if Paul did write more than 1 letter, there are only 8 that can be verified. That means 5 of them are pseudo-graphs (false authorship). It was a habit of early religious leaders in christianity to use an apostle's pen name to make it seem authoritarian. Even the new testament warns about people pretending to be apostles who send letters. So, some of this truth is found directly in the bible.

So, I hope that helps and my advice is to take a college course on religion, where you can learn the process of canonization of the bible. Make sure it is a non-religious school, so there is a neutral bias and only the facts are presented.

Have a good day.

 

[Merlin]

Many books have been written over the years and signed (falsely) as being written by apostles.
If I write and sign my writing 'James', the writing is not automatically a gospel because of how I sign my book.

 

[heron]

my advice is to take a college course on religion, where you can learn the process of canonization of the bible. Make sure it is a non-religious school, so there is a neutral bias and only the facts are presented.

Off track, there is a standardization process that prevents regionally-accredited Christian schools from getting too dogmatic. If you find a course in a school that is regionally accredited (Middle States, New England, North Central, Northwest, Southern, and Western), then you are more likely to get a balanced viewpoint.

Many Bible colleges and private non-accredited institutions choose not to come under accreditation standards, because they would like the freedom to teach according to their beliefs. Topics like healing and deliverance are not allowed as part of a regionally accredited program, unless the focus is about an historical event or the psychology behind it.

A course on canonization in an accredited Christian school, unless the professor is ignoring the rules, would be quite open to the complete truth, even if it incriminated Christianity or weakened beliefs.

I understand what you mean, though. Opinions slip out no matter who teaches. The book list can impose as much bias as a lecture.

Ultimately, this leads to the question....why would an all powerful and all knowing god use the DUMBEST method of conveying a message?

And yes, isn't that the beauty of being adopted into His family, and given authority in His kingdom? He chooses to use weak vessels to convey His most powerful points.
It's not very practical, but it certainly is loving.

 

[ebia]

Hi, well, it is a complex answer to your questions. I know that guy made a giant copy and paste. Prior to St. Irenaeus, there were no people who used the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" for the 4 gospels in the bible we have. Irenaeus named them, after he chose them as the 4 gospels for christians to read. The reason he chose 4 was because he thought there were 4 winds in the earth and it should be uniform to it. Also, because they were so similar, that helped his choice. The problem is that Mark is so much shorter in words than Matthew, Luke and John.

This is somewhat misleading. Irenaeus didn't sit down and make a choice from along list. He was one person (albeit the most significant single individual) in a collective process.

There was also a document named "Q" which was where the 4 gospels got their sources for the teachings Jesus had.

1. Q is a hypothetical document. Using it as evidence for much is to stand on shaky ground.
2. Q is a hypothetical source for Matthew & Luke, to explain what isn't in Mark. It isn't a source for Mark or John.

Given the specific mention of Jerusalem's destruction in Mark 13, which occurred in 70 AD, then it makes sense to suggest that Mark's gospel was written at some time after 70 AD.

That presupposes that Mark 13 isn't a genuine prediction.

This means that Matthew, Luke and John must have come after 70 AD as well, since they borrow from Mark.

Yet more presuppositions. It's plausible that Matthew & Luke borrow from Mark, but not certain. John doesn't appear to borrow from any of the synoptics.

The thing is that christians have admitted that Mark was a 3rd generation author (meaning after 3 generations of christians, the author wrote the story).
This means it is not an eyewitness account.

Which Christians. Traditionally Mark's account is the one told to him (and his community) by Peter, written down shortly after Peter's death. In any event, oral cultures are very good at preserving narratives.

Therefore, we have to conclude that neither are any of the other 3 gospels.

The only gospel likely to have been written (individually or collaboratively) by an eye witness is John - which incidently Irenaeus gives credance to - a gospel which shows no evidence of borrowing from Mark.
Luke doesn't claim to be written by an eye-witness. Matthew we know next to nothing about in authorship terms.

As far as why they kept the 4 gospels but didn't include others is political. The "canon" ultimately was decided by Constantine.

No it wasn't. The selection of Gospels had been determined by use long before Constantine, as had the vast majority of the rest of the canon.

Although there are a variety of Christians in history who have decided that some books were "inspired" and others were not. Martin Luther hated the book of James and changed what he didn't like in Romans (by adding "alone" to faith). The coptic christians had a letter called 3rd Corinthians. The catholics used the Gospel of James as their source for the Immaculate conception (the life of Mary before Jesus). The reason catholics didn't include the gospel of James was because if they put it before the other gospels, it would give Mary pre-eminence over Jesus, which they didn't want to do. So, they were stuck with leaving it out, but using its concepts.

Again, a lot of misleading spin is put on the use of, for instance, the proto-evangelion of James.

Also, there are apocryphal books which Christians have divided over.

Ultimately, this leads to the question....why would an all powerful and all knowing god use the DUMBEST method of conveying a message?

Because any method that involves working through a fallen people to redeem said people has difficulties. Redeeming a messy world invovles messy processes.

Don't forget, the church fathers admitted to changing what they wanted. If they were so willing to forge the writings of Josephus when referring to Jesus, how much more would they do it with scripture?

(Assuming for a moment that the passages of Josephus you refer to were forged) the issue is very different. Forging anything in the gospels would require the cooperation of a large, dispersed, community committed to the truth that those gospels are supposed to convey. They also don't look like they were forged by what had rapidly become a largely gentile church - they are too heavily founded in 2nd temple Jewish thought.

The best we have are copies of copies of copies, which have interpolations, false prophecies, pseudo-authorship, and then they are poorly translated on top of it.

There are some translations which are better than others of course.

The entire process of writing scripture was to notate oral tradition and stories onto a more permanent format. However, because the "paper" they wrote on didn't last very long as far as quality goes, they had to make exact copies of it to keep it going. That is what scribes did.

This is true to a point, but the large number of copies in circulation, and the oral tradition, is sufficient to ensure that (while the odd change is bound to creep in) the stories stay largely uncorrupted.

The one thing you don't want to do however is assume that the christian tradition and orthodoxy is automatically correct.

No assume that the objections are necessarly correct.

An example of christian tradition is the idea that Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him. Yet, only 8 of the 13 letters can be verified to being the same author. In other words, if Paul did write more than 1 letter, there are only 8 that can be verified. That means 5 of them are pseudo-graphs (false authorship).

5 of them might be pseudo-graphs. Not that it matters if they are, and there are a good number of serious scholars who are not convinced that they are.

It was a habit of early religious leaders in christianity to use an apostle's pen name to make it seem authoritarian. Even the new testament warns about people pretending to be apostles who send letters. So, some of this truth is found directly in the bible.

So, I hope that helps and my advice is to take a college course on religion, where you can learn the process of canonization of the bible. Make sure it is a non-religious school, so there is a neutral bias and only the facts are presented.

Have a good day.

A good number of the 'facts' given above represent a decidely biased view. Unfortunately the pendulum has swung from treating the orthdox view as unquestionable, to treating the sceptical view as unquestionable (eg treating Q as though it were a real manuscript of which we had a copy). A real unbiased look lies between the two.