What About the Alternative “Gospels”?

What About the Alternative “Gospels”?

For most of church history, Christians have been aware of only four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But this was not always so. The Gospels, which were written by the apostles or their companions in the ministry, such as Luke and Mark, were written in the decades immediately following the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Though some modern Christians and scholars believe the early writers were rather ignorant and illiterate, that is not the case for several reasons. Those who wrote the first-century Gospels possessed confidence when it came to composing letters and treatises in the Greek language. For example, Luke was a companion of the apostle Paul, and as an educated physician, he was capable of producing a carefully written and researched portrait of Jesus known as the Gospel of Luke.

Matthew was a tax collector. This would have required him to be conversant in different languages, possess mathematical skills, and most likely be capable of communicating in written form.

The other apostles, even being “uneducated” (Acts 4:13), would have maintained acceptable reading and writing capabilities that would have enabled them to write letters to the Christian communities. Some have supposed that the statement in Acts 4:13 means they were unable to communicate in written form. However, the text speaks of no such incapacity, but more precisely of not having rabbinic training.[1]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were likely written somewhere from AD 40 to 70, and John was probably composed in the late 80s, or early 90s. The early Christians who heard or read the Gospels depended on writings that were based on eyewitness testimonies. Even though the four books did not identify the authors who wrote them, the recipients of these works were well aware from whom they came.

This stands in contrast to the so-called (noncanonical) gospels of the second century, which were often titled using the names of famous individuals from the first century. This was done in attempts to bolster the street credibility of these alternative works. But the early Christians would not likely have been fooled into receiving these works. The authentic canonical Gospels of the first century never had any difficulty with being received by the people of God because of their authenticity and their direct connection with the eyewitnesses. But this does not mean that the early Christians were not careful with regard to what they accepted as the Word of God. Some books, like 2 Peter and Revelation, were available for a number of years before they were widely accepted.

What Is the Origin of the Alternative Gospels?

Whereas Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written during the first century, the alternative gospels were not written until the first half of the second century. Though these works bore the names of well-known individuals from the first-century, they originated much too late to have been written by eyewitnesses of the life and resurrection of Jesus. Not only did they lack eyewitnesses, but the authors were not able to interview eyewitnesses, as Luke did for his Gospel.

We have no knowledge of who wrote these alternative gospels, but we do know that these works originated in communities in Egypt, where false doctrine and heresy were prevalent.

Though heretics in Egypt received the alternative gospels, they never gained traction in the rest of the Christian world. Strangely, modern scholars have given them far more credence than even those individuals who were influenced by the orthodox fathers of the Christian church.

The Theology of the Alternative Gospels

What is Gnosticism? To understand why the majority of the church rejected the alternative gospels, we first need to know the dominant theology of those who composed these writings. Because of the media publicity in recent years, many Christians who are not involved in biblical scholarship have become more familiar with the terms Gnostic and Gnosticism, but know little of the beliefs of this philosophy. Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means “knowledge.” Gnostics were those who sought hidden knowledge—they believed they were a select group of individuals who had achieved levels of special knowledge not yet attained by others who identified with Christ.

During the first half of the first century, in the city of Alexandria, Egypt, a neoclassical Renaissance had begun in Greek language, literature, and culture. Alexandria became the “new” hub of learning much like Athens had been previously. It was the place where important people would come to learn and do research in the vast Alexandrian library. Among them was a Jew by the name of Philo, a contemporary of the apostle Paul. Philo, who imbibed in Greek philosophy, began reinterpreting the Hebrew Scriptures for the Greek-speaking Jews (Hellenists), which filled the cultural demand for retelling the old stories in new and fanciful ways. In doing this, he sought to gain respectability for the Hebrew stories by allegorizing the various accounts recorded in the Greek Old Testament, such as the story of creation, or the exploits of Samson, or the laws given to the Israelites. After Philo, this style of reinterpreting the Hebrew stories as myths would eventually come to full bloom during the second century under Gnosticism.

The influence of Greek philosophy in the development of Gnosticism. Not only was Greek philosophy influential with regard to how some people interpreted Scripture, but also how they viewed the world and humanity. A significant part of Gnostic thought was to view God, the world, matter and spirit, in a much different way. Generally, Gnostics believed that the material world was impure, and by contrast, the spiritual and immaterial were pure. This perspective on the nature of physical and nonphysical reality led to a new view of creation and ethics.

Unlike the biblical model of creation, in which an immaterial deity identified as Yahweh created the physical universe out of nothing, Gnostics believed that the physical world was created by an evil god. While the creative act originated in the God who is pure spirit, the physical world was made through a cadre of increasingly less pure beings (including the one identified as an evil god). Thus Gnosticism held to a different view of creation and the nature of matter and spirit, as well as an ethical teaching that ran counter to Christianity. Because matter was said to be evil and spirit was said to be good, Gnostics had difficulty with the idea that Jesus was God in human flesh.

Attempts to influence orthodox Christianity. Most scholars believe Gnosticism began in earnest by the second century, most likely after the time of the final destruction of the Jewish people under Hadrian in AD 135.[2] Some have thought that Gnosticism originated during the time of the apostles and the writing of the New Testament, but this is very unlikely.[3]

However, there is no question that various strains of thought from the Greek and the Eastern worlds found their way into Gnosticism during the second century. Among these influences were Platonic (Plato’s) philosophy (which emerged in first-century Alexandria), the stories of the Jews and early Christians, and Zoroastrian dualism from Persia.

The Gnostics attempted to draw Christians away from sound doctrine and the church. One way they did this was through the writing of “gospels” about Jesus that were supposedly composed by first-century apostles such as Peter, James, and Thomas. These alternative gospels, however, were not written during the lifetimes of these individuals, but much later.

Furthermore, these alternative gospels did not speak about Jesus in a manner that reflected the Jewish community and the Hebrew faith depicted in the four authentic Gospels. Rather, they created a uniquely Gnostic Jesus, which was largely rejected by the church.

To some Gnostics, Jesus was seen as a spirit (since matter was impure) sent from the ultimate deity to save humanity by providing special knowledge about salvation. To accomplish this, it was necessary for Jesus

to appear to be human (known as docetism, from the Greek word dokein meaning “to seem” or “to appear”) and share this spiritual knowledge with His disciples, rather than have them express faith in Him. According to Gnostic thought, Jesus never became truly human. Some of these ideas were already developing by the end of the first century, but it wasn’t until later that they became a tenet of the Gnostic belief system.

Of course, one who has read the Gospel of John (John 1:1,14), as well as John’s epistles, would immediately recognize the human Jesus and reject these Gnostic heresies. In addition, John clearly condemned in the strongest

terms (e.g., “spirit of antichrist”) those who made the claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-4; 2 John 7). Paul’s teaching on faith also stood in contrast to the Gnostic view of salvation by special knowledge (Romans 10:9-10).

The Gnostic Gospels

Space limitations permit only a brief mention of the various Gnostic gospels, which were written from approximately AD 120–180. Though the Gnostic gospels have some similarities to the New Testament Gospels, none of the writers were companions (or eyewitnesses) of those who were the original recipients of the apostolic message. The general opinion of scholars who study these alternative gospels is that there are no copies that date into the second century, and the original compositions date from generally the middle of the second century onward.[4]

The Gospel According to Thomas. Possibly the most famous of the alternative gospels is the Gospel of Thomas, which was discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.[5] This work is composed of 114 short sayings attributed to Jesus, and probably dates from about AD 140[6] to 180.[7] There is debate among scholars whether this is truly a Gnostic work, or whether it merely shares aspects of mystical thinking that were present in the first century and were later absorbed into second-century Gnosticism. Even though Thomas contains heretical teaching, it also seems to borrow from the first century New Testament Gospels,[8] though presenting them through Gnostic filters. It also contains references to books that are known to have originated during the second century.[9]

Gospel According to Philip. This is not really a gospel, but a collection of short portions from other Gnostic writers. It summarizes the thinking of some of the disciples of the Gnostic named Valentinus, and was most likely written during the second half of the third century AD.[10] This work also contains a fragmented but seemingly significant statement on page 63 of codex 2, lines 32 through 36: “The companion of the […] Mary Magdalene […] her more than […] kiss her […] on her […].” The suggestion has been made that the restored text would read, “the companion of the [Savior is]

Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].”[11]

Craig Evans notes that some scholars believe the text indicates that He kissed Mary on her lips, but other words are also possible. Moreover, were these events to have occurred, they should be seen in light of Middle Eastern culture, in which a kiss would have been more a statement of respect and honor than an indication of a romantic relationship.[12]

Gospel According to Mary [Magdalene]. This work is one of the more familiar of the Nag Hammadi gospels because of its use by the novelist Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code. According to Brown’s novel, Mary was allegedly the wife of Jesus, and this gospel includes additional information.

The pertinent verse reads “Peter says to Mary, ‘Sister, we know that you are much loved by the Savior, as no other woman. Therefore tell us what words of the Savior you know, what we have not heard’” (6:1-2). In this text, as well as the remainder of the book, the focus is upon Mary being received by Jesus as a disciple, not a lover.[13]

Gospel of Truth. According to the majority of scholars, this text is a translation of a Greek original, and the Coptic copy was carelessly transmitted with many scribal errors. This includes individual letters written or erased over, omitted letters inserted above the line of the text or in the margins, and an omitted phrase that is found at the bottom of the page.[14]

There was no title to the book in the manuscript, but modern scholars have used the title Gospel of Truth,[15] although Jacqueline A. Williams suggests that it is reasonable to have been its actual title.[16]

This gospel may be the one spoken of by Irenaeus in his Adversus Haeresis (“Against Heresies”) when he said that the Valentinians used a “Gospel of Truth” that was different from the canonical Gospels.[17] The author of the Gospel of Truth developed a complex and often confusing discussion of the various levels of reality that began from the unbegotten Father through the Son from the Father, explaining how the Son represents the Father to bring persons to knowledge of the Father.[18] This is characteristic of much Gnostic thought, which understands salvation not as faith in Christ, but as gaining secret knowledge.

Additional Gospels. There are several more Gnostic gospels, including The Apocryphon of John, The Apocryphon of James, The Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Lost Gospel of Peter. Each gospel has unique features, but they share in common a late date, seeking to borrow in various ways from the first-century authentic Gospels. What all these works share in common is an attempt to promote another gospel.

Greater Appreciation for the True Gospels

There has been much attention given to these writings discovered in the sands of Egypt, but not because they help us to understand more about Jesus or the beginning of the Christian church. Rather, their intrigue comes from offering a different look at the person of Christ and a new perspective on salvation, the nature of the universe, and ethical teachings.

None of these books were authored by the person whose name appears on them, and they say little—in some cases, nothing at all—about the historical life of Christ. They only seek to provide additional or alternative sayings of Christ. The Christian who has not had exposure to these books has lost little, if anything.

On the positive side, these works give us a much greater appreciation for the authentic Scriptures of the New Testament, which were written with careful attention to historical detail and spiritual truth!

---

[1] Craig Evans examines the matter of the literacy of Jesus, but the same type of argument may apply to His disciples. His third consideration, that of the need to

know the law in Judaism, caused parents to take care to teach their children to read. Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 35-38. This is something that has been a consistent characteristic of the Jewish people to the present day.

[2] Smith argues that Egypt is the likely location of the birth of Gnosticism, and that disaffected Jews, upon their loss of identity after the time of Hadrian, and even some Jewish Christians, who could not embrace the entirety of the Christian message, were responsible for its birth and growth from the ideas of several sources. Carl B. Smith II, No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004).

[3] See Edwin M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003).

[4] See Evans, Fabricating Jesus, for further discussion.

[5] Helmut Koester, “Gospel of Thomas” in James M. Robinson, The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Leiden,

Netherlands: Brill, 2000), vol. 2, tractate 2, 38.

[6] Bertie Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas, trans. by Eric J. Sharpe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 271.

[7] Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 55.

[8] Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (New

York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 71; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 62-77.

[9] Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 70; see Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 20; also see Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 162-168.

[10] Wesley W. Isenberg, “Gospel According to Philip,” and James M. Robinson,

“Gospel of Thomas,” The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the

Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 2, tractate 3, p. 131.

[11] Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 211.

[12] Evans, Fabricating Jesus.

[13] Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 212.

[14] Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae, S.J., “The Gospel of Truth” in Ames M. Robinson, The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000), vol. 2, tractate 2, 63.

[15] Attridge and MacRae, “The Gospel of Truth,” 65-66.

[16] Jacqueline A. Williams, Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 3.

[17] W.W. Isenberg, “The Gospel of Truth” in Robert M. Grant, ed., Gnosticism: A

Source Book of Heretical Writings from the Early Christian Period (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1917), 146-161.

[18] Attridge and MacRae, “The Gospel of Truth,” 71-72.