What about all those other secret or lost gospels?
The Bible has four Gospels included as part of the Canon or official collection of Scripture. They are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These four canonical accounts record the good news—that’s what “gospel” means—about Jesus from eyewitness testimonies. Their aim is clear: they’re written so we can hear about Jesus, trust in him, and continue to do so (John 20:31).
I recently read Bart D. Ehrman’s collection of over a dozen of the earliest non-canonical gospels, including several from the Nag Hammadi discovery in Egypt. Overall, they are a mixed bag in terms of:
· Who wrote them. From Jewish Christians to Gentile Christians, Gnostics to anti-Gnostics, and more
· What we have available. Several of them are only fragments, which we only know of because they are quoted by other writers. Others are long; around nine pages was the longest in Ehrman’s book. But even those don’t come near the length of Mark, which is the shortest of the canonical Gospels.
· Content, which varies wildly. Some read slightly like reprints of sections of the Canonical Gospels, with a mix of orthodoxy and spin, perhaps like with the recently discovered P.Oxy. 5575. Others, to be blunt, read as philosophical mumble jumble. And then still others read like fan-fiction, going outside the boundaries of what the real Gospels give us with legendary backstories.
What Should We Make of These So-called Secret and Lost Gospels?
Sometimes this question is asked genuinely. Because the phrase and sentiment (‘secret or lost gospels’) has become common enough to make people wonder. They want to know about these other accounts; how they relate to what’s in the Bible. That’s the first group who ask this question.
However, there is a second group. Mostly when I’ve heard the question in person, it’s linked to conspiracy theories questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible. Often, at least this is my impression, so that people can dismiss the claims of Jesus and keep doing life their way.
We’ll come back to the former group at the end of this article. But it’s the latter group—those with an axe to grind—that I want to address first. As they ask their question, here are two simple questions in return.
Two Questions in Return for the Sceptic
1. Have You Read Any of the Four Gospels?
Now, by read I don’t mean you once read a verse that you think is from the Gospels, but then later you wondered if maybe it was a line from your favourite song. No, by read I mean sitting down, mind engaged to read one of the Gospels from beginning to end. The shortest one, Mark, is just 16 chapters.
Then there is a second question.
2. Have You Read Any of These Other So-called Gospels?
Again, my experience, limited though it is, finds that those who come in heavy with this question have usually not read the canonical Gospels or the lost gospels. It’s like source dropping in a conversation—” oh yes, as Fanon says”—and I find myself asking: have you even read him? Do you actually know what he says?
Back to Answering the Question About These Lost Gospels
If people have read the canonical Gospels or non-canonical gospels, and are willing to engage in some broader research and thinking, they would find at least two main points in response to the question at hand.
1. The Date of These Other Gospels Is Generally Later Than the Canonical Gospels
The canonical Gospels were written before all the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection had passed away. Arthur G. Patzia, in The Making of the New Testament, perhaps conservatively, says that “New Testament scholars are fairly unanimous in dating Mark at around A.D. 65-70, Matthew and Luke around A.D. 85, and John around A.D. 95” (p. 53-54).
But even Ehrman’s list gathering some of the earliest non-canonical gospels can only go as early as possibly the start of the 2nd century. Then, with the larger list of secret or lost gospels, the date goes all the way up to the 16th century (for example, The Gospel of Barnabas). In other words, even if we went with Patzia’s later dates, these additional gospels could be anything from around 50 to 1500 years after Mark’s Gospel.
What this means is that, even for those accounts that contain orthodox elements, they’re mostly outside of the timeframe of them being eyewitness accounts. They’re simply written later than the canonical Gospels. That’s not to say that these other accounts don’t have some value; or didn’t for those who read them back in their original context, especially when they carry biblical truth and various other nuggets of gold. It’s just that they were not, and have not, been recognised in the same way as the four Gospel accounts we have.
2. The Content of These Other Gospels Is Quite Different to the Canonical Gospels
Consider the Coptic Gospel of Thomas:
It’s not a biographical account of Jesus – and the same with many of the other accounts – but a collection of 114 fairly random “secret teachings”. Less than half of which might have come from the 4 Gospels; the rest, we have no idea.
There’s no mention of Jesus’ death, resurrection, or return, or even that Jesus is the Messiah—pretty central gospel facts! And the same is true for many of the other accounts—either in what they omit and more commonly in what orthodox teaching they go against.
It just has really weird stuff in it. For instance, saying 114 reads: “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.’”
Other accounts refer to Mary receiving a postpartum virginity test (Proto-Gospel of Thomas); another describes Jesus’ childhood in ways that resemble both fan-fiction and horror, as he appears more like a possessed child – more like a freaky Chucky – with immense powers (Infancy Gospel of Thomas); The Gospel of the Ebionites identifies Jesus as a kind of archangel; still others make Mary (not his mother) out to be his lover or consort (The Gospel of Philip). That last account mentioned also suggests that the world came into being through an error.
To sum this point up: the content of these other, lost gospels is strikingly different to the four recognised Gospels. Anyone who’s studied both sets would be able to realise that.
There’s No Substitute for Reading the Real Gospels
For those asking the question about these other gospels from a place of hostility or scepticism, the two questions above, along with the points concerning dating and content might be useful places to engage. Those two points will also help those asking the question simply out of a desire to be informed.
However, for both groups, at the end of the day there is simply no substitute to sitting down and reading one of the biblical, canonical Gospels with a follower of Jesus. That is the easiest way to tell the difference between the real Gospels and these other so-called lost gospels. And they are the only accounts that can give or grow you in life as you, with the Spirit’s help, interact with the life-giving Jesus. Give it a go.
This article is from Ryan’s blog here, and a version also appeared on The Gospel Coalition Africa site here.