As Easter season approaches, television networks seem sure to roll out their annual programs that revisit the question: What really happened to Jesus? The question rests on the sneaky assumption that the bodily resurrection of a historical figure is too unlikely — even implausible — so there must be another explanation. Finding that other explanation, though, requires other evidence, and that’s where the supposed “lost” gospels come into play, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter.
The alternate theory suggests that, immediately following the death of Jesus, various ideas about His identity and mission emerged. Some believed Him to be nothing more than a profound teacher. Others thought He was a social revolutionary. Still others claimed He was divine and actually rose from the dead. Each perspective produced its own set of documents to support its view. Eventually, those who believed Jesus was divine gained enough support to certify their version of Jesus (recorded in the four biblical Gospels), suppress the other versions (like the “lost” Gospels of Thomas and Peter), and so consolidate the church’s power. Therefore, the four accounts in the Bible represent only one perspective and can’t be taken as historical truth. This theory takes different forms but was popularized through the liberal scholarship of The Jesus Seminar and, more notably, Dan Brown’s best-selling novel, “The Da Vinci Code.”
The scenario crumbles beneath the weight of history. For example, the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Egypt among a collection of writings in 1945, and was likely written sometime near the end of the 100s A.D., and forged under an apostle’s name. The same can be said for the Gospel of Peter. Its text was discovered in 1886 inside a tomb, but it also seems to have been written in the second century, and was soundly rejected by the early church as a fake. These writings, and others like them, were produced by a cult movement known as Gnosticism — a belief that the physical world is purely evil, only the spiritual world is purely good, and secret knowledge of the spiritual is required to liberate the soul from its physical existence. It appears, then, that the Gnostic writings represent an attempt to borrow material from the Jesus tradition to support an errant point of view — one that the apostles and early church condemned explicitly.
By comparison, the four biblical Gospels were recognized as accurate, historical accounts as soon as they were received. In fact, early church father Irenaeus said in 160 A.D. (before the Gnostic gospels were circulated) that Christians recognized only four Gospels — the same ones in your Bible today. The manuscript tradition behind the New Testament accounts has been called “an embarrassment of riches” (Daniel B. Wallace in “The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts”) compared to other ancient writings, providing extraordinary evidence that the Gospels we read today are the same as they were when first written. For example, the Gospel of Matthew was written, copied and circulated in the late 50s or early 60s A.D., when many eyewitnesses were still living who could confirm or deny its accuracy, and its accuracy was never denied. Our earliest manuscripts of Matthew date to the 100s A.D., when some of the original copies were likely still around, providing protection against creative editing. To the reader, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John appear as historical narratives, including names of eyewitnesses and places where events occurred. They simply do not read as myths, legends or political propaganda.
By contrast, the Gnostic gospels have very little narrative quality and almost no historical support. They mostly contain loosely organized collections of Jesus’ sayings, often twisted and reinterpreted according to Gnostic beliefs. With neither verifying voices from history nor a strong manuscript tradition, it is no surprise that these documents were never accepted by the church. Indeed, these “lost” gospels were not lost at all. They were cast aside in view of the facts.
On balance, the notion that the Gnostic gospels contribute anything to our knowledge of Jesus is, in the words of one scholar, “largely fantasy” (John P. Meier, “A Marginal Jew,” volume 2 of “Mentor, Message, and Miracles”). Adam Gopnik illustrates by saying that the Gnostic gospels “no more challenge the basis of the Church’s faith than the discovery of a document from the 19th century written in Ohio and defending King George would be a challenge to the basis of American democracy” (“Jesus Laughed,” The New Yorker). William Lane Craig summarizes bluntly, “There is no source outside the Bible which calls into question the portrait of Jesus painted in the Gospels.” So, for the early church, choosing the four biblical Gospels and rejecting the so-called “lost” gospels was like playing the children’s game, “Which One of These Things is Not Like the Others.” It’s too bad that some have forgotten the rules.
For further reading, see Timothy Keller’s book, “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism” (New York: Dutton, 2008).
— Chuck Fuller is assistant professor of Christian studies at Anderson University.