Myths about the Lost Books of the New Testament

There are a lot of myths about these supposed lost Gospels of the New Testament. Frequently people will read a book or they'll see something on TV that talks about a lost

Gospel that was discovered, such as the Gospel of Judas, or maybe the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, or the

Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Philip. And people will wonder, well, maybe there's hundreds and hundreds of lost

Gospels of the New Testament that belong in the New Testament, and somehow there was a conspiracy by the

Catholic Church or some church to only preserve a certain number of Gospels that fit their theological agenda.

So I want to respond to these general misunderstandings. So there are a number of popular myths about these supposed lost

Gospels that are not in the New Testament today. The following is a response to these general misunderstandings.

The first myth is that the lost Gospels actually should be in the New Testament.

Contrary to the claims of some, there were not actually hundreds of Gospels that were written about Jesus in the first century.

The early church only had access to four first century Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

This is why there are only four Gospels in the New Testament. The simple fact is that there were not any other first century

Gospels in existence at the time. In fact, even today, there's no compelling evidence that there are any more than four first century

New Testament Gospels. Furthermore, the criteria which the early church used to discover which books were from God include the following.

First, they had the criteria of whether a book was written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle.

That's known as apostolicity. Again, this is the first criteria. The church is not just willy -nilly picking books and putting it into a canon because it fits their agenda.

They did have some sort of criteria which they used in order to distinguish a true writing from a false writing.

This first criteria, apostolicity, was the first and main criteria for allowing a book to be in the canon of Scripture.

If a book was written by either an apostle or an associate of an apostle, for example, Mark was an associate of Peter and Luke was an associate of Paul, then the book could be in the canon of Scripture.

An apostle was someone who had seen the resurrected Jesus and who had close fellowship with Jesus. For example, 1

Corinthians 9 .1 talks about that. However, if the book was written over a hundred years after the time of Jesus, as is the case with many of the

Gnostic Gospels including the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and a number of other

Gospels, then such books were obviously not written by an apostle and should not be in the canon of Scripture.

The last apostle who lived was the Apostle John who died around 100

AD. Therefore, any epistle written after that time was definitely not apostolic.

A second criteria used by the early church was the criteria of consistency. This criteria asked the following question.

Did the book or a book that we're going to include in the canon, does this book agree with an epistle or gospel that we know is definitely authentic?

For example, there was question over the book of James whether it agreed with Paul's writings such as Romans or Galatians where Paul talks about justification by faith.

The early church concluded that there was no contradiction but they had to carefully analyze James in light of other books or other ones that were definitely authentic.

No one seriously questions even today whether Paul actually wrote a core number of his epistles such as Romans, 1st and 2nd

Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 1st Thessalonians. So, Paul definitely was an apostle.

He had seen the resurrection of Jesus. In 1st Corinthians 9 .1 he talks about that and 1st

Corinthians 15 .8. So, Paul definitely has authority to have books in the

New Testament. In fact, he even talks with the associates of Jesus in Galatians 1 and 2. So, back to our message here.

Interestingly, even if we did not have the rest of the New Testament books, like say we lost a lot of the New Testament books, we probably could build most of our central

Christian doctrine just from the epistle of Romans alone. Another criteria used by the early church was the criteria of catholicity or universality.

Basically, this criteria sought to answer the question of where did a book originate?

Who read the book? How many churches were using the book? This would help the early church to know if the book or epistle could be traced back to an apostle or some person who was known to have connections to the historical

Jesus. So, again, we have three criteria that talk about and deal with the issue of canonicity.

Now, when you put all the books in the New Testament through this filter, you come out with the 27 books we have in the

New Testament today. So, the first myth we dealt with was the myth that the lost gospels actually should be in the

New Testament. The simple fact is these lost gospels were not written by apostles because they were written so late.

Therefore, they should not be in the New Testament. Secondly, the second myth we want to deal with is the myth that the lost gospels taught that Jesus was only a man.

So, a lot of the claims today are that basically the idea of Jesus being God was invented at the council of Nicaea or something like that and that these lost gospels present this merely human

Jesus who is not divine or is not supernatural. Actually, surprising to some, most of these lost gospels or even

Gnostic gospels taught that Jesus was God but not man. This is a heresy known as docetism which was prevalent in the second and possibly even early first centuries or like late first centuries.

In fact, the popular gospel of Thomas likely teaches that Jesus is a divine teacher but it is quite doubtful whether he is even human.

Many of the infancy gospels such as the infancy gospel of Thomas or others were written to explain how

Jesus was basically non -human by having the child Jesus perform amazing miracles.

For example, I think in the infancy gospel of Thomas, Jesus makes these clay pigeons, they fly away, he strikes some child dead, he does these amazing feats even as a little child.

That's the second myth. Now, the third myth is the following. This myth is the idea that the lost gospels are earlier than the

New Testament gospels and or epistles. The vast majority of critical scholars today actually argue that the

New Testament gospels are earlier than all the other lost gospels in their present form. Some scholars argue that there may be a saying or two in the gospel of Thomas or the gospel of truth or maybe even a saying or two in the gospel of Peter which may date back to the first century and possibly even go back to Jesus.

However, most of these scholars view these gospels as late embellishments of stories in the gospels.

For example, you can look at how the infancy gospels embellish the stories of Jesus' early childhood and how the gospel of Peter embellishes the story of Jesus' resurrection.

So the only possible lost gospel that could be dated even in the late first century would perhaps be the gospel of Thomas.

But many scholars even date that to the second century. Myth number four. This myth is the idea that the early church only picked those gospels which were in accordance with their own theological beliefs.

It is certainly true that the early church allowed certain books into the canon which accorded with their beliefs.

However, their beliefs were based on a core list of undisputed books of the

New Testament such as the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the main letters of Paul, Romans, 1st and 2nd

Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 1st Thessalonians. The early church was not arbitrary in their decision making, but generally took into consideration the three criteria listed above, apostolicity, consistency, and catholicity.

Myth number five. This myth is the idea that the council of Nicaea in 325 AD determined which books should be in the

New Testament. Or some even take this argument even stronger and they say, well the gospels, the books in the

New Testament, were basically written at Nicaea. However, there's a number of problems with this claim.

First, the council of Nicaea did not deal with canonical questions or questions regarding which books should be in the

New Testament. Instead, the council of Nicaea dealt with the heresy known as Arianism.

It was the idea that Jesus was man but not God. That idea is held by modern day Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians.

The final list of the 27 books which are in the New Testament today actually came from Bishop Athanasius in 367

AD. However, most of the books in the New Testament were already accepted and used by various churches well before then.

In fact, the Bishop Irenaeus wrote around 100 AD about the four gospels being compared to the four directions of the winds of heaven.

Various other 2nd century writers, even early 2nd century writers, also were extensively using the

New Testament, including Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias, and Athenagoras, just to name a few.

So, again, the gospels were written by the end of the 1st century. That's pretty much agreed by all New Testament scholars today.

And the other books in the New Testament were most likely written by the end of the 1st century also. So, in conclusion, the reason we do not have these lost gospels in the

New Testament today is the fact that, one, they were written very late. In the 2nd century, in most cases, or even later, sometimes even in the 3rd or maybe even the 4th centuries.

So, these gospels are not in the New Testament also because they were not written by an apostle.

Apostles died by the end of the 1st century. Therefore, we only have four gospels that should be in the

New Testament today. And the reason we have the current list in the New Testament today was the result of careful study and critical evaluation, not naive, superstitious acceptance of any book that would accord with preconceived theological agendas.