Are the "Gnostic Gospels" More Reliable?

Introduction

If you've seen the movie "Stigmata", you may recall that at the end of the movie a claim was made that most scholars believe that the "Gospel of Thomas" contains the most authentic sayings of Jesus - making it more historically reliable than the canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Is the claim legit? What about the other non-canonical gospels? Let's have a look at the data.

Gnosticism: Origins and Teachings

Gnosticism encompassed a number of religious movements which stressed gnosis, or knowledge, especially of one's origins. No one is certain where gnosticism originated, and opinions among scholars vary from suggestions that it came from a heretical group within ancient Judaism, or from Christianity (early gnosticism may have infiltrated the Church at Colosse), or that it may have have totally pagan origins.

Gnosticism lacked a common authority, therefore a variety of specific beliefs were encompassed. below is a list of doctrines that were common to many Gnostics (From the "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", by Norman Geisler, 1999, p. 274):

1. Cosmic dualism between spirit and material, good and evil
2. A distinction between the finite Old Testament God, Yahweh, and the transcendent God of the New Testament
3. View of creation as resulting from the fall of Sophia (Wisdom)
4. Identification of matter as evil
5. Belief that most people are ignorant of their condition and origin
6. Identification of sparks of divinity that are encapsulated within certain spiritual individuals
7. Faith in a redeemer who was not truly human and did not die on the cross. This redeemer brought salvation in the form of secret gnosis or knowledge that was communicated by Christ after His resurrection.
8. A goal of escaping the prison of the body, crossing the planetary spheres of hostile demons, and being reunited with God.
9. Salvation not based on faith or on good works, but on special knowledge of one own true condition.
10. A mixed view of morality. Some Gnostics taught deliberate promiscuity, while others took a strongly ascetic view of sexual intercourse. Procreation, many believed, only added to the number of people in bondage to the evil material world. Salvation of women, it was believed, depended upon their one day becoming men, and returning to the condition of Eden before she was created!
11. Interpretation of baptism and the Lord supper as as spiritual symbols of the gnosis
12. A view of Christ's resurrection as spiritual, not physical

The Best They've Got: The Gospel of Thomas

Many involved in the Jesus Seminar have expressed the opinion that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is the closest thing we have to what Jesus actually said. Since this is supposedly the best they've got, demonstrating its unreliability when compared to the New Testament Gospels, ought to cause the rejection of the rest of the non-canonical gospels as well.

The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, near Cairo, and the 114 "secret sayings of Jesus" which the document contained was translated into English in 1977. The most reliable dates for this document range from 140 - 170 AD (Geisler, p. 297).

Compared to the New Testament…

Since The Jesus Seminar has made a definite value judgment concerning the Gospel of Thomas, expressing the belief in the superiority of it to those contained in the New Testament, an evaluation of the canonical Gospels' reliability is a logical place to start.

1. The New Testament Manuscript Evidence Supports the Claim that it is a First Century Work.

a. P52 - Papyrus 52, a portion of John's Gospel was discovered in Egypt, and dated to 117-138 AD. This is almost universally accepted as the last of the canonical Gospels to be written, and yet it clearly predates the composition of the "Gospel of Thomas".

b. The Magdalen Papyrus - these portions of Matthew's Gospel were assigned a date of earlier that 70 AD by papyrologist Carston Peter Thiede (see "Eyewitness to Jesus", Doubleday, 1996).

c. 7Q5 - This controversial manuscript fragment taken from among the dead Sea Scrolls (cave 7) may be a portion of Mark's Gospel (6:52) and can be dated at no later that AD 68.

d. Note that to date, there exists more than 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts which conform to one another with remarkable accuracy. This meticulous care for accuracy on the part of those whose transcribed New Testament is a strong argument for the trustworthiness of the canonical Gospels.

2. Internal Evidence for a First Century Date of the New Testament

a. Eyewitness details - In numerous places, the New Testament contains claims that it was written either by eyewitnesses themselves or by those who interviewed them (John 1:14, 1 John, Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, Galatians 2, 1 Corinthians 15). The testimonies of these men find corroboration in the New Testament Gospel narratives.

b. Variations in details - The New Testament Gospels describe many of the same events of Christ's sojourn here, yet contain enough variation in their details to confirm that they are indeed independent accounts. In a court of law, the number and consistency of the witnesses' testimonies plays a vital role in determining truthfulness. More than one legal expert has examined the New Testament documents as one would the testimonies of witnesses in a court of law, and have concluded that the New Testament Gospels ought to be regarded as accurate history.

c. Unlikely Inventions - With the exception of John, the other New Testament Gospels have been assigned, from the earliest dates and with almost total uniformity, the familiar names Matthew, Mark and Luke. If one was going to pass off a phony gospel, it would make more sense to assign to it the name of some prominent disciple of Jesus, like Peter, or James, or Thomas. Matthew, remember was a tax collector, an office despised by the Jews of Jesus' day. Also Matthew was not one of the "inner group" of disciples (Peter, James and John). It makes even less sense that someone would have used the pseudonym Luke or Mark, since neither was an apostle, nor even an eyewitness to Jesus, as far as we know (though Luke does claim to have interviewed eyewitnesses, Luke 1:1-3).

d. The Book of Acts - This remarkable book claims to be a first century work, and much of it is written in the first person. From the earliest times its author was believed, almost universally, to be Luke, traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. The claim that Acts is a second century forgery, still advanced by many today, is absolutely foundationless. This important book is replete with specific details, many of which may be checked through archaeology, and many of which are peculiar to the first century. The societal milieus, the titles of officials, the legal system depicted, the nautical knowledge and the geopolitical division described in Acts are remarkably accurate to what we now know about the first century (see article by Professor Craig Hawkins from the Apologetic Information Ministry at www.apologeticsinfo.org). If the book of Acts is a fraud, it is one of the best contrived in all of literary history. The obvious conclusion we should draw from an examination of Acts' historical credentials is that it contains reliable history.

Remember, though, that Acts clearly states that it is part two of a two-part work, the Gospel of Luke being part one. Many, including Roman historian C.J. Hemer have assigned a date of pre-62 AD for the book of Acts (Geisler, pp.5-6). If this is the case, then we must push the composition of Luke to well within the eyewitness period of Jesus. Most scholars, even the most liberal, believe that Luke was the last of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be written, which means that the composition of Matthew and Mark must also be pushed to well within the eyewitness period.

e. In all likelihood, the Apostle Paul was martyred in Rome in the early 60's of the first century (AD 62 is the traditional date). Note that Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke in his first letter to Timothy (5:18) and refers to it as "Scripture". Again, this implies that the Synoptics were completed well within the eyewitness period. Remember also that based on the manuscript evidence, there is no reason whatever to suspect that the New Testament Gospels have undergone substantial revision.

f. Joseph of Arimathea - This character, a prominent Jewish council member portrayed in a very favorable light in the Gospels, is a most unlikely invention. If the Gospels were written long after the eyewitness period, then it makes no sense why, when mutual hostility between Jew and Christian was already firmly established, that a Christian writer would create a character like Joseph. If the Gospels were written before the end of the first century, then the church's critics would certainly have contested the historical accuracy of the narrative had Joseph been merely and invention. The mention of Joseph argues for a first century date for the composition of the New Testament Gospels.

The Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, can only be reliably dated to the mid second century - or about 100 years after the New Testament Gospels were composed and propagated. Surely, the length of time between the event and the recording of that event must factor into our assessment of whether or not the document is historically reliable. Based on the apparent dates of composition between the New Testament Gospels and that of Thomas, we must suspect that, where conflicts exist, the New Testament should be favored.

3. External Evidences

a. Christian Character - in around AD 112, Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bythnia in Asia Minor wrote to the Emperor Trajan seeking instruction on the treatment of Christians. Pliny noted that the Christians of his day were known as people who abhorred falsehood (Letters 10.96). This report supports the idea that Christ's followers were diligent to make and preserve an accurate account of the Lord's teachings and activities. This comes about one half century before the composition of the Gospel of Thomas.

b. Clement of Rome (30-100 AD) - Clement was appointed Bishop of Rome by the original apostles and wrote his only uncontested surviving epistle in c AD 95. In this epistle, addressed to the church in Corinth, Clement makes plain allusions to, and citations from, the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke. Remember, this is at least 50 years before the apparent composition of the gospel of Thomas.

c. Ignatius of Antioch (70-110 AD) - Makes numerous references to the Gospels throughout his seven epistles, dated to no later than c110 AD.

d. Papias Bishop of Hierapolis (70-130 AD) - Wrote a five-volume work called "The Oracles of the Lord", in which he documented the process by which the New Testament Gospels were composed. These volumes must have been completed before Papias' death in c 130 AD.

e. Polycarp (70-156 AD) - Disciple of John the Apostle, quoted from the New Testament in his only surviving epistle (Epistle to the Philippians) which must predate his death in AD 156.

f. Irenaeus (130-202 AD) - Was a Bishop of Smyna and a hearer of Polycarp. Irenaeus wrote lengthy treatises on the Christian faith and doctrine, and made it perfectly clear that Christians of his day recognized only the four Gospels contained in the New Testament.

g. Justin Martyr (100-160) - Justin was another of the great apologists, and quoted from the canonical Gospels countless times throughout his writings. Justin, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, stood vehemently apposed to Gnostic view about Jesus, as their writings clearly demonstrate.

h. Hegesippus - In about 150 AD, this researcher/traveler embarked on a research project to determine whether or not all the churches throughout the Roman world which claimed to have been founded on the teachings of the original apostles were united in their doctrines (see F.F Bruce's comments concerning Hegesippus in "New Testament History", 1969, pp.405-406). According to Hegesippus, this was indeed the case. He writes (cited by Eusebius "Church History" 4.21-22:) "In each succession and in every city, preaching corresponds with the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord." The true Christian faith, it appears, was aligned against the Gnostic doctrines from the very beginning.

Why the Critics Embrace "Thomas"

Many liberal scholar's today speak of separating the "historic" Jesus from the "Jesus of faith." The assumption they make at the onset is that the two cannot possibly be one and the same. That is, the New Testament cannot possibly contain accurate history. Note however, that this assumption at the onset of their investigation cannot also be their conclusion. These scholars cannot claim that their investigations led them to the conclusion that the New Testament cannot be trusted, since that was there assumption before even considering the historic data!

These scholars also approach the data with the unprovable assumption that New Testament Gospels evolved from oral traditions about what Jesus taught. The first written gospels, it is assumed, consisted of only sayings attributed to Jesus, with the narratives, miracles and all, being added years later. Scholars holding to these assumptions necessarily embrace the Gospel of Thomas as most reliable since it is a "sayings" gospel with little mention of the miraculous. This view requires a willing ignorance of the many corroborative evidences for the reliability of the New Testament Gospels.

Conclusion:

The historic evidence for the New Testament is unmatched by the Gospel of Thomas or any other non-canonical gospel. Though some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in "Thomas" may be authentic, others, such as his supposed claim that "Every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven", are in conflict with the clear teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Since the New Testament can be dated to well within the first century, and is corroborated through many lines of evidence, it is only logical to suspect that "Thomas" is in error at points where conflicts between it and the New Testament record exist.