When Christians talk about the supposed reliability of the Bible why do they never mention pseudographica?

Question

There were hundreds of Gospels and Epistles floating around in the first and second centuries. Almost all of them have been termed pseudographica by the Church.

This means they are fakes, and specifically they are fakes which are falsely attributed to characters in the Gospels, i.e., The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Nicodemus.

Since the authorship of the four canonical Gospels is nothing more than a guess, is this why the Church never mentions the hundreds of supposed 'false' Gospels?

I would imagine that a few sermons from the pulpit about the number of pseudographic texts that have survived would raise some serious questions among the faithful.

But that will never happen.

The World We Know, as a former Christian who knows better, the authorship of the Gospels is unknown, has never been known and is generally attributed by tradition and nothing else. Even in the case of Luke, the authorship is likely nothing more than another case of pseudographica and the authorship of Acts is from the same unknown person.

that_guy_drew, I don't know who has been lying to you, but you fell for it. 390 AD as a date for the Gnostic Gospels? The Gnostics were wiped out before that. Did their spirits write them? Or are you just a moron?

Answer 1

Maybe the reason their not mentioned is to prevent confusion as God is not the author of confusion! Why teach people what "false" prophets say when your trying to teach them what the true prophets said. It wouldnt' serve any purpose and would only confuse people. The Bible speaks of false prophets and advises us to beware of false prophets. That's why we need to have the discernment of spirits working in our churches and lives so we can know the true from the false!

Answer 2

Good point. However, I've read several of the books that are known as the Apocrypha, and I completely understand why they were disregarded. Especially after I read the "gospel" of St Peter. That was the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my entire life!

The fact is, I would rather trust in the traditions of the earliest Christians, and what they believed to be the truth, than those that came later. If they believed that the books accepted in the New Testament were reliable, I'm more likely to trust in them. The earliest Christians were closer to the actual events, and spoke to eyewitnesses. Are eyewitnesses not reliable? If so, they shouldn't be included in the courtroom anymore!

In the same way, if all we had to go on was regular peoples' accounts of other historical events, I would rather consider the contemporary writings to be accurate, than those that came later.

That's just what makes more sense to me. It's true that the Gospels don't exactly come right out and say "I, Matthew, one of Jesus's apostles, am writing this so that people know what happened."

However, you make one assumption that is incorrect. My Sunday School teacher has spent a lot of time studying the history of Christianity, including the Apocrypha; he actually has done a few lessons based on the teachings of the Apocrypha, and opened up discussion so that we could ask questions. Every time he does that, Sunday School runs over the time we were allotted, lol. But it's good for us. Maybe I just attend a more intellectual church, full of people who have asked questions their whole life.

I hope this answers your questions, even though I didn't go into as much detail as I could.

Answer 3

I cannot comment on the "hundreds of Gospels and Epistles," because I haven't researched but a handful. The half a dozen or soI have researched, however (the more famous ones), have major issues, including authorship and dating. Also, they have MAJOR harmony issues with the true gospels and with the OT; the gospels are harmonious with one another and with the OT, something you would expect from the word of God.

Additionally, as a historian, I've researched into the authorship of the four gospels. We are not "guessing" who the authors of the gospels are. As a matter of fact, when it comes to authorship of the gospels (and epistles), they are more well documented than most any work of the ancient world.

Answer 4

and isn't it funny that all the 'fake' gospels take issue with organized religon and women's equality and any other issue that violated ancient rome's value system.

These gospels were given back to the world when they were needed the most. They will trigger a new step in the spiritual evolution of humanity. The old guard never goes out easily. Their little worlds have just been blasted into outerspace and they need time to adjust.

Good point, however

Answer 5

FAQ: What books are in the Word and what are apocrypha?


"The books of the Word are all those which have the internal sense; but those books which have not the internal sense, are not the Word. The books of the Word, in the Old Testament, are the five Books of Moses, the Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, the Psalms of David, the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: and in the New Testament, the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Apocalypse. The rest have not the internal sense" (Arcana Coelestia n. 10325 or Heavenly Doctrine n. 266).

Answer 6

No it will never happen. The leaders of the early church wanted to make sure Christianity was about control and fear with a little story of good included in Jesus.

I have read a lot of the Gnostic Gospels and it is very clear to me why Pope Gregory ordered them destroyed. I believe that the fact that we have them at all is the work of God.

Answer 7

Early church fathers confirmed many of the gospel authors. Bringing in "extra" books will go no good. There would then be so much confusion over contradiction, it would be useless.

Answer 8

I particularly enjoy the self serving answers from the zealot faction here. Excellent question.

Answer 9

*sigh*

the gnostic ''gospels'' you speak of were not even written until about 390 a.d.

the bible was completely finished by about 70 a.d. it was canonized (very very meticulously, i might add) in about 330 a.d.

the other books that were thrown out were thrown out because something contained in those books is contrary to the Word of God.

and please, please, remember that movies like ''the da vinci code'' were made for a profit.

Answer 10

A very diligent person seems to be sitting behind those witty words.