Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are the Bible's familiar four Gospels, received as Holy Scripture by all major branches of Christianity. From ancient times to the present, these four books have been the gateway to Jesus and his teaching. Friends and foes alike have formed their ideas about Jesus mainly from these books. But why these? Weren't there once other Gospels which for some reason were excluded? How is it that just these four made it into the Bible, and who was it that chose them? If members of the general public have been paying attention, they may know the story by heart, for it has been told in recent best-selling books, novels, and in theaters. Recently, I heard it from a man on a plane and my son heard it in a university classroom. Here is the basic story line.
Gospels about Jesus once flourished. As one scholar has recently put it, they were "breeding like rabbits." Each of the varied Christian sects pushed its own version(s) and competition was lively. This "free market" for Jesus literature meant that, for many years and in many places, some now-forgotten Gospels were at least as popular as the ones that now headline the Christian New Testament. Gradually, however, one of the competing sects was able to gain the upper hand over its rivals. And when it finally declared victory in the fourth century, fully 300 years after Jesus walked the earth, it decreed that its four Gospels were, and had always been, the standard for the church Jesus founded. The "winners," supported by the powerful emperor Constantine the Great, then got to write the histories -- and make the Bibles.
As familiar as the narrative has become, however, it has serious flaws. I wrote Who Chose the Gospels? (Oxford, 2010) for any in the general public who might be interested in a readable account of the scholarship behind this popular story line and in a critique of that scholarship. If the story line has many of the qualities of a gripping conspiracy theory, it is because it basically is a conspiracy theory. And like most conspiracy theories, it tends to be long on drama and somewhat short on reality.
There once were, of course, other Gospels. The public got to see one up close in the spring of 2006 when the recently recovered gnostic Gospel of Judas was unveiled in front of rolling cameras. A cadre of scholars was on hand to deliver the now less-than-startling news that "Christianity was once diverse." For a good many years, some academics have been stumping for another text that somehow slipped through the church fathers' fingers: the Gospel of Thomas. Some would like to make it the long lost conversation partner of the author of the Gospel of John. Not to be forgotten is the venerable "Q" (short for the German Quelle, meaning "source"), the hypothetical inventory of Jesus' sayings which many believe was used by both Matthew and Luke when they wrote their Gospels. Standing up for certain new-old Gospels has taken on an ideological importance, much like the cause of civil rights. Why should fighting discrimination end with people and not with books?
Yet before there were the many Gospels, there were only the four. Not that the four were necessarily the very first writings about Jesus ever scribed, but they are the earliest which we now have. And they are the earliest whose existence we are actually sure of. Yes, the Gospel writers may have used sources, like Q. They may have written earlier editions ("Proto-Matthew," "Proto-Luke," and the like, as they are named). Possibly there were even other Gospels from the first century which we don't know about. But if such things ever existed, we have no good evidence that they ever circulated, or were intended to circulate, among groups of churches as authoritative accounts of the life of Jesus.
That scholars spend good portions of their careers writing about these alternative Gospels and reconstructing Gospel sources that no one has ever reported seeing, though, is a good thing. Such efforts help us imagine how the Gospels were composed, and they give us valuable insights into all early forms of Christianity, both "winners" and "losers".
There is something attractive about the idea of a primordial, Edenic age of natural diversity, from which the church fell into the original sin of greater ecclesiastical unity. But then why do the remains of history seem to indicate that, even amid considerable second-century diversity, there was a mainstream of Christian thought which held a stable, core set of theological beliefs (e.g., that God really did make the world and that Jesus really was both divine and human), as well as a core set of ethical norms? And why does it appear that this Christian mainstream had more in common with the apostle Paul (they preserved his letters) and with the original disciples of Jesus than these other sects did? Here is where the conspiracy theory comes in. This imbalance in the surviving data is explained by the winners' successful campaign to destroy as much of the counter evidence as they could. (Never mind that time and the elements would have destroyed most of them anyway, as they have destroyed most of what the winners tried to preserve.)
Here I will mention one claimed proof for this conspiracy theory, and one stubborn problem it faces.
Proof is said to reside in the ancient papyrus documents which archaeologists have dug from the sands of Egypt over the past century and a quarter. The Christian books yielded up by the unbiased, ancient trash heaps are, we are told, mostly books which were excluded from the New Testament. This would seem to show that the four Gospels were once minority reports and that some popular alternatives have been suppressed by the "winners." All I will say here is that the papyri have both less and more to tell us than this argument lets on.
The problem for the conspiracy theory is a man named Irenaeus. Irenaeus was crystal clear in his claim that the church, from the time of the apostles, had received just four authoritative Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- and that all the others were bogus. This is just what we would expect from a fourth-century re-writer of history. The problem is that Irenaeus wrote in the second century, long before the conspiratorial rewriting of history is supposed to have taken place.
Does, then, the conspiracy approach to early Christian history, in either its popular or its academic forms, have it right? Should it bother anyone that those who stress so loudly that the winners wrote the histories are the ones now writing the histories? Let the reader judge ... but also be aware of conspiracies.
The Hidden Gospels - Part 2: Gospel of Mary |:| rejesus.co.uk
Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him
Why the 'Lost Gospels' Lost Out | Christianity Today | A Magazine ...
TIME Magazine: The Lost Gospels
Gospel of Judas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him
So we can stop right there. Why cling to a religious book written by the rich and powerful of that era? What would history look like 300 years from now if the rich and powerful of today had exclusive rights to history writing?
Do yourselves a favor and look back farther than the established religious texts, look for the source of the old testament stories and beliefs, circa 5300BC Sumeria. There you will find the oldest recorded history of modern humanity, complete with descriptions of those who descended from the skies to live among and help teach them.
Biblically, they were the Annunaki, and their descendants were called the Nefilim. Start there, you won't be disappointed.
It would seem that you did stop right there since you've apparently missed the point. Hill is arguing that this popular account of canon formation is inadequate. One can dispute his argument on material grounds, but you seem to be thinking that Hill is saying the opposite of what he actually says.
"What would history look like 300 years from now if the rich and powerful of today had exclusive rights to history writing?"
Don't they? Do you think academics and journalists are living below the poverty line? Sure, the liberal arts and journalism are in trouble, but not that much trouble -- the people publishing histories today ARE rich. Maybe not Bill Gates rich, but rich nonetheless. And who has been writing, publishing, and preserving history all throughout time? The rich because they had the leisure, means, and motives to do so. Mendicant monks are an obvious exception to this, but generally speaking....
To me, the point is not to wade into the minutiae of whose hand-me-down account of ancient events is the actual or legitimate one, (as the answer is "none") it makes more sense to get as close to the source of the information as possible.
Now if you acknowledge that indeed the rich and powerful Church of past times have actually written what you now know as the Bible, then you can see that the act of debating it's origins is a useless argument. My point is, for those who blindly follow what men tell you has been said by their God, who are you really following?
In an ancient context, science and religion are not exclusive, religion is and always has been man's attempt to explain science he cannot yet understand.
So it sounds like by the second century (the time period in which you state Irenaeus wrote), there was an effort to begin winnowing them down.
Doesn't sound like a conspiracy so much as a publicity effort.
Consider the equivocation fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html), for that is not the only meaning of "evangelion."
i'm sure the gospels of mary and judas would be big draws on sundays.
The only spot the missed was in Luke 13, which shows Pilate as the creep he really was, instead of the Passion Play wuss that Christianity so loves.
He claims a lack of diversity in early Christianity, because, among other reasons, mainstream Christianity "had more in common with the apostle Paul (they preserved his letters) and with the original disciples of Jesus than these other sects did..."
He says that Irenaeus refuted all the other sects, and that since he was Second Century, that proves the precedence of Paul/M,M,L & J.
Straw man, cherry picking through history.
These Second Century references are late 2nd century. Hill is avoiding early 2nd century reality of the other Christians, the original movement in Jerusalem composed of people that has actually touched Jesus (Yeshua) and carried his ideas and teachings forward. This movement was completely eradicated in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 132-135, a brief time in which the Romans were defeated in Jerusalem. Roman revenge was complete; they purged all residents of Judaea, and effectively snuffed out the Jewish Christian movement. This is how Pauline Christianity was eventually handed its victory over emerging Christendom.
Ideas are threatening; and there have always been oppresive orthodoxies and thought police as guards of those orthodoxies. Jesus was stopped because his ideas were threatening to those in power.
Equally, people like Hill and Irenaeus line up with the Sadducees and Pharisees trying to silence all those "free-thinking heretics".
Hill's notion is that the four gospels were accepted and republished by virtually all early churches as authoritative and authentic (even by most "protoheretics") partly *because* they came from people who actually "touched Jesus," viz. the apostolic circle (Matthew and John being apostles themselves, Mark being Peter's scribe, and Luke being Paul's associate [on Paul's late apostleship, cf. Gal. 1:11-2:10; etc.]).
"[The Romans] purged all residents of Judaea, and effectively snuffed out the Jewish Christian movement. This is how Pauline Christianity was eventually handed its victory over emerging Christendom."
An interesting take, but the apostles and other disciples were not all snuffed out in Judea if Eusebius and other histories are to be believed. They traveled and preached throughout the empire. Peter went preaching through Asia Minor all the way to Rome, Mark went to Egypt, Thomas went to Persia and India, etc. John lived to around AD 100, partly in Ephesus.
"Equally, people like Hill and Irenaeus line up with the Sadducees and Pharisees trying to silence all those 'free-thinking heretics'."
In your framing, Jesus was also "trying to silence" the Pharisees et al., whom he viewed as corrupting the truth. Indeed, there's the rub: all of your oppressive bogeymen are contending for what they see as the truth, which necessitates calling contradictory claims false. And that's the very thing you (and I) also are doing here -- contending for truth.
Concerning women, Jesus turned the Jewish state on it's head by elevating women to full equality, including women in his inner circle. The most faithful and devout role models in the New Testament are Jesus' mother, Mary and Mary Magdalene.
The subject of the veracity of the Gospels and probable sequence of them, has been in the news for at least the last twenty years. A group called the Jesus Seminar in the early nineties looked at all of the words attributed to Jesus, the parables and other statements. The presence of other contemporaneous, competing "Gospels" is amusing to an atheist like me because I know that it takes you down the path that I walked, of disbelief. If there are 50 different Gospels, then the obvious conclusion is that it's a load of BS.
The "heretics" too had written a few other gospels by around about 50 years after the last of the early gospels was written, but they mostly stayed confined to isolated regions like Egypt. After a century or two, there were loads of new gospels allegedly written about Jesus and supporting various conflicting religious views, but still the church had received and made use of (e.g., by reading in "church" meetings) only the oldest four from the pens of men who lived through it.
I recognize all this is unproven and can only be based on fragmentary evidence. But if this scenario is a plausible reading of the extant data, which is the case Hill makes contra Pagels, Erhman, et al., then it is not immediately "obvious" that it's a "load of BS." One may seek to show that on other grounds, but it cannot be shown to be the case based purely on a number of "heretical" gospels existing in the fourth century.
The author invokes a western 2nd/3rd century writher to support a western religious viewpoint? Rubbish!
The early church was split east - west. The question was really the divinity of jesus. Constantine wanted his empire united. Hence, the Council of Nicaea. The western bible was set in stone. Jesus was god, regardless of what the east thought.
As for the divinity of Jesus, that's not what Hill is debating. Hill's concern in this article (and the book it summarizes) is specifically how, when, and by whom the gospels were canonized vis-a-vis a common paradigm espoused in works by Pagels, Erhman, and J. M. Robinson.
Hill argues the canonical gospels were widely received as genuine and authoritative well before Nicea and the many gnostic gospels that came later generally rejected as spurious and late-comer forgeries in the same period, except for pockets where gnosticism flourished (e.g., Egypt). As another example, when Tatian made his harmony of gospels called the Diatesseron (Greek for "Through four") around 160, he used the four canonicals and no others. It's apparent that parts of the NT canon were in dispute for a good while, but the gospels specifically seemed pretty settled well before Nicea.
Was the argument (at nicea) about the divinity of the Christ? Yes. The council addressed Arianism, primarily. Arguments about whether Jesus was a creation of god the father, or an equal. It may not be what Hill was debating, but the beliefs of the East vs. the West is what the council of N was debating, at Constantine's insistance. The issues of the gospels was NOT settled. The arians were influenced by the gnostic gospels. Why else would the debate have lasted 2 months? Yes, the "pockets" of gnosticism were largely egyptian, but also widespread in the palestine and in africa.
The adoption of the Nicean Creed was the defeat of the East. The empire under Constantine was united, and Rome became the center of western christendom.
It is interesting that most of conferees were eastern, yet they did not prevail. That is less of a surprise knowing that the conference was at the command of the emperor of the west, Constantine. The settlement was political; not religious. The east did not give up it's beliefs. That set the stage for the rise of another prophet. Mohammed.
Would history in that future date teach it as a viable alternative?
See, AbrahamMcLemore, anyone can play your pointless game, but in order for Mr. Hill to come out of this with any credibility, someone needs to explain his extraordinary paragraph on Irenaeus:
“The problem for the conspiracy theory ... Irenaeus was crystal clear in his claim that the church, from the time of the apostles, had received just four authoritative Gospels … The problem is that Irenaeus wrote in the second century, long before the conspiratorial [sic] rewriting of history is supposed to have taken place.”
So a promoter of one sect among many sects claimed his opinion was the one and only truth. Then 200 years later, tyrant emperors adopted that sect and successfully waged war and persecution against it's religious/political opponents, while destroying competing documents, correcting their own, and promoting institutions that would preserve the tyrants' Roman sect and it's opinions.
Hill thinks this is some kind of zinger, but I must have missed something – can someone please explain why this is an conspiracy theory? Or even why it is so implausible...
Hill argues that Irenaeus provides evidence that calls the second account in to question. Irenaeus's point of view c. 180 is that there are (and indeed must be!) exactly four gospels and that his opponents also appeal to the proto-canonical gospels for support in their positions, suggesting their broad acceptance as authorities.
But perhaps you're right: maybe this is just one man whose idiosyncratic position happened to be the one adopted and enforced as orthodoxy later. Is there any corroborating evidence that these gospels were part of the proto-canon already, suggesting the Irenaeus was not alone? As it turns out, there is. Hill's book, which I'm reading, covers it in more detail, but here are a few pieces of evidence.
(continued below)
1. The original post was not about the historicity or ultimate truthfulness of the four (or any other) Gospels. It was about a popular historical narrative of how they came to be in the Bible. Obviously, the former subjects are hugely important, but I was not dealing with them.
2. Some posters have suggested reading the books of Elaine Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels; Beyond Belief) and Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities, etc.). I second that. Please read them, and then, if you would, please read Who Chose the Gospels? I do apologize for the shameless plug, but in fact I wrote the latter specifically for those who had read such books as these, or had been influenced by the view of early Christian history which they espouse. Those books will be excellent preparatory reading.
3. One can always write-off a person’s entire argument by simply finding out where he/she teaches, or by condemning what you think are his/her religious beliefs. But I don’t recommend it. It’s too easily becomes an excuse for avoiding any evidence which might not be convenient. And, oddly enough, it is just the kind of treatment that people accuse the “orthodox” of giving the “heretics” in the early church. (to be continued)
So a promoter of one sect among the many sects of a diverse religious movement claimed his opinion was the one and only truth. Then 200 years later, tyrant emperors adopted that sect and successfully waged war and persecution against it's many religious/political opponents, while promoting institutions that would preserve the tyrants' Roman sect and it's opinions.
Can someone please explain what is conspiratorial, implausible, or even unverified about these events?
Repeated instance that contradicting but entirely plausible and all-to-common historical scenarios be regarded as kooky conspiracy theories are inappropriate in good faith discussion.
The writings of Irenaeus from the 100s throw a monkey wrench into this theory. He studied in Asia Minor under Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, and was sent to assist the mission in Gaul. His "Against Heresies" gives evidence (some incidental and some from his arguments) that the entire church, east and west, and even his opponents (the "heretics") accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authoritative and authentic. The difference was, the church ONLY accepted those four while the gnostic Christians sought to add to them, modify them, or subtract them in accordance with their views.
So which gospels were widely accepted, when, and why? Was it a political imposition by Constantine and/or Athanasius, or did that subset of four gospels represent the broad consensus of the church from early on? Hill argues the former is a theory that overlooks data and that the later is a more responsible summary. To get the details, check out the book.
There is much about Christianity that is more influential than academic debates about early gospels. Charlemegne, the Crusades, the Black Death, and Martin Luther come to mind.