Very interesting, well-constructed post. I’m familiar with some of what you said but you took it to a new level. You mention that the rejected texts “lacked apostolic origin” or “basic tests of apostolic authorship and theological consistency.” Can you share a little more of what this means to you?
Great question! This is where it gets into the mechanics of how early Christians actually evaluated texts.
“Apostolic origin” basically means the book needed to be written by an apostle or someone in their immediate circle. So Matthew and John were apostles. Mark traveled with Peter and recorded his testimony. Luke was Paul’s companion. The idea was that the people who walked with Jesus, or who walked with those who walked with Jesus, had direct knowledge of what actually happened and what Jesus actually taught.
The Gnostic gospels fail this test pretty dramatically. The Gospel of Thomas was written 110-150 years after Jesus died. The Gospel of Judas even later. Nobody who wrote them knew anyone who knew Jesus. They’re theological reflections from communities that had developed their own systems of thought generations removed from the events.
“Theological consistency” is about whether the text aligned with what the apostles had been teaching publicly from the beginning. The early church had oral traditions and creeds and a shared understanding of the gospel message before anything was written down. So when texts started circulating, churches could ask: Does this match what we received from the apostles? Does this sound like the Jesus we know?
The Gnostic texts don’t. They present a completely different worldview (one where the material world is evil, Jesus didn’t have a real body, salvation comes through secret knowledge rather than grace). That’s a fundamentally different religion.
So when I say these texts were rejected for lacking apostolic origin and theological consistency, I mean the early church looked at them and said: “We don’t know who wrote this. It’s way too late to be from eyewitnesses. And it contradicts everything the apostles taught.”
It does clarify. But I thought it was well established that the apostles themselves didn't actually write the gospels attributed to them, rather they were written afterwards (though still in living memory).
Very interesting, well-constructed post. I’m familiar with some of what you said but you took it to a new level. You mention that the rejected texts “lacked apostolic origin” or “basic tests of apostolic authorship and theological consistency.” Can you share a little more of what this means to you?
Great question! This is where it gets into the mechanics of how early Christians actually evaluated texts.
“Apostolic origin” basically means the book needed to be written by an apostle or someone in their immediate circle. So Matthew and John were apostles. Mark traveled with Peter and recorded his testimony. Luke was Paul’s companion. The idea was that the people who walked with Jesus, or who walked with those who walked with Jesus, had direct knowledge of what actually happened and what Jesus actually taught.
The Gnostic gospels fail this test pretty dramatically. The Gospel of Thomas was written 110-150 years after Jesus died. The Gospel of Judas even later. Nobody who wrote them knew anyone who knew Jesus. They’re theological reflections from communities that had developed their own systems of thought generations removed from the events.
“Theological consistency” is about whether the text aligned with what the apostles had been teaching publicly from the beginning. The early church had oral traditions and creeds and a shared understanding of the gospel message before anything was written down. So when texts started circulating, churches could ask: Does this match what we received from the apostles? Does this sound like the Jesus we know?
The Gnostic texts don’t. They present a completely different worldview (one where the material world is evil, Jesus didn’t have a real body, salvation comes through secret knowledge rather than grace). That’s a fundamentally different religion.
So when I say these texts were rejected for lacking apostolic origin and theological consistency, I mean the early church looked at them and said: “We don’t know who wrote this. It’s way too late to be from eyewitnesses. And it contradicts everything the apostles taught.”
Does that help clarify?
It does clarify. But I thought it was well established that the apostles themselves didn't actually write the gospels attributed to them, rather they were written afterwards (though still in living memory).