Is it moral for God to punish us?

If anyone is tempted to give credence to the gnostic gospels, simply read them next to the canonical gospels. (They are easily available on the web) You will see dramatic differences between the two.The Gospel of Thomas is a typical example. It contains no narrative or historical content, but is just a collection of apparently random sayings attributed to Jesus. It claims to contain hidden, secret knowledge: Many of its sayings are similar or identical to those found in the canonical gospels. But other sayings are just goofy or offensive, e.g. The gnostic gospels are completely different from the canonical gospels. The canonical gospels give Jesus' sayings a historical setting and incorporate them within a narrative which has a theological purpose and direction.

What evidence do you have that there was an "original plethora"?The early church fathers quote from all of the four canonical gospels by the early to mid second century, and some of these quotes go back to the first century. Thus the four canonical gospels were written by the early to mid second century; many scholars believe that they were written in the first century.The gnostic gospels were written later. They come from the latter part of the second century or the third century.There was no "original plethora" of gospels. There were four original gospels, followed by a later plethora of gnostic writings.As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels". This implies that they are similar to the canonical gospels, which they are not. They are merely collections of random sayings, which is radically different from the canonical gospels.

No, I'm just pointing out that the gnostic "gospels" have a completely different structure and style than the canonical gospels. (If you've read both, these differences should be glaringly obvious.) Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading.The gnostic "gospels" are collections of sayings. In this aspect they are probably similar to the hypothesized "Q". We don't call Q a "gospel", but a "source" or a "collection of sayings."In the same way, it would be more accurate and less misleading to refer to the gnostic "gospels" as gnostic "collections of sayings". The gnostic "gospels" may be analogous to Q, but they are in no way analogous to the canonical gospels.

Yes, and this is very odd. Perhaps the devotees of the gnostic "gospels" want to muddy the waters, and make people think that these are in some way analogous to the canonical gospels?Have you actually read any of the canonical gospels, and any of the gnostic gospels?? Scholars don't refer to Q as a "gospel", but as a "collection of sayings". They do this not to discount Q, but to distinguish it from the canonical gospels, which are radically different than a mere collection of sayings. Do you have any evidence that there actually was an "original plethora" of gospels? Do you have evidence that the gnostic gospels date to the first or early second centuries? If so, please present your evidence.

Can you please be more specific? What are the names and dates of some representatives of this "plethora" of alternative "gospels" which existed in the first or early second centuries?Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

There's a difference in style, in moral teachings, and in date of authorship.The date of authorship is the main subject of the present sub-thread discussion. Not because the classification of "gospel" is connected to the date, but because in message #78, Greatest I Am claimed that there was an "original plethora" of gospels. You expanded his claim in message #91, claiming that there were "apocryphal gospels, non-canonical gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and gnostic gospels".I disagree with this. I believe that the gnostic "gospels" (and the categories that you added) date from much later than the canonical gospels. Hence, I believe that there were originally only four canonical gospels--not an "original plethora". I believe that the other so-called "gospels" came significantly later than the canonical gospels.I have asked for evidence that there was an "original plethora" of gospels. This amounts to evidence that a number of these other "gospels" were written in the first or early second centuries.I'm still waiting for this evidence.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Greatest I Am, you have presented a history of things that Constantine and company did to try to eliminate what they saw as heresy. I agree that these were heavy-handed (though not nearly as heavy-handed as Nero, Vespasian, and other Roman rulers). This is a good reason not to unite church and state.But you have not provided what I asked for; evidence of an "original plethora" of gospels, i.e. evidence that a number of the gnostic "gospels" (or other categories as added by ringo) were contemporary with the original canonical gospels.Do you have any evidence of this? Or is your claim of an "original plethora" of gospels simply wishful thinking?

No, I'm just asking Greatest I Am to back up his claim that there was an "original plethora" of gospels. In his original context, by "original" he seems to mean "contemporaneous with the canonical gospels". True, but not especially relevant. GIA's claim is that there was an "original plethora" of gospels, including gnostic "gospels". You have expanded this claim to include other non-canonical "gospels". Where is your evidence that this "plethora" existed "originally", i.e. "contemporaneous with the canonical gospels"? True. There is a fair amount of shared material between Matthew and Luke, both of which also seem to rely on Mark. John is somewhat different.But the issue we have been discussing is not "original material". It is "original gospels", i.e. finished compositions. You could say the same thing of John, which has less similarities to the other canonical gospels. But again, this is not relevant to the question at hand.Was there an "original plethora" of gospels, i.e. a plethora of "gospels" that are contemporaneous with the canonical gospels? If so, please present evidence for this claim. Yes it does, as GIA used the phrase "original plethora". If you disagree, please show me how I have misinterpreted what he meant. (You may want to redefine the phrase "original plethora", but in this sub thread I have been responding to GIA's claim and meaning.) Yes, they certainly are there. I am certainly not trying to "nitpick them out of existence". I am stressing that they were written significantly later than the canonical gospels, perhaps in response or reaction to the canonical gospels.There was no "original plethora" of gospels. There were originally only four canonical gospels, followed at a significantly later time by a "plethora" of false "gospels" of various forms. GIA disagrees with this; I'm still waiting for his evidence.

There is good evidence that the four canonical gospels had been distributed and read by the early second century. I believe they were all widely accepted. I don't believe any other "gospels" had been written at this time, so there was nothing else to choose from.So far as I know, the gnostic gospels were written later, in the late second through third or fourth centuries. I believe the "mystery schools" were during this same time period.The voting and suppression that you mention were post-Constantine, so were fourth century. This is much later. The four canonical gospels had already been distributed, read, and accepted for 200 yers by this time.

You raise a good point about Luke 1:1. Was Luke referring to Q? To other collections of sayings? It's hard to tell, but this would be interesting to try to understand.It's possible that a few of the gnostic "gospels" were written before the early second century, but I believe that most were written in the late second century or after.Dr A has mentioned the Gospel of Mary. Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about this:

quote:

---

Although the work is popularly known as the Gospel of Mary, it is not canonical nor is it technically classed as a gospel by scholastic consensus.
...
Most scholars agree that the original gospel was written in Greek sometime during the 2nd century. However, Hollis Professor of Divinity Karen King at Harvard Divinity School suggests that it was written during the time of Christ.

---

The Wiki entry on the Gospel of Thomas is also interesting:

quote:

---

The Gospel According to Thomas, (or the Gospel of Thomas), is an early Christian non-canonical sayings-gospel that many scholars believe provides insight into the oral gospel traditions.
...
Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

---

In summary, it is very difficult to determine the dates of authorship of these gnostic writings. We don't have the rich body of copies and early written references to these documents that we have for the canonical gospels.And as I've been saying, it is a misnomer to refer to the gnostic writings as "gospels". These Wikipedia entires agree. The term "sayings-gospel" is probably more descriptive and more accurate.

I completely agree (as I've said earlier) that no-one should disparage collections of sayings. But neither should anyone confuse a collection of sayings with a narrative. They are two different things.

But think about this a bit more deeply. Why don't we have a similar rich body of early copies and written references for the gnostic writings? I can see only two explanations; either these gnostic writings had not been written yet, or they were not generally accepted.By the middle of the second century, the early church fathers had quoted from every book in the New Testament. They accepted and respected these books (including the canonical gospels) as divinely inspired. If the gnostic gospels had been written and generally accepted by this time, we would expect quotes of them as well.

Are you claiming that the canonical gospels are plagiarized and forged versions of gnostic writings that came at least a half-century later?!? Do you think the gospel writers had invented time travel?