Why were ''Gospels'' omitted from the Bible?

[Sunstone]

Ahhhh...yes. Funny how mankind seems to know what God would want to share with his creation, and what he'd want to omit . lol

I agree! It's downright hilarious in much the same way as having a ton of bricks dumped on you is the acme of humor.

I think many of us underestimate the extent to which politics enters into which books made it into the cannon. For instance, the Gnostic gospels, had they been accepted, would have undermined the power and authority of the clergy.

 

[Deidre]

The bible was "compiled" over many centuries. The reason that many books were left out was because they weren't even around until the 3rd or 4th centuries.

True, but there were some that were left out suggesting that salvation doesn't hinge on faith in Jesus. Since the NT promotes something entirely different, it would stand to reason why those writings were left out.

Having said this, of what we know about Jesus, he didn't seem to glorify ''religion,'' so it's odd that an entire religion would be built around him.

 

[Deidre]

I agree! It's downright hilarious in much the same way as having a ton of bricks dumped on you is the acme of humor.

I think many of us underestimate the extent to which politics enters into which books made it into the cannon. For instance, the Gnostic gospels, had they been accepted, would have undermined the power and authority of the clergy.

This deserves more than one like!

 

[Sunstone]

This deserves more than one like!

Thank you so much! I sense this might be a good time to ask to borrow fifty dollars.

 

[idea]

What books are we talking about here? These ones?
Here is a link if you want to read some of the older books:
Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and Sacred Writings

I (and all Mormons) agree that the Bible is incomplete...

A Jewish person thinks the Torah is complete... how would you convince someone who is Jewish that more scripture exists beyond the Torah? how would you convince some Christians that more scripture exists beyond the Bible? Everyone can read everything for themselves - does what you read bring the Spirit? the world is full of scripture in my opinion.

Lost books
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:

book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14);
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18);
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29);
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29);
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22);
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19);
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16);
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).

To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.
Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isa. 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.

 

[nazz]

Let me speak to the Gnostic gospels seeing that I identify as a gnostic. The vast majority of these were written after the time when general agreement over what to include in the NT had already been decided. The appearance of these works in the second century would rule them out as being apostolic which was one of the criteria the church fathers used.

I also wanted to say the early church fathers were more conservative about what to include than later leaders. Some of the epistles were rejected as authentic and the Book of Revelation was highly controversial. The decision to include it came much later. Some early church fathers favored some books that did not make the final cut like the Shepherd of Hermas for example.

 

[Sunstone]

Let me speak to the Gnostic gospels seeing that I identify as a gnostic. The vast majority of these were written after the time when general agreement over what to include in the NT had already been decided. The appearance of these works in the second century would rule them out as being apostolic which was one of the criteria the church fathers used.

I also wanted to say the early church fathers were more conservative about what to include than later leaders. Some of the epistles were rejected as authentic and the Book of Revelation was highly controversial. The decision to include came much later. Some early church father s favored some books that did not make the final cut like the Shepherd of Hermas for example.

I don't know of any reason the Gnostic Gospels couldn't have been included later, after they were written, had the Christian religion been one to accept their teachings. But the religion didn't accept their teachings, and I doubt that was entirely because someone had imposed an arbitrary cut off date for which books made it into the cannon.

 

[Deidre]

It would be absurd to assume that all the texts generated by a myriad of apologists were of equal quality and credibility. A selection process was perfectly appropriate. The conspiracy theories are infantile.

Why would it be 'incredible' to think that faith in Jesus wasn't necessary for salvation, or that freeing one's self from the secular world is a way to obtain a fulfilling and grace-filled life? Those were some of the tenets that were omitted.

To me, and I say this as a former Christian...it stands to reason that religions have been competing for centuries, trying to maintain who knows best. And men in power have been trying to harness that for centuries, as well.

 

[idea]

the Shepherd of Hermas for example.

If anyone wants to read Hermas -
hermas

....men in power ....

it is interesting that many of the books that were omitted contained females in prominent roles. Perhaps it was the male dominated culture which was to blame?

 

[Sunstone]

And men in power have been trying to harness that for centuries, as well.

They've been doing a pretty effective job of it too. Much to the annoyance of people who feel that liberty trumps obedience in most matters.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

True, but there were some that were left out suggesting that salvation doesn't hinge on faith in Jesus. Since the NT promotes something entirely different, it would stand to reason why those writings were left out.

If you are really interested in this question, there is a pretty accessible book by the great scholar Bruce M. Metzger The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. The four gospels were considered primary just about everywhere and by everyone. Tatian's diatessaron was a single "gospel" that tried to unite all four, Marcion (the founder of the Marcionites, a group some consider to be gnostic) chose Luke and the letters of Paul and presents us with the earliest known example of a "canon". Works generally included in canons from the 2nd to the 5th century included The Shepard of Hermas, the Didache, and some other but rarely any of the "lost gospels" like the gospel of mary. Within John we begin to see diverging Christianities that are addressed through the theology and Christology of John, but this was nothing compared to what was to come. The excluded gospels did not seek to give an account of Jesus' mission but were written not only mostly in opposition but also in opposition to what had always been the core of the "NT" even before it existed; namely, the canonical gospels.

While Matthew and Luke both rely on Mark, and John- while independent- still uses the "gospel genre" (a kind of ancient biography), later gospels were used this model to create a new genre. They used Jesus much like Plato did Socrates in his more developed works. Not only that, but some of what we have called gospels are theological treatises that bear little or no resemblance to either the canonical or non-canonical gospels. After the first century, few people that we know of had any direct contact with Jesus' disciples of the disciples of those disciples, while the NT rapidly promulgated throughout the Roman empire and beyond (the only surviving texts written in Gothic are translations of the bible by a Gothic bishop and missionary).

Having said this, of what we know about Jesus, he didn't seem to glorify ''religion,'' so it's odd that an entire religion would be built around him.

The modern concept of religion didn't exist then. However, Jesus took absolutely seriously the relationship between the people of YHWH and YHWH himself, and while we will never know for sure, I'd say it's a safe bet that he thought of himself in messianic terms (although I believe there is a serious disconnect between how Jesus understood the role of messiah and how the early Christians re-interpreted it).

 

[Deidre]

If you are really interested in this question, there is a pretty accessible book by the great scholar Bruce M. Metzger The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. The four gospels were considered primary just about everywhere and by everyone. Tatian's diatessaron was a single "gospel" that tried to unite all four, Marcion (the founder of the Marcionites, a group some consider to be gnostic) chose Luke and the letters of Paul and presents us with the earliest known example of a "canon". Works generally included in canons from the 2nd to the 5th century included The Shepard of Hermas, the Didache, and some other but rarely any of the "lost gospels" like the gospel of mary. Within John we begin to see diverging Christianities that are addressed through the theology and Christology of John, but this was nothing compared to what was to come. The excluded gospels did not seek to give an account of Jesus' mission but were written not only mostly in opposition but also in opposition to what had always been the core of the "NT" even before it existed; namely, the canonical gospels.

While Matthew and Luke both rely on Mark, and John- while independent- still uses the "gospel genre" (a kind of ancient biography), later gospels were used this model to create a new genre. They used Jesus much like Plato did Socrates in his more developed works. Not only that, but some of what we have called gospels are theological treatises that bear little or no resemblance to either the canonical or non-canonical gospels. After the first century, few people that we know of had any direct contact with Jesus' disciples of the disciples of those disciples, while the NT rapidly promulgated throughout the Roman empire and beyond (the only surviving texts written in Gothic are translations of the bible by a Gothic bishop and missionary).


The modern concept of religion didn't exist then. However, Jesus took absolutely seriously the relationship between the people of YHWH and YHWH himself, and while we will never know for sure, I'd say it's a safe bet that he thought of himself in messianic terms (although I believe there is a serious disconnect between how Jesus understood the role of messiah and how the early Christians re-interpreted it).

I like how you have explained this, and I'm interested yes, in learning more. I'm going to see if that book you recommend is available on kindle.
Thanks!

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I don't see much of an issue. But it may be because I see scripture as having such a peripheral role in religion.

Of course scripture's meaning can, will and must change along the centuries - and that is a good thing, too. We all should acknowledge, embrace and rejoice in it. That whole societies can actually learn better along time is not something to feel sad about.

I realize some of you believe that scripture must be rigidly defined and strictly adhered to. It seems to me that such an expectation may be useful for many in giving a sense of certainty. But I fear that it may not be a reasonable expectation.

In any case, for those of you who believe in a Creator God, isn't ultimately all of existence, and not just scripture, God's work? So what would the problem be in accepting the duty to update and correct the contents and interpretation of scripture as the opportunity arises?

 

[Deidre]

So what would the problem be in accepting the duty to update and correct the contents and interpretation of scripture as the opportunity arises?

That's a great question.

 

[McBell]

It makes the Bible as we have come to view it, not quite credible, at least in my eyes.

Why is that?
I mean, do you think if someone was to take all the words you ahve said that they would fit into one book the same size as the Bible?
Or would they perhaps not include some of your words?

Why are we limited to what the Bible states about 'god?'

No idea where that came from.
I never made any claim of such.

Why is it any more or less valid than the Qur'an? Than any other holy book? The Qur'an has also been taught to be the word of God, which directly opposes the NT...so...maybe there is more than one, true god? Or could it be that man just doesn't know, and we have all these religions to 'help us' know...or make us feel better as to what we don't know.

I don't believe that the Abrahamic faiths are any closer to knowing who or what a god might be, than those religions that fall outside of them.

You seem to think that I am a theist?

 

[Thana]

So, it only becomes the 'word of God,' when man 'votes' on it?
I'm not trying to be flip, I'm honestly asking the question.

All we really have is our own reason and intellect, Using those things the bible was contructed. What more can you ask? Or do you expect every Gospel written by every person to get their own little spot in the bible?

 

[Sunstone]

All we really have is our own reason and intellect, Using those things the bible was contructed. What more can you ask? Or do you expect every Gospel written by every person to get their own little spot in the bible?

Why does one need a bible anyway? That is a body of officially approved allegedly holy scriptures? What's the necessity of that?

 

[Deidre]

Why does one need a bible anyway? That is a body of officially approved allegedly holy scriptures? What's the necessity of that?

And that is where I'm at with it...right there.
I should have started the thread off that way...lol

@Mestemia - my apologies, you seem to be defending theism in this thread?

 

[Thana]

Why does one need a bible anyway? That is a body of officially approved allegedly holy scriptures? What's the necessity of that?

Um, really? I mean the bible/Tanakh is kinda fundamental to everything about Christianity and Judaism, I can't really understand why you think it's unnecessary.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wish I knew about biblical history to answer that intelligently. I actually see a lot of Books written by people who God hsa spoken to. Just because it doesn't fit nicely into one book doesn't make it not God's Word. So, I guess I'll see how the discussion plays out I guess.

What texts were omitted though? Those texts that contradict the Gospels that were included. So, how can the NT be an accurate or complete representation of the word of God?

I say it isn't, and that perhaps most or all of it was fabricated, which is why the other writings were omitted.

I don't believe in conspiracies but......... lol