[Vince Ferrer]

While one can debate whether or not the New Testament is absolutely reliable, the idea that extremely obscure texts written more than a century later (by people who had absolutely no first-hand knowledge of any of the events of the life and death of Jesus Christ) should be given any great credibility is just another dogma of politically correct debunkers.

There were many writings circulating in the few centuries after Christ. This created confusion, and people called for the Church to produce a canon of what is accepted scripture. This was done by the fourth century. The reason that the gnostic gospels did not get included in the canon is that they were considered faulty in some way.

It is odd that after 1600 years, people want to consider the gnostic gospels more reliable than the texts the people closest to the events did. And the sole reason they consider them authentic is that the early Church thought they were defective.

[achilles2000]

“This was done by the fourth century.”

The surviving writings from between 95 A.D. and, as I recall, 180 A.D. of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp identify the NT canon. The only reason there was a later council that spoke on the subject was that from the second century on various people, primarily gnostics, began writing the equivalent of Dan Brown novels about Christ. Some scholars believe that all of the NT was written before 70 A.D. One reason is that is it likely that if the NT had been written afterward there would have been mention of the fall of Jerusalem.

In any event, according to Polycarp’s pupil, Irenaeus, Polycarp was himself a pupil of the apostles, most especially of John, and had conversed with many who had seen Jesus in the flesh. According to Tertullian and Jerome, Polycarp was consecrated Bishop of Smyrna by John.

[ZULU]

“It is odd that after 1600 years, people want to consider the gnostic gospels more reliable than the texts the people closest to the events did. And the sole reason they consider them authentic is that the early Church thought they were defective.”

I don’t think it is wrong to keep an open mind about these things. The individuals who reviewed the scriptures at the time to determine their “authenticity” were hardly grammaticists and while they lived closer to the actual events described, they didn’t necessarily have a closer grasp of those events. The ancient world wasn’t eaxcly awash in contemporary newspapers and books.

Nevertheless a lot of these excluded books certainly apear bizzare in their views, given what ius written in the Four gospels and epistles.