What are the differences between the Gospels and the apocryphal works? Which can pass historical scrutiny and theological muster? And why are we correct to exclude the apocryphal works from the canonical Gospels?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Though liberal scholars with an open view of the Christian canon often elevate the value of the apocryphal gospels, none of these writings was ever seriously considered for inclusion in the New Testament. To the contrary, the church father Irenaeus of Lyon, writing in around 180 AD, strenuously argued that the very structure of creation required that there be only four Gospels, \u201csince there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principal winds\u201d (Against Heresies<\/em> 3.11.8). For him and others, having four Gospels in the collection of Christian writings was as natural as north and south, east and west.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The earliest available canonical list, the Muratorian Fragment, titled after an Italian archeologist named Muratori and dated to around 180 AD, likewise includes four, and only<\/em> these four, Gospels. Indeed, the early Christians, epitomized by the quote from the church father Irenaeus above, didn\u2019t even think of the canonical Gospels as four separate Gospels but considered them to be the one fourfold gospel according to these primary witnesses: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The apocryphal gospels that are sometimes mentioned as rivals to the four canonical ones are the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary, and Nicodemus, each of which I will discuss briefly in turn. First, it\u2019s worthwhile to note that, almost certainly, none of the individuals mentioned in those titles was the respective author. This contrasts with the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John by the apostles bearing those names; the authorship of Mark\u2019s Gospel by Mark, Peter\u2019s and Paul\u2019s associate (1 Pet. 5:13; 2 Tim. 4:11); and the authorship of Luke\u2019s Gospel by the \u201cbeloved physician\u201d and travel companion of the apostle Paul (Col. 4:14).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and written in the Coptic language (not Greek as the four canonical Gospels), consists of 114 putative sayings of Jesus. It is therefore misleading to call Thomas a \u201cgospel\u201d as this is normally understood to refer to a narrative of the life and passion of Jesus. Conversely, Thomas makes no mention of any of Jesus\u2019s miracles and has no passion narrative or account of Jesus\u2019s resurrection. Many of the sayings included in Thomas are tinged with gnostic philosophy, a second-century heresy that pitted the physical and spiritual realms against each other and asserted the superiority of the latter over the former.[1]<\/a><\/sup> Other sayings in Thomas bear a fairly close resemblance to sayings of Jesus featured in the canonical Gospels, which suggests that Thomas was written later and borrowed from one or several of the New Testament Gospels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One gets the impression that Thomas is a later gnostic adaptation of some<\/em> of Jesus\u2019s teachings from the authentic Gospels, or perhaps the Diatessaron<\/em>, a second-century harmony of the four Gospels prepared by the church father, Tatian. The theological content of this \u201cGospel\u201d sharply departs from those in the canon. The essential message of Thomas is that humans should embark on a quest to discover the divine spark within themselves. Conversely, Thomas denies human sinfulness and the need for redemption and a substitutionary atonement. Further, while Thomas is very popular with feminist scholars, ironically Thomas disparages females and closes with the assertion that \u201cevery woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Gospel of Thomas 114). In any case, the manuscript evidence suggests the middle of the second century as the earliest likely date of composition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Gospel of Philip fares no better in its standing. It was not written by Philip; it likely dates to the third century; it promulgates some strange gnostic teachings (such as disputing the virgin birth, on the premise that a \u201cfemale\u201d [the Holy Spirit] cannot conceive by a female [Mary the mother of Jesus]); and it was never a serious candidate for inclusion in the New Testament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Gospel of Mary\u2014most likely referring to Mary Magdalene\u2014is a Coptic fragmentary account of Jesus\u2019s alleged conversation with his disciples and a spurious dialogue between Mary and the disciples recounting a vision of Jesus Mary claims to have had. It is most commonly dated to the second century, reflects gnostic thought, and was never mentioned by any church father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Gospel of Nicodemus is a composite of two documents, the Acts of Pilate and Descent into Hell, and likely dates to the fifth or sixth century. It was popular in medieval times and served as the source for legends surrounding Joseph of Arimathea and the Holy Grail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other apocryphal gospels are the Gospel of Peter (which betrays a dependence on Matthew\u2019s Gospel), Secret Mark (which has been unmasked as a late forgery by Stephen Carlson in his entertaining work The Gospel Hoax<\/a>), and the Coptic work bearing the headline-grabbing title Gospel of Jesus\u2019s Wife (touted as authentic by Harvard professor Karen King, but likewise exposed as a forgery by the Coptic scholar Christian Askeland).[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n None of the apocryphal gospels can serve as a reliable historical source for our understanding of Jesus. In each and every case, these so-called \u201cgospels\u201d represent gnostic, heretical distortions of authentic Jesus material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why would anyone want to replace first-century eyewitness sources, namely the four canonical Gospels, with second-century or later gnostic gospels that are both heretical in nature and patently derivative of these genuine Gospels?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The only \u201cevidence\u201d in favor of such a historical approach is the alleged conspiracy to suppress the evidence for the authenticity of the apocryphal gospels by the \u201corthodox\u201d party in early Christianity (i.e., the early Christians). This theory has been propagated by detractors such as Bart Ehrman, chair of the religion department at the University of North Carolina, who proposes that the winners of the battles for orthodoxy in the second and subsequent centuries rewrote actual history to cement their ecclesiastical power. But this is unsupported by the available evidence and hardly worth being considered the product of responsible historical research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I conclude that the apocryphal gospels are disqualified<\/em> from serving as reliable historical sources of the life of Jesus due to their unknown (pseudonymous) authorship, gnostic theology, and late date of writing (second or later century), not to mention that these gospels were written in languages such as Coptic, not, like the four New Testament Gospels, in Greek, the lingua franca<\/em> of the first century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The four canonical Gospels tower head and shoulders above any alleged rivals and are alone to be trusted as authoritative eyewitness sources of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We will therefore do well to read, study, and reflect on the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as we seek to answer Jesus\u2019s question which rings through the ages, \u201cWho do you say that I am?\u201d[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer, I suggest, is that Jesus was not<\/em> a gnostic revealer who helped people discover the divine spark within them, but a crucified Savior who died in our place on a wooden Roman cross so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The four canonical Gospels tower head and shoulders above any alleged rivals and are alone to be trusted as authoritative eyewitness sources of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22437,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"The Apocryphal Gospels and the Four Canonical Gospels: A World of Difference","_seopress_titles_desc":"The four canonical Gospels tower head and shoulders above any alleged rivals and are alone to be trusted as authoritative eyewitness sources of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"[]","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,1974,12,38],"tags":[2239,823,129,925,2203,102,2240,1931,1307,909,1297,1701,2241,122],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[545],"class_list":["post-22436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-august-2025","category-concise","category-theme","tag-apocryphal-gospels","tag-christ","tag-church-history","tag-evangelicals","tag-four-gospels","tag-gospel","tag-gospel-of-thomas","tag-gospels","tag-historical-criticism","tag-historical-jesus","tag-historicity","tag-jesus","tag-pseudo-gospels","tag-theology"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/DP702187-scaled.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:24:45","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":545,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"andreas-kostenberger","display_name":"Andreas K\u00f6stenberger","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Andreas-Kostenberger-e1677864865386.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Andreas-Kostenberger-e1677864865386.jpg"},"author_category":"1","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"K\u00f6stenberger","first_name":"Andreas","church_site":"","user_url":"","description":"Andreas K\u00f6stenberger<\/b> is the author of The Jesus of the Gospels<\/em><\/a> and the recent Introducing Jesus: The Fourfold Gospel<\/em><\/a>. He has also co-authored The First Days of Jesus<\/em><\/a>, The Final Days of Jesus<\/em><\/a>, and Jesus and the Future<\/em><\/a>. Dr. K\u00f6stenberger serves as the theologian in residence and director of the equipping center at Fellowship Raleigh<\/a>. He and his wife Marny have cofounded Biblical FoundationsTM<\/sup><\/a> and are the hosts at Oak Tree Cottage<\/a>, a hospitality and coaching ministry for Christian leaders. The K\u00f6stenbergers have four adult children and live in Wake Forest, North Carolina."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22436"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22436\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22471,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22436\/revisions\/22471"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22437"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22436"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=22436"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=22436"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=22436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}And Then There Were None: Thomas, Philip, Mary, Nicodemus, and Other Alleged Rivals to the Canonical Gospels<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The (Non-)Gospel of Thomas<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
1. See, e.g., Simon Gathercole, <\/span>The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences<\/em>, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 151 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Nicholas Perrin, <\/span>Thomas, The Other Gospel<\/em> (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). <\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n
The Gospels of Philip, Mary, Nicodemus, and Other Candidates<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. For more detailed information, see Andreas J. K\u00f6stenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, <\/span>The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament<\/em>, 2nd ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 140\u201353. See also Andreas J. K\u00f6stenberger and Michael J. Kruger, <\/span>The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture\u2019s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped our Understanding of Early Christianity<\/em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 157, 164\u201369. On Secret Mark, see Stephen C. Carlson, <\/span>The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith\u2019s Invention of <\/em>Secret Mark (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005). <\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Unreliable and Inauthentic<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3. For a recent work providing a spiritually nurturing survey of the four Gospels, see Andreas J. K\u00f6stenberger, <\/span>Introducing Jesus: The Fourfold Gospel <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2025). See also Peter J. Williams, <\/span>Can We Trust the Gospels? <\/em>(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018). <\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n