Diogenes the Cynic

The authors never called themselves apostles or named themselves at all. The names to which the gospels are atrributed were 2nd century traditions ascribed to anonymous books.

None of the authors of the gospels even claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus much less apostles.

Magdlyn

It is my understanding, the provinces of Judea, Israel and Palestine were thoroughly Hellenized. Most men involved in trade (as the fisherman of Galilee would have been) would have had both a Greek name and a Hebrew name. Trade was done in the lingua franca, which was Greek.

The names you cite above (not including Fred) were Greek. "Pete" was Petros. There is a character in the Pauline epistles called Cephas, and there is speculation as to whether this was the same man as Peter of the gospels (as the name means the same thing.)

rlogan

When you invent a tradition like this you can't get too specific or elsewise provide the means of checking up on the veracity of the claim.

Vorkosigan

Magdlyn, Boro is our resident jester. Pay no attention to the man behind the besmirchin'.

Vorkosigan

Wily Coyote

Theophilus=Greek for "friend of God." "theo"=God, "philus"= friend.

This is most likely a generic greeting to a colleague or friend, and not to a specific person. The modern equivalent might be, "Dear Fellow Christian."

Nobody's sure whether Luke was writing a polemic to other nameless "friends of God," or whether he was addressing someone in particular.

Wily Coyote

In C.E. 393, at the Synod of Hippo, the Church chose 27 books to comprise the New Testament, including the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Synod of Carthage four years later reconfirmed that only these books would be considered.

In choosing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Synods expressly excluded nearly sixty other documents that had been labeled "gospels" throughout the years, but for one reason or another, were considered inappropriate for inclusion in the New Testament. Why? Hard to say. Only fragments of many of these documents exist today, but many of these other gospels run contrary to "accepted" church doctrine and were even considered heretical.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is only a "sayings" gospel and attributes to Jesus no miracles, and makes no mention of the Resurrection. The author of the Thomas writings was most likely also a gnostic, which was a small sect which claimed exclusive knowledge (or gnosis) of the meanings of Jesus' messages, which obviously clashed with the teachings of the early Church.

In the fragmentary Gospel of Mary Magdalene, it's suggested she was Jesus' wife. Hardly appropriate for the Canon.

And on and on. there are gospels of Peter, of Barrabas, Matthias, James, Philip, an infancy gospel of Thomas, none of which passed muster as far as the Synods were concerned.

Clivedurdle

because, according to Gibbon

Chris Weimer

gThomas is in no way truly gnostic. It actually fits in more with canon, but as you said, it didn't have any miracles of Jesus etc...