Johnny Skeptic

Otherwise stated, since the Gospel of Thomas would not have conformed with other writings that the councils found to be personally appealing, it was rejected. Religious people in power who believed that they were orthodox had their way, aka "argumentum ad populum," or, in my own words, "argumentum ad power." If the New Testament Canon had been voted on in say 150 A.D., it it doubtful that it would have been the same as it is was after Constantine endorsed it.

It all really gets down to history, not how the books of the New Testament Canon were chosen. After all, this is the Biblical Criticism and History Forum. Non-biblical secular history does not reliably confirm the Gospel accounts. On their own, the Gospel accounts are not historically reliable. Neither is 1st Corinthians 15:3-8. There is no telling who actually wrote the passage, when it was written, and who the writer's sources were. As far as I know, there are not any firsthand eyewitness accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. If there aren't any, that is important. John was written too late to be of any significant value to Christians. That is important too.

May I ask what historical evidence convinced you that the Gospels and 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 are reliable?

show_no_mercy

In my reading of gThomas, the author makes James the Just the most important figure in the neonatal church. This is in direct conflict with gMatthew where the author makes Peter the most important figure in the neonatal church.

Huon

James Holding is an archaeo-Darwinian ! (sorry, I could not refrain :redface.

Huon

This could be a good explanation. Too many gospels could create trouble in the minds of the priests. The ordinary believers could not read, but they were able to quarrel with the followers of another "best interpreter".

Remember 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 :
This quote is typical of the concern of a church organiser.

aa5874

Are you claiming that Matthew 1.18 and Acts 1.9 are more plausible than anything in Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas is consistent with the implausibilties in the canonised NT.

The author of gThomas proposed nothing new.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Johnny Skeptic,

Since we know that various early Christian groups held different books to be sacred in the first centuries of Christianity and that unanimity prevailed by the late fourth century, should not the question be which Church was able to impose its will on Christianity.

It seems to me that the Alexandrian Church of Clement and Origen with its Egyptian brand of Christianity (and its tripartite Father/Son/Holy Ghost Godhead modeled on Osiris/Isis/Horus) ultimately imposed its will in this area and created the canon.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Johnny Skeptic

Of course. As far as I recall, Elaine Pagels once basically said "The victors rewrote history, their way." As you know, the victors were Christians who considered themselves to be orthodox.

Roger Pearse

Do we know this? It seems liable to mislead, IMHO.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

Are you proposing that what is popular is necessarily authentic? Perhaps you endorse "argumentum ad populum."

If it was obvious what books belonged in the New Testament Canon, why was there any need for detailed discussions by many people on more than one occasion?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

I have in mind the Second century Christian groups like the Marcianites, Carpocratians, Valentinians, etc. We know that they had difference sacred books in the Second century. What I cannot find is any proof that any Second century group considered the present canon as a set of sacred books.

I know that Bishop Irenæus of Lyon presents such proof, but as he seems to me to be a fictional character created by Eusebius, I cannot use him.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay