DDiilliiggeennccee:: JJoouurrnnaall ooff tthhee LLiibbeerrttyy UUnniivveerrssiittyy OOnnlliinnee RReelliiggiioonn CCaappssttoonnee iinn RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd SScchhoollaarrsshhiipp Volume 1 Article 4 September 2016 TThhee GGoossppeellss ooff JJuuddaass,,PPeetteerr,, aanndd TThhoommaass:: IIss TThheeiirr EExxcclluussiioonn ffrroomm tthhee CCaannoonn MMeerriitteedd?? David Heady Liberty University Online, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Heady, David (2016) "The Gospels of Judas,Peter, and Thomas: Is Their Exclusion from the Canon Merited?," Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship: Vol. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc/vol1/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Divinity at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Heady: Apocryphal Gospels: Exclusion Merited? The Gospels of Peter, Judas, and Thomas: Is Their Exclusion from the Canon Merited? David Heady RLGN 490-D01: Research and Scholarly Capstone April 24, 2017 Published by Scholars Crossing, 2016 1 Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 1 Introduction Throughout all human history, tension has existed between truth and error. When God placed humanity in Eden, He instructed, “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).1 Not long after this, Satan came and flatly contradicted God by saying, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4b). In that moment, mankind was faced with the choice to believe either God or the serpent. All human history has been marred by the effects of the choice made that day. While the ages have passed and times have changed, Satan’s attack on God’s truth has in no way subsided. Although he might not take on the form of a serpent and verbally challenge the veracity of God’s truth, this in no way precludes his deceitful agenda. Similarly, despite the fact that God no longer physically walks with and audibly talks to humanity, He has nevertheless made His truth available in the form of His written Word. Hence, Satan’s attacks on God’s truth in the modern setting primarily take the form of undermining God’s written (rather than spoken) Word. One way Satan has attempted to undermine God’s Word has been by trying to introduce error into the canon of Scripture. Since the time of the first-century church, many writings have claimed to be Scripture; however, only twenty-seven have found their way into the canon. Those that have been rejected access into the canon are designated as apocryphal. The apocryphal writings take many forms, some of which include apocryphal gospels, epistles, and acts. The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary explains, “When the term apokruphos occurs in the NT, it simply means ‘hidden things’.”2 However, it goes on to explain, “In the formation of the 1 Scripture quotations are from The English Standard Version Bible, Crossway, 2001. 2 Chad Brand, ed., et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2003), s.vv. “Apocrypha, New Testament.” https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc/vol1/iss1/4 2 Heady: Apocryphal Gospels: Exclusion Merited? 2 Christian canon of Scripture, ‘apocrypha’ came to mean works that were not divinely inspired and authoritative.”3 Three of the most popular apocryphal works are the gospels of Judas, Peter, and Thomas. They will be compared and contrasted with the canonical Gospels to determine if their exclusion is justified. After examining the most basic characteristics of the canonical Gospels, such as dates of origin, authorship, and coherence of material, it would appear that these three apocryphal gospels do not merit inclusion into the canon of Scripture. Delimitations It is no secret that, “Historically, Protestant theology has embraced the Bible as the standard and authority of belief and practice,” as John Peckham points out.4 Therefore, the process of granting a writing entrance into the canon is of the utmost importance. Volumes have been written concerning canonical models. Canonical models are essentially the rationale used to determine a writing’s canonicity. About 35 years ago, Brevard Childs asserted, “The problem of canon turns on the failure to reach an agreement regarding the terminology.”5 Peckham argues, “The fundamental question is whether the canon is determined by humans or by God.”6 He concludes that everyone in this debate falls into one of the following two groups: those who believe “the canonization of Scripture to be something officially or authoritatively imposed upon certain literature” and those who believe “that the canon was not determined, but recognized.”7 B. B. Warfield’s comments represent the latter view. He says, “The Canon of the New Testament 3 Ibid. 4 John C. Peckham, “The Canon and Biblical Authority: A Critical Comparison of Two Models of Canonicity,” Trinity Journal 28, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 229. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/article/trinj28-2-05?highlight=canon. 5 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Augsburg Fortress, 2011), 51. 6 Peckham, “The Canon and Biblical Authority,” 229. 7 Ibid., 230. Published by Scholars Crossing, 2016 3 Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 3 was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the apocalypse, about A.D. 98.”8 Michael Kruger’s comments have been very helpful in the discussion of canon. He has argued that one’s definition of canon should be multifaceted in that it entails exclusive,9 functional,10 and ontological11 elements. This is due to the fact that While the exclusive definition correctly reminds us that a general consensus on the boundaries of the canon was not achieved until the Fourth Century, it can give the misleading impression that there was little agreement over the core books prior to this time period. While the functional definition correctly reminds us that New Testament books served as an authoritative norm at quite an early time, it still does not address what these books are in and of themselves. While the ontological definition brings the necessary balance to both of these approaches—offering a reminder that these books do not become canonical simply by the actions of the church—it too cannot stand alone. To have only the ontological definition would lead us to wrongly conclude that these books were basically lowered from heaven as a completed canon with no development or history in the real world. Ironically, then, perhaps the debate over canon is best addressed not by choosing one definition, but by allowing for the legitimacy of multiple definitions that interface with one another. If canon is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, then perhaps it is best defined in a multi-dimensional fashion.12 Regardless of one’s canonical model, whether it be simple or sophisticated, the fact remains that the canon exists. Furthermore, the writings contained therein hold certain common characteristics. Therefore, if additional writings are to be added to the existing canon, they must also share those common characteristics. 8 Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980), 415. 9 Michael J. Kruger, “The Definition of the Term ‘Canon:’ Exclusive or Multidimensional?” Tyndale Bulletin 63, no. 1 (NA, 2012): 3. Accessed April 2, 2017. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/article/tynbul63-1-01?highlight=canon. 10 Ibid., 9. 11 Ibid., 14. 12 Ibid., 20. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc/vol1/iss1/4 4 Heady: Apocryphal Gospels: Exclusion Merited? 4 Dates of Origin The date of origin is a crucially important criterion for determining canonicity. This is because the Gospels have traditionally been believed to be eye-witness testimonies that pertain to the life and teachings of Christ. Richard Bauckham affirms this when he says, “The Gospels are testimony. This does not mean that they are testimony rather than history. It means that the kind of historiography they are is testimony.”13 For this to be possible, the author would have to have been alive during Jesus’ ministry or have interviewed someone who was. The later the writing’s origin, the less plausible this would be. As Kruger points out, “Given that there are very few extant Christian writings outside the New Testament that can reasonably be dated to the first century, there simply are not many other potential candidates for canonicity.”14 Canonical Gospel of Matthew Suggestions regarding Matthew’s date of origin have undergone a significant shift in the last 20 years. It was previously believed with relative certainty that Matthew composed his Gospel after 70 A.D. This was primarily due to critical scholars positing that Matthew could not have had knowledge of the temple’s impending destruction.15 However, the patristic witnesses 13 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company), 15. Accessed May 6, 2017. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzEwNTg1 MTZfX0FO0?sid=00f5ecb6-4ff8-4bbb-8519- 313a5cdd454d@sessionmgr102&vid=2&format=EK&rid=1 14 Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 121. Accessed April 8, 2017. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nle bk&AN=1140484&site=ehost-live&scope=site. 15 Andy M. Woods, “The Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Part 1,” Journal of Dispensational Theology 11, no. 33 (August, 2007): 13-14. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/article/jodt11-33- 01?highlight=%22Date%22%20Gospels%20gospel%20matthew%20mark%20luke%20john. Published by Scholars Crossing, 2016 5 Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 5 place the date of origin prior to 70 A.D. Andy Woods points out, “Irenaeus. . . says that the book was written during Nero’s reign while Peter and Paul were in Rome. Since these apostles were martyred in AD 67–68, the book obviously had to have been written prior to this time.”16 Woods personally favors a Matthean priority and therefore states, “A date of AD 45–50 for the composition of Matthew’s Gospel seems appropriate.”17 Based on the sources consulted, this would seem to be the current consensus among conservative New Testament scholars. Canonical Gospel of Mark A great deal of debate has existed about Markan priority. It is beyond the scope of this paper to attempt to settle this dispute, especially considering that Markan priority does not affect its date of origin as much as it does Matthew and Luke’s. The consensus among conservative scholars would seem to be that Mark was composed sometime in 60-70 A.D. This is based primarily on two elements. First, early church tradition strongly affirms that Mark was written while Peter was in Rome during Nero’s persecution, which is historically dated 64-68 A.D.18 Furthermore, C. A. Evans argues, “Careful study of Mark 13 and a few related passages suggests that the Gospel of Mark was published in the early stages of the Jewish war with Rome (AD 66- 70).”19 Canonical Gospel of Luke Like Matthew’s, Luke’s date of origin hinges on the priority of Mark. If Mark is given priority, it is assumed that Luke was written sometime very soon after (i.e. late 60s to early 70s 16 Ibid., 14. 17 Ibid. 18 Brand, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, s.vv. “Mark, Gospel of.” 19 T. Desmond Alexander, ed., et al., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000) s.v. “Mark.” https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc/vol1/iss1/4 6 Heady: Apocryphal Gospels: Exclusion Merited? 6 A.D.). However, if Matthew is given priority, an early 60s A.D. date of origin is generally favored. It seems also that the absence of certain facts from Luke’s gospel favors an earlier date. These absent facts include the persecution of Nero, the death of Peter and Paul, the revolt of the Jews, and the destruction of the temple. Given the absence of the facts, “It seems best, then, to date the writing of Luke somewhere between A.D. 61 and 63.”20 Canonical Gospel of John Like Matthew, John is another Gospel whose date of origin is under reconsideration. For many years, the favored date of John has been 80-90 A.D. However, many scholars have lately begun to favor an earlier date. Thomas Stegall points out, “Though the later-date position in the 80s-90s is still the majority opinion among Johannine commentators and scholars, there have been several scholars in the last century who have made an equally plausible case for an earlier pre-A.D. 70 date.”21 He points out that it seems unreasonable to think that had John penned his Gospel after 70 A.D. He would have excluded the account of the temple’s destruction from it.22 After a lengthy presentation of the data supporting the different dates of origin, he concludes, “The existing evidence reasonably eliminates any possible dates that fall outside the range of roughly the 60s-90s A.D., with the weight of evidence slightly favoring a date before A.D. 70.”23 Hence, there are differing opinions regarding the specific dates of origin for each of the canonical Gospels. However, the point of convergence would seem to be that they all very likely 20 Brand, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, s.vv. “Luke, Gospel of.” 21 Thomas L. Stegall, “Reconsidering the Date of John’s Gospel,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 14, no. 2 (Fall, 2009): 83. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/article/ctsj14-2- 04?highlight=%22Date%22%20Gospels%20gospel%20matthew%20mark%20luke%20john. 22 Ibid., 84. 23 Ibid., 102. Published by Scholars Crossing, 2016 7 Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 7 could have been written in the first century. This would allow for them to have been written by someone who had been an eyewitness to Christ’s ministry or someone who had interviewed just such a person. Apocryphal Gospel of Peter No small amount of literature has been written pertaining to the apocryphal gospel of Peter. While a few attempts have been made to place its date of origin into the first century, they have generally been met with great resistance from scholars of a wide variety. Bart Ehrman states, “There are reasons for dating the text to a period after the canonical Gospels, probably sometime in the beginning or middle of the second century.”24 On this point, Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Kruger agree. Kruger affirms, “Its [Gospel of Peter] composition dates form [sic] the middle of the second century, most likely in Syria.”25 Paul Foster goes even further by affirmatively stating, “Theories that attempt to press the text of the Gospel of Peter, or a source embedded within it, back into the first century are not sustainable. The text is best understood as a reflection on canonical traditions, and it also demonstrates theological trajectories that are part of later Christianity.”26 Hence, it would appear that the gospel of Peter could not have been written by someone who had walked with Christ or who had interviewed someone who had. 24 Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Plese. Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 376. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=10521082. 25 Kruger, Canon Revisited, 329. 26 Paul Foster, “The Gospel of Peter,” The Expository Times 118, no. 7 (July, 2016): 324. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177%2F0014524607077127. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc/vol1/iss1/4 8 Heady: Apocryphal Gospels: Exclusion Merited? 8 Apocryphal Gospel of Judas The apocryphal gospel of Judas has also received a vast amount of attention in the world of New Testament studies. While opinions may vary about many aspects of the gospel of Judas, its date of origin is not one of them. Patristic interaction with this gospel has led scholars to place its date of origin somewhere in the 140-220 A.D. range. Ehrman has posited, “Since the book had been in circulation before it came to Irenaeus’s attention, a date of 140–150 CE seems plausible.”27 Foster has come to similar conclusions and asserts, “The first edition of the Gospel of Judas was almost certainly written in Greek, probably sometime between 140 and 200 ce.”28 Simon Gathercole, based on a lengthy examination of the gospel of Judas and of Gnosticism in the first three centuries, feels that the apocryphal gospel of Judas shares strong similarities with other gnostic literature written from the mid-second to early-third centuries; therefore, “Sometime between 140 and 220 is a reasonable estimate of when the original Greek text of the Gospel of Judas was composed.”29 Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas Perhaps the most famous of all the apocryphal works is the gospel of Thomas. Indeed, admission into the canon has been argued for more strongly for the gospel of Thomas than for any other apocryphal work. As is the case with Peter and Judas, the general consensus is that Thomas originated in the mid-to-late second century.30 After an in-depth analysis of and 27 Ehrman, Apocryphal Gospels, 390. 28 Paul Foster, The Non-Canonical Gospels (New York City, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2008), 86. Accessed April 8, 2017. http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=10427233&ppg=1. 29 Simon Gathercole, The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 140. Accessed April 8, 2017. http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=10199724&ppg=1. 30 Kruger, Canon Revisited, 328. Published by Scholars Crossing, 2016 9