Steve Shaw says: If I say that the gospels are full of inconsistencies, and that some guy in the third century decreed that a large number of other gospels were persona non grata and should be destroyed...

If you were to say that, I would agree that the Gospels are full of fascinating inconsistencies to explore and ponder. They were written by four different groups of people in a time with very limited communication, in the period from 55-105 AD, by second-hand witnesses who wanted to write down what the eyewitnesses who were dying off had said.

I would also say that these four Gospels, all from the first century, gradually became recognized as part of the "canon" of the New Testament. The official canon was not decreed until the fourth century, but most of the books chosen had risen to prominence by 150 AD and were read at liturgical celebrations. There were many other gospels and epistles, mostly written in the second century, many reflecting more of the thinking of the gnostics, which were more closely tied to the mystery religions of the time. There were also many writings of the Church Fathers, the second and third generations of church leaders, which were not included in the New Testament and were not used in liturgy. Many of these writings are still in print to this day, and some are still being discovered. I don't know of any being suppressed, but I suppose that happened to some along the way. There really was no unified church authority capable of such suppression until the church took on a more hierarchical structure in the fourth century.

Some of the gnostic gospels are very interesting, and some are really kinda weird. All have value, and are worthy of discussion. Some have some really good stories in them, some have folkloric value, and some are nice complements to the four Gospels.

Next question?

-Joe Offer-