- Location
- Over the rainbow
This is a WI about an alternative Christian New Testament canon.
Many gospels circulated in early Christianity, more than 40 judging by surviving references and what has been identified in archaeology. These gospels represented a wide variety of beliefs.
Four of those gospels were chosen as the canonical gospels, ie those preserved in the Christian New Testament by surviving Christian denominations. The others were neglected or rejected for various reasons, including some but not all by those deemed heretical (in other words, their authors lost the religious arguments).
Another reason why only four gospels were chosen was by the influential second-century Christian theologian Irenaeus of Lyon, who helped to define mainstream Christian theology and reject works which were viewed as heretical. Irenaeus argued that there should be four and only four gospels, because the earth had four corners and therefore there should be four pillars to uphold the church. As a result, the other gospels were largely forgotten, though a few have been preserved in whole or in part, sometimes through quotations from surviving authors, preserved in rare manuscripts, or identified in archaeology.
Of the four gospels which were preserved, the Gospel of Mark is the least influential. It is one of the three synoptic gospels, so called because they share similar stories in a similar sequence. Mark is a much shorter gospel than the others, and contains the fewest unique doctrines which are not found elsewhere. As an account of Jesus' life it begins with his baptism and ends with an empty tomb (in the original form); it does not have any descriptions of Jesus' ancestry, birth, early life or appearances after the resurrection.
Traditionally, Mark was viewed as being the second-written gospel, and was thought to be a summary of Matthew, though the modern scholarly consensus is that Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels, and both Matthew and Luke borrowed from it (amongst other sources) when writing their gospels.
Mark was nearly abandoned as a gospel in OTL. Matthew was the most influential of the early gospels (though John became the most-cited later), and once Matthew became widespread, Mark became copied and circulated much less frequently.
So, what if Mark was abandoned entirely, and one of the OTL non-canonical gospels replaces it in the ATL canon?
In terms of what is removed from Christian doctrine, for the loss of Mark, the short answer is surprisingly little. While it contains some unique material and sayings not preserved elsewhere in the New Testament, these were not hugely influential, and most of the material in Mark is duplicated in Matthew and Luke.
As a replacement fourth gospel, the one I'm interested in exploring is the Gospel of Thomas, and not just because this is one that is nearly preserved in full. The Gospel of Thomas was found preserved in two versions in Egypt, a Coptic-language version which is preserved in full, and three Greek-language fragments which had been discovered earlier and were identified as part of Thomas once the Coptic version was found. The two versions are similar, but not identical.
Thomas is quite a different gospel to the canonical gospels. (Here is one translation and here is a more detailed commentary on its sayings.) It is a sayings gospel which preserves a variety of sayings and parables attributed to Jesus, but has minimal narrative and none of the more familiar descriptions of Jesus life: no baptism, no crucifixion, no resurrection. Many of the sayings preserved in Thomas have parallels in the canonical gospels, though some are unique, together with two parables. There is some argument over when Thomas was composed, with some authors arguing for an early date (second half of the first century) and others for a later date (first half of the second century), but the surviving versions of Thomas preserved at least some sayings which are considered early.
Thomas has often been considered a Gnostic gospel because it was found in association with other Gnostic texts. However, the preserved text of Thomas does not in fact contain much which is distinctively Gnostic - not much more than the canonical Gospel of John. It does refer to a "hidden message" in its introduction, which may take some rationalisation on the part of later Christianity since the gospel was considered to be universal. If Thomas is adopted as canonical, this might be explained by stating that the message was hidden at first but has now been communicated to all through the now-canonical Gospel of Thomas.
So, what would happen if Thomas replaced Mark amongst the canonical gospels?
Many gospels circulated in early Christianity, more than 40 judging by surviving references and what has been identified in archaeology. These gospels represented a wide variety of beliefs.
Four of those gospels were chosen as the canonical gospels, ie those preserved in the Christian New Testament by surviving Christian denominations. The others were neglected or rejected for various reasons, including some but not all by those deemed heretical (in other words, their authors lost the religious arguments).
Another reason why only four gospels were chosen was by the influential second-century Christian theologian Irenaeus of Lyon, who helped to define mainstream Christian theology and reject works which were viewed as heretical. Irenaeus argued that there should be four and only four gospels, because the earth had four corners and therefore there should be four pillars to uphold the church. As a result, the other gospels were largely forgotten, though a few have been preserved in whole or in part, sometimes through quotations from surviving authors, preserved in rare manuscripts, or identified in archaeology.
Of the four gospels which were preserved, the Gospel of Mark is the least influential. It is one of the three synoptic gospels, so called because they share similar stories in a similar sequence. Mark is a much shorter gospel than the others, and contains the fewest unique doctrines which are not found elsewhere. As an account of Jesus' life it begins with his baptism and ends with an empty tomb (in the original form); it does not have any descriptions of Jesus' ancestry, birth, early life or appearances after the resurrection.
Traditionally, Mark was viewed as being the second-written gospel, and was thought to be a summary of Matthew, though the modern scholarly consensus is that Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels, and both Matthew and Luke borrowed from it (amongst other sources) when writing their gospels.
Mark was nearly abandoned as a gospel in OTL. Matthew was the most influential of the early gospels (though John became the most-cited later), and once Matthew became widespread, Mark became copied and circulated much less frequently.
So, what if Mark was abandoned entirely, and one of the OTL non-canonical gospels replaces it in the ATL canon?
In terms of what is removed from Christian doctrine, for the loss of Mark, the short answer is surprisingly little. While it contains some unique material and sayings not preserved elsewhere in the New Testament, these were not hugely influential, and most of the material in Mark is duplicated in Matthew and Luke.
As a replacement fourth gospel, the one I'm interested in exploring is the Gospel of Thomas, and not just because this is one that is nearly preserved in full. The Gospel of Thomas was found preserved in two versions in Egypt, a Coptic-language version which is preserved in full, and three Greek-language fragments which had been discovered earlier and were identified as part of Thomas once the Coptic version was found. The two versions are similar, but not identical.
Thomas is quite a different gospel to the canonical gospels. (Here is one translation and here is a more detailed commentary on its sayings.) It is a sayings gospel which preserves a variety of sayings and parables attributed to Jesus, but has minimal narrative and none of the more familiar descriptions of Jesus life: no baptism, no crucifixion, no resurrection. Many of the sayings preserved in Thomas have parallels in the canonical gospels, though some are unique, together with two parables. There is some argument over when Thomas was composed, with some authors arguing for an early date (second half of the first century) and others for a later date (first half of the second century), but the surviving versions of Thomas preserved at least some sayings which are considered early.
Thomas has often been considered a Gnostic gospel because it was found in association with other Gnostic texts. However, the preserved text of Thomas does not in fact contain much which is distinctively Gnostic - not much more than the canonical Gospel of John. It does refer to a "hidden message" in its introduction, which may take some rationalisation on the part of later Christianity since the gospel was considered to be universal. If Thomas is adopted as canonical, this might be explained by stating that the message was hidden at first but has now been communicated to all through the now-canonical Gospel of Thomas.
So, what would happen if Thomas replaced Mark amongst the canonical gospels?