Testimony of Apostolic Fathers
In his Epistle to the Corinthians, usually dated about AD 95, Clement of Rome made an important reference to the “Gospel,” which was the central message that the apostles had received from Jesus Christ himself and had passed on to their hearers (42). On other occasions, Clement cited various teachings of Jesus which are found in all three synoptic Gospels, introducing them as “the words of the Lord Jesus” and “His hallowed words” (13) or as “the words of Jesus our Lord” (46).
Here we have an early, first century reference either more generally to the teachings of Jesus or to the text of one or more of the canonical Gospels themselves, which were recognized in either case as the words of Jesus.
Ignatius, writing seven epistles around AD 110–115 on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, quoted the statement found in Luke 24:39 as the words of Jesus (Smyrnaeans 3). Polycarp wrote his Epistle to the Philippians about AD 115, shortly after Ignatius’ letters, to which he makes reference (13). Polycarp also cites sayings found in all of the synoptic Gospels and, again, identifies them as the words of the Lord (2, 7).
The Didache, an ancient Christian manual, is usually dated somewhere between the end of the first century and the early second century AD. It frequently cites the words of Jesus as being authoritative, sometimes without reference to whose comments they are (1, 3, 16), once as the words of the Lord (9), and twice as the Gospel of the Lord (8, 15). In almost every case, the text contains teachings found in the synoptic Gospels (8, 15-16).
One interesting note is that several words from the Book of Acts are quoted in the Didache (4; cf. Acts 4:32), as are several examples from Paul’s teachings (see below). The point in the former instance is that such would not be accounted for by any collection of Jesus’ sayings. The most likely source is Acts itself.
The epistle of Barnabas, perhaps dated about AD 135, refers to Jesus’ saying in Matthew 22:14 as “scripture” (4). This is followed by a reference to Jesus’ “Gospel” and a quotation of His words which is found in the synoptics (5).
From Papias’ Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, written about AD 125–140, we obtain information which explicitly comments on the writing of the Gospels. Sadly, almost all of this work is no longer extant, with extracted fragments being all which remain. Yet, it is perhaps difficult to overemphasize the importance of the brief data which are still in existence.
Papias explains that Mark, as Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote his Gospel based on the teaching of this apostle, although not necessarily in chronological order. Then we are briefly told that Matthew wrote his account in Hebrew, with interested readers providing their own translations (III).
While anything which Papias may have said concerning the Gospels of Luke and John is not extant, a later manuscript summarizes Papias’ testimony that John composed his Gospel while he was an elderly man (XIX). Incidently, Papias does testify that he received such material from those who learned directly from the Lord’s apostles themselves (III).
To return to the significant issue of whether these early citations of Jesus’ words are from a sayings tradition (either written or oral) or from the canonical Gospels themselves, at least two things need to be mentioned. Initially, while none of the quotations of Jesus are specifically said to be taken from the Gospels, this conclusion could still be successfully argued on several fronts.
The Didache excerpt from Acts (4) also does not identify the source, yet it is unlikely that it comes from any sayings source both because of its nature and in that it lacks those characteristics. Further, the citations from Paul (see below) are from his epistles, even though the specific books are not mentioned. Lastly, the passages from Papias about the authorship of Matthew, Mark, and John do not cite sayings from Jesus but definitely do acknowledge the Gospel sources.26
And it should be noted that our original goal was not so much to prove the source for the sayings, but to show that the Gospels were accepted as authoritative well before the end of the second century. This would certainly appear to be evident from this data, especially in that Papias also relates the importance of these Gospels — three times he explains that Mark made no errors in recording his material about Jesus (III). Such was evidently important to him.
But, additionally, even if most of the citations of Jesus’ words are from a sayings source,27 the earliest post-apostolic authors clearly refer to these statements as inspired and authoritative, on a par with that of the Old Testament. So once again, the chief point here is that the early Gnostic Gospels of the mid to late second century did not appear in a milieu where “anything goes.” Rather, the sources for Jesus’ life (see below) and teachings were clearly established and accepted. That the canonical Gospels are the texts which incorporate these teachings also says something about their authority.
So the facts certainly appear to indicate that the canonical Gospels were widely recognized as being authoritative well before the late second century. In addition to 1 Timothy 5:18, six major Christian sources refer to the teachings of Jesus alternatively as the Gospel, the words of Christ and Scripture between AD 95 and 140.
Thus, while the Gospels were one major corpus in the New Testament canon to be accepted as sacred, the other was Paul’s epistles. Besides being called Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16, verses from Paul’s epistles are referred to, often as inspired, in Clement’s Corinthians (47), Ignatius’ Ephesians (10) and To Polycarp (1, 5), as well as in Polycarp’s Philippians (1, 3-4, 6, 12). In a few of these passages, Paul’s letters as a whole are both discussed and referred to as Scripture.
Therefore, when the earliest Gnostic Gospels were being written in the mid to late second century AD, at least the teachings of Jesus as presented in the canonical Gospels had already circulated for quite awhile and had been well established as Scripture. The same might be said for the Pauline corpus.
In fact, the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts as a whole cite most of the canonical New Testament books and borrow often from some of these works. The Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip, in particular, are examples of Gnostic writings which recognize most of the New Testament as authoritative.28
So, despite Pagels’ complaint that history is written by the victors,29 the four Gospels, in particular, were certainly not “forced” into the New Testament canon. Rather, there are fitting reasons why the biblical Gospels were the “victors” — the facts indicate that these writings are simply better-attested sources for the teachings of Jesus.
4. The death and resurrection of Jesus
Fourth, what about the status of the life of Jesus and his death and resurrection, in particular? Does the downplaying of these events in the Gospel of Thomas provide any challenge to the orthodox teaching of, say, the centrality of the gospel message?
Initially, it ought to be pointed out that the post-apostolic authors did not ignore the important aspects of the life of Jesus. Along with the emphasis on Jesus’ teachings which we just surveyed, a number of (usually) brief passages concentrate on historical interests. In particular, the death and resurrection appear to be the central concern in these texts.30