Jesus' Missing Years

[LittlePerson]

Do any of you have opinions on the missing years from Jesus' life as told in the bible? Why do you think that they are missing? Was it intentional? Were they never written or were they written then taken out? I haven't ready the apocrypha or however it's spelled that is in a catholic bible nor have I read any of the "missing" books of the bible such as the book of Mary. Do those "extra" books that were deliberately left out of the bible explain or tell of any of these missing years in his life? I am just curious right now, well and lazy, I don't want to research more right now, cause I am not looking for all the info that is on the web which would likely come up about the beginning and end of his life. What do you think happened in all those years? What about the life of his actual brother during that time? I know I'm asking as if it were historical, but even if you don't believe it to be historical, which I don't really, but even as if it were a fable, why leave that out? What don't we know that we could or should?

[equinox2]

Hi Littleperson-

I think those missing years are missing because we simply don’t know what happened, and neither did the Gospel writers. Remember the approximate dates of writing – Mk 65-75, Mt & Lk 80-90, Jn 90-95, Pt 80-120, Th 60-130, My 130-160, others even later. Now, the childhood of Jesus was between 3 BCE and say 10 CE – Over a half century before the any gospel was written. Plus, there was little media or even writing then (under 10% of the population could even read). None of the gospels appear to be written by a witness, so those gospels are like me, today, writing about the life & death of John F. Kennedy, in a world without any newspapers, video, or anything. It’s actually even worse – Kennedy was famous, yet most people hadn’t even heard of Jesus even after 100 years of his death.

I doubt anyone cared about what some kid was doing in Palestine in 10 CE, much less anyone who could write it down. Copies of ancient myths like the birth story or the 12 year old in the temple don’t stand up to historical scrutiny. There were plenty of writers who made up stories about Jesus’s childhood after Christianity got going. You may enjoy reading some of them, such as the Infancy gospel of Thomas and such. Go here http://www.earlychristianwritings.com, and look at the dates on the left. Go to where it says 140, and you’ll see that gospel.

In there are stories like when Joseph accidentally cut a board too short in the carpenter shop, and then Jesus as a kid miraculously stretched it out to fit, or when Jesus killed a boy because the boy bumped into the kid Jesus while walking, then later on resurrected him. They don’t tell us anything about what Jesus’ childhood was really like, but they are fun.

That site is also a great resource for reading about early Christian writings, both those that were included in the Bible, and those that were excluded. You can buy the entire site on CD too.

Enjoy-

[Paracelsus]

Plus of course numerous non-non-canonical stuff which has Jesus going off on trips all over the place - India, Ireland, and Glastonbury are three that I'm aware of. In truth I think that the question should be why did three of the Gospel writers find it necessary to invent totally different versions of his birth, rather than concentrating on his teaching - which is what was important. The proto-type of Mark's gospel - the Ur-Markus material consists solely of what the early church regarded as important - the Kerygma - the urgent message to repent as the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, illustrated with parables & miracles. You won't find anything about the "lost years" because nobody at the time really cared - it wasn't important.

[LittlePerson]

Yes, but why wasn't it important? What was he learning then or doing that led up to his teaching years? Was he teaching during the "missing years"? I don't know, seems to me that a span of that many years out of someone's life seems important to me. But then maybe that's just me, but to place the title of savior of all humanity, I want to know all about that person, not just his birth, the teaching years, and his death.

[Nighthawk]

I figured he went to study in the East. I believe historically, Buddah came after Jesus, but the Hindu teachings in India were there.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I figured he went to study in the East. I believe historically, Buddah came after Jesus, but the Hindu teachings in India were there.
Actually Buddha predates Christianity by about 600 years.

I think that Jesus' "missing years" are not talked about because they're completely unimportant. As far as his ministry is concerned, his story starts at 30. That stuff about the virgin birth was just added later to get his life to jive with Isaiah.

[Nighthawk]

Ahh, thank you, I wondered if I had my dates screwed up or not... Makes one wonder what was going on...

[MoonDragn]

They don't even know when or where he was truly born. All those stories about him were just that... Stories. Some say Jesus was born in August about 4 AD.

Is there any wonder then, that nothing was really known about him?

[blackroseivy]

I think it must have been a tad earlier, but certainly the human being is inaccessible from our perspective.

[Pandoras]

I think that Jesus' childhood and early adulthood are not recorded or written about because they're not important to his ministry. I think he was just being raised like any other Jewish boy and probably learning a vocation (carpentry, I suppose). I don't believe that he traveled to the East or Britain. Any important details about Jesus childhood are provided by the Gospel writers.

[Rudas Starblaze]

as with every religion, there are things left out. why? we may never know. the only thing we can go off of is faith. Jesus' adolescence was probably a learning experience that ultimately ended with His biblical teachings. His birth was a milestone and His teachings and death were a milestone in christian beliefs. but, He still had to learn as He grew. it was never mentioned that He was born an all knowing being. if i'm not mistaken, when Jesus was 12, he turned up missing for a short time, and found by his mother, Marry, in the temple speaking to/praying to God. i've thought about that for a long time, "why is it after that, there was nothing mentioned about his growing up?" then it hit me. He was in the temple, speaking to/praying to God. so i figured that for the next 18 years, he was gaining the knowledge and wisdom from God himself via prayer (and in those days God would converse to those who followed him without a shadow of a dout), and learning all that which he would later teach in the gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.

thats just my opnion. im sure everyone will pick this apart, but so be it. its the most logical answere i can give.

[Ninyve]

My parents are into the historical Christ research. If I remember rightly there was a theory that their family spent some time living either in or nearby a Greek community, I forget if it was Greece they went to, or just a community of merchants now. I'll have to go look it up. Always kinda meant to anyway.

[Ben Trismegistus]

My parents are into the historical Christ research. If I remember rightly there was a theory that their family spent some time living either in or nearby a Greek community, I forget if it was Greece they went to, or just a community of merchants now. I'll have to go look it up. Always kinda meant to anyway.
There are a hundred theories, all equally unproveable.

[LittlePerson]

Any important details about Jesus childhood are provided by the Gospel writers.But see that's just the thing, I don't think that they were. To have had the gospels written 80-100yrs after jesus' death they couldn't have been written by his disciples because that would mean that matthew mark luke and john would have to have been well over 100 years old or around there. Yes, there were old people who lived a long time back then, but to accurately recall details that old or even if it was them that wrote it, I don't think so. Also why leave out others' accounts like Mary and Timothy and other writers out of the bible? I think that If someone were writing a biography of me, I want a lot of perspectives, not just a majority opinion. But I guess that's just me.

[Ben Trismegistus]

But see that's just the thing, I don't think that they were. To have had the gospels written 80-100yrs after jesus' death they couldn't have been written by his disciples because that would mean that matthew mark luke and john would have to have been well over 100 years old or around there. Yes, there were old people who lived a long time back then, but to accurately recall details that old or even if it was them that wrote it, I don't think so. Also why leave out others' accounts like Mary and Timothy and other writers out of the bible? I think that If someone were writing a biography of me, I want a lot of perspectives, not just a majority opinion. But I guess that's just me.
They weren't written by his disciples. It's pretty much agreed among Christian theologists that none of the gospel writers actually experienced Jesus' life first-hand.

[equinox2]

Pandoras wrote:

I think he was just being raised like any other Jewish boy and probably learning a vocation (carpentry, I suppose). I don't believe that he traveled to the East or Britain. Any important details about Jesus childhood are provided by the Gospel writers.

Except that the gospel writers said almost nothing about the time before his teaching. Mk & Jn have nary a word, Mt & Lk have two different and contradictory made up stories about a birth, and only Lk has the one 12 yr old story, which also appears to be made up (Rudas, you are thinking of Lk 2:40-50). Later gospels do have a lot (such as the ones I linked to in post #2), but those are so much later that they are clearly made up. The best guesses we can make about Jesus don’t include his childhood. Here is a review of most of what we can say about Jesus: (see post #25)
http://www.paganforums.org/showthread.php?t=87455&page=3

Oh, and a quick interesting side note about Jesus the carpenter – The greek word used in the gospels is “tekton”, which is used for any kind of laborer – so it could mean “carpenter”, “construction worker”, “ditch digger”, etc. It is one of the best supported pieces of evidence of who Jesus was for several reasons. 1 – it is multiply attested – several independent sources have it. 2. – it is contextually credible – there were plenty of real life “tektons” in ancient Palestine. 3. – It is unlikely to have been made up – why would early Christians make that up? That’s not something that makes their new religion look better.

Ben T wrote:

They (the canonical gospels) weren't written by his disciples. It's pretty much agreed among Christian theologists that none of the gospel writers actually experienced Jesus' life first-hand.

True, and in fact it appears that none of the things written in the Bible were written by anyone who experienced Jesus’ life first hand. There are a number of reasons that Scholars think this in addition to the age problem that Littleperson mentioned. 1st Peter has perhaps the strongest claim, and even it is quite a stretch.

Have a fun day all-

[cheddarsox]

It is not al all unusual that there are no stories (that even ring of truth) about young Jesus's life. There are many people from that time period in history that were more famous and influential than Jesus was (at that point in time) Many of whom amassed a large collections of writings, yet we know virtually nothing about their personal lives at all.

So I don't find it odd that we know nothing about the childhood of someone who did not gain much fame until many years after his death.

The situation with biographies is that someone else gets to tell the story, and they get to decide what mattered, what influenced a person, what were the highlights of a person's life, when in actuality, the person themselves might have felt very differently. Hindsight, the biographers personal feelings about the subject, the biographers agenda for writing the piece all influence what makes it onto the paper.

Likewise with what is chosen as canon (sp?) Scripture is chosen by what the folks in charge feel matters at the time and presents the message the way they want it presented. It is not about absolute truth, but very much about subjective truth.

If you have faith, then I would think you would trust that enough of the message, and the meat of the message had been preserved. If you do not have faith, I don't think any incidental details of the man's life would sway you.

If you believe Jesus to be the son of God, then what does it matter if he went to Egypt or Britain on his high school trip? And if you don't...is finding out where he got his education going to change that?

cheddar

[LittlePerson]

If you have faith, then I would think you would trust that enough of the message, and the meat of the message had been preserved. If you do not have faith, I don't think any incidental details of the man's life would sway you.

If you believe Jesus to be the son of God, then what does it matter if he went to Egypt or Britain on his high school trip? And if you don't...is finding out where he got his education going to change that?

cheddarYou know that's a good question. I think it could change my belief system if I knew the whole story. I mean, it's like being born then going into a coma, coming out 30 yrs later, having an ephiphany and teaching and stuff and then dying but just before you die, once you've come out of the coma, you find out that you were adopted by your dad and that your real dad is "the" God and your mom is a "virgin". I don't know. But then if you found out why you were in a coma and bothered to tell people, they might just believe your story. I'm just making up the coma part for lack of a better thing right now for modern day. But seriously, if I had scripture that told me he had studied several philosophies, or magic, or under Buddah, or whoever else, maybe I might change my mind. But the story I know is just not complete enough for me personally. I could never, ever for the life of me understand, and it was one of the things that changed my beliefs to begin with, is why if Jesus was God, had always been God and will be God, he had to be baptised by God who was really himself. Doesn't make one ounce of sense to me at all. Even if I look at the trinity as a four leaf clover metaphor, I cannot understand it. Jesus would in fact have to be a separate entity (devine or human) from God who was supposed to be him, in order to be baptised. I know this is:fofftopic but it's just something that has always itched me and always will. Also, why would Jesus go out of his way to call God "Father" if Jesus was God, "the" God? Why would he talk about God in the third person? Why would he pray to God in the third person instead of praying to himself or just meditating? Grrr, the whole trinity thing is infuriating to me because even if something is three in one, the parts of it should not have to act independent of each other if they are all the same darn thing. God annointed Jesus and Jesus praying to God to me makes it sound like they are not the same thing that Jesus wasn't always God. Sorry for the off topic focus here, I just know that it doesn't help. But perhaps something in those "missing years" could explain some of this for me. I dunno.

[Windsmith]

OK. Now that several people have given you serious, well considered answers, I feel safe saying this: read Christopher Moore's Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. It is the fictitious, hilarious, and often ludicrous account of just those "lost years." Not to give too much away, the theory is that he went looking for the 3 Magi who gave him the gifts in Bethlehem. Fantastic stuff.

[LittlePerson]

That'd be good. Lol. I can just imagine him finding the wise men and saying :crown: "Just what did you expect me to do with Frankinsence, Gold, and Mhyr as a baby? Milk, swadling clothes, or blankets would have been nice instead. Or even toys." Lol.

[equinox2]

Littleperson wrote:

Grrr, the whole trinity thing is infuriating to me because even if something is three in one, the parts of it should not have to act independent of each other if they are all the same darn thing.

Actually, Littleperson, you’ve noticed a problem that has been present for nearly 2000 years. All of the early Christianities were centered around Jesus – so he had to be at least special or divine. But they needed to tie to the old testament to gain respectability (as any Wiccan knows, claiming antiquity helps credibility). But the OT said over and over and over that there was only 1 God to be worshipped. Plus you had that darn holy spirit flying around. What to do, what to do????

The Roman church solved it by developing the trinity idea between the years of 150 and 300 CE. That’s why the trinity isn’t mentioned in the Bible, which is made up of books all written by 150. That’s also why the Gospels contain so many things that contradict the trinity (like the baptism and Jesus/Father conversations you mentioned).

This class explains the development of the trinity well. I highly recommend it, and it isn’t expensive ($35 for cassette – that’s like less than dinner & a movie for two). It is by a world expert on early Christianity, and isn’t preachy (you know me – I wouldn’t recommend some holy–roller thing).

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/6577.asp
it also has:

· the five common myths about early Christianity, including that it was illegal in the early empire and that Christians were pursued and persecuted (it was not declared illegal until the middle of the 3rd century, and was tolerated in most places, just as other religions were)
· the belief that early Judaism was exclusively monotheistic (though Judaism was unusual in the Roman world in that Jews insisted on worshipping only one God, you learn that there is good evidence that at different periods in history, Jews—like others in those pagan times—believed in the existence of multiple gods)
· the development of the canon (New Testament) as a way to both differentiate Christians from Jews and also create a body of text substantiating their views.
· the roots of baptism and the Eucharist in Jewish liturgical traditions and how rumors about the alleged licentiousness of the baptism ceremony led apologists such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian to write publicly about those heretofore secret practices.
· the wild charges of child sacrifices, cannibalism, and licentiousness often made against Christians, and the persecutions that did occur

The problems you mentioned are why newer Christian churches are rejecting the traditional trinity. That includes the Pentecostals, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. They all look back to the gospels, which pre-date the idea of the trinity, and see that the trinity isn't supported by the gospels.

Speaking of heretics, UU’s grew out of the Unitarians, who were called that as a derogatory term by the traditional Christians (who were “Trinitarians”).

May your mind soar like the eagle-

[Pandoras]

But see that's just the thing, I don't think that they were. To have had the gospels written 80-100yrs after jesus' death they couldn't have been written by his disciples because that would mean that matthew mark luke and john would have to have been well over 100 years old or around there. Yes, there were old people who lived a long time back then, but to accurately recall details that old or even if it was them that wrote it, I don't think so. Also why leave out others' accounts like Mary and Timothy and other writers out of the bible? I think that If someone were writing a biography of me, I want a lot of perspectives, not just a majority opinion. But I guess that's just me.

So you don't think that the important details about Jesus childhood are provided by the Gospel writers. Ok, that's fine. It's what you think. What am I supposed to say? The subjects of authorship and canon (why some books were included in the Bible and others were not) are complex and not ones I'm willing to get into here. Although I minored in Religious Studies in college and have a little knowledge of the topics at hand, as a Pagan, I prefer to devote the bulk of my theological studies to Paganism.


Except that the gospel writers said almost nothing about the time before his teaching....

When quoting me, you left out the most important part and my answer to the original question. I think that Jesus' childhood and early adulthood are not recorded or written about because they're not important to his ministry.

[semi]

I'm certainly no expert, but the pattern of Jesus' life seems to fit the pattern of other prophets. There is often a virgin birth or other extraordinary childhood circumstances, then they disappear. In some of the stories the person goes into seclusion in the desert or on a mountaintop or whatever for many years, then they return as a prophet. They go out and discover the knowledge and wisdom and the transformational experience that makes them a prophet. So during those missing years of Jesus' life, maybe he was just out there finding God. He hadn't built up a following yet so no one wrote about it. And when he came back he might not have talked about it because what he gained from the experience was more important than the experience itself. Just an idea.

[Ninyve]

There are a hundred theories, all equally unproveable.

true... but fun to debate anyway :flowers:

[LittlePerson]

So you don't think that the important details about Jesus childhood are provided by the Gospel writers. Ok, that's fine. It's what you think. What am I supposed to say? The subjects of authorship and canon (why some books were included in the Bible and others were not) are complex and not ones I'm willing to get into here.
Ok first off, I never said the beginning and yet weren't important. I was saying that just them alone isn't enough to say get me to blindly follow him. I said that without the whole picture that middle part I wasn't getting the whole story and I'm not satisfied without it.
Also, the subjects of authorship and why some books were and were not included was part of my initial post in my thread here and is topic, and something I wanted to discuss, so if you'd like to discuss it feel free.

And Equinox thanks again for the research. I knew about the origin of the meaning behind uu'ism. Anyway, thanks again. If I had the money, I'd definitely get that tape. We can't even afford dinner and a movie right now so I wouldn't be able to afford the tape.
Till later everyone. Gotta go to work.

[Paracelsus]

"3 Magi" ? Where does it say that exactly?

[Ben Trismegistus]

"3 Magi" ? Where does it say that exactly?
It doesn't. The number of magi was assumed to be 3 because the number of gifts named was 3.

[cheddarsox]

Littleperson,

If your library has it, get out "Lost Books of the Bible", read the ones pertaining to Jesus' boyhood. It will become clear why they aren't included in the canon. As others mentioned, he sometimes used his powers in questionable ways, that, if true, would prove to turn off some followers. Fun reading though.

Also, the gospel of Thomas and other "lost" gospels provide some interesting reading, most libraries had them. If not actually explaining where Jesus studied, the themes and tones certainly point in interesting directions, Greek gnosis influence in some. Again...no way to know how accurate they are, but they are very interesting, so they will not prove to be a waste of time.

They certainly portray a different side of Jesus than the pop culture!

cheddar

[LittlePerson]

thanks cheddar, will do._happydanc

[soilsigh aingeal]

Disclaimer: My memory sucks so bear with me Oh and I'm not claiming this to be true :)

I saw someone post on another forum that in Hindui or Buddism, when a lamb dies, they consult the stars (star of David) and go to find the reincarnated lamb (3 magi). When they find the baby, when they reach a certain age, with the parents permission, they take them to learn from them, for a few years... and that this is what went on with Jesus... if this is all true (I mean, the tradition), than I would find it likely... I'm not sure I'd believe it though.

[LittlePerson]

Disclaimer: My memory sucks so bear with me Oh and I'm not claiming this to be true :)

I saw someone post on another forum that in Hindui or Buddism, when a lamb dies, they consult the stars (star of David) and go to find the reincarnated lamb (3 magi). When they find the baby, when they reach a certain age, with the parents permission, they take them to learn from them, for a few years... and that this is what went on with Jesus... if this is all true (I mean, the tradition), than I would find it likely... I'm not sure I'd believe it though.Yes, I've read about how the buddhists find the next dali lama and it's like that. Now if that happened with Jesus, I'd be more inclined to believe that perhaps he was indeed a divine leader, but still not God. Just as I don't believe that Guatama Buddah "The Buddah" is more than that. I don't believe he's God, but that a lot of his teachings are wise to follow though still not all. I think its a matter of conscience and knowing what is good and bad when it comes to knowing what teachings to follow.

[KiNoRonin]

I figured he went to study in the East. I believe historically, Buddah came after Jesus, but the Hindu teachings in India were there.


Actually, Budha lived at around 450 BC, and I have seen a Two Hour A&E Biography Special on JC and it stated that during those years when JC disappeared that there were records in some Budhistic Monastaries in Tibet discribing a person from the Middle East befitting JC's discription arriving and spending a few years Studying Ancient Budhistic Philosophies and Scrolls.

Ki No Ronin

[LittlePerson]

I went to the library Saturday. I go every weekend. Anyway, I got two books on lost scriptures and have begun to read it. The one that I've started, the beginning has scripture that was left out of The Old Testatment or Torah portion of the bible as well as New Testament scripture. I've only begun and I've really discovered a lot that I didn't know about the garden of eden for one thing and the fall of the angels for another. I haven't gotten to the new testament part yet.

[equinox2]

Hi-

The books LittlePerson is referring to are available on line free for anyone now at www.earlyjewishwritings.com and www.earlychristianwritings.com. They list them by date probably written, which is very useful in putting them in perspective. Many of them (whether in the Bible or not) are later forgeries, and so don't say too much that we can take as accurate. But they're still fun.

Have a great day-

[LittlePerson]

Really? Forgeries? Hmm, I wondered about some of that. I have so far read some about Enoch and Jubilee which is very interesting about the "son of man" and the fall of the angels. It is those fallen angels from which Tolken got inspiration. Also, I find it interesting that the testament of abraham changes so drastically from a universalist idea of salvation from one book to total judgement and damnation of sinners in the next book of his. I also read that Michelchizdek (sorry if the spelling is wrong) had been born of a virgin birth like Jesus and led a holy life in which he could have been a christ figure but they said nope to him. Hehee. So interesting what I'm learning.

Also the books I got have exerpts from the scriptures along with a time line in the front of the book and explanations of some of the scripture. But not the whole of each "book" that was uncovered. I find it interesting that the whole "son of man" prophecy was written possibly before 1CE and refers to Enoch being the "savior", which would place it before Jesus' birth.

[Shatril]

When they found Jesus in the temple preaching when he was 12, he is quoted as saying that he must be about his fathers business. Now this can be construed that he either went to be a carpenter like Joseph, or he was about his heavenly father's business. I have heard that Jesus was in a Mystery School in the East, and if you look at the Nag Hamadi and Berlin Codex Gospels one can almost believe that. His teachings from those gosples while not exactly in sink with the conventional gosples do not have huge conflicts, but they do teach a religion that does not require a huge centralized organization to broker heaven. It is more that "thou art God", and you can be happy for the rest of your life. Now if this isn't Eastern Religion I don't know what is. Just my thoughts here.
Shatril

[Shatril]

Hi-

The books LittlePerson is referring to are available on line free for anyone now at www.earlyjewishwritings.com and www.earlychristianwritings.com. They list them by date probably written, which is very useful in putting them in perspective. Many of them (whether in the Bible or not) are later forgeries, and so don't say too much that we can take as accurate. But they're still fun.

Have a great day-
What makes you say they are forgeries? And many of them are considered valid writings by many theologians. I'm pretty sure that the gospel of mary and thomas are not forgeries.

[equinox2]

Shatril wrote:


What makes you say they are forgeries? And many of them are considered valid writings by many theologians. I'm pretty sure that the gospel of mary and thomas are not forgeries.

Members of a religion may often say a certain source is genuine if it furthers their religion. This occurs in all religions. If we go by the fact that some claim it to be true, then we have to accept everything as real – thus, we would have to believe that all go to heaven because Abraham said it (Abr), and that most go to hell because Jesus said it (Mt), and that there is no Hell, because Jesus said it (Thm), and that all DON’T go to heaven because Abraham said it (Abr), and that Islam is true because Mohammad said it (Qur), and that reincarnation is true because Krisha said it (Bgita), etc. Then it is all hopelessly contradictory, not to mention often very sensational (like Jesus being followed by a talking cross, talking to the clouds in the Gospel of Peter).

So in every case, we can’t just assume it is true because someone claims it. We have to weigh evidence, and decide what is most likely. Forgeries were extremely common in the ancient world – after all, if you are writing, you want your message read, and who’s gonna read something by some unknown like you? Better to sign your essay “Plato” – everyone wants to read Plato, especially “secret and undiscovered works”! We have forgeries all over – for most famous authors, there are more forgeries than authentic works.

So how to Scholars guess which are forgeries?


Here are some ways:

1. Age of oldest copy- this isn’t very useful, because very few documents have copies that are really old, plus, new copies of old documents can be made – like my copy of the Bible was printed in 1991, but it contains books like Genesis that are thousands of years old. The oldest copies of the G of Mary are around 250 CE, those of Thomas are also in the 3rd century. This sets a “latest” date.
2. Word Usage – if I found a document that said that Jesus said “you have to have mass, with transubstantiation during communion, and you have to say 5 hail mary’s…”, I’d know it wasn’t written before these words were used in later centuries. Think of Shakespeare “wherefore art thou romeo”, etc. The way one speaks says when the speaker is speaking. We know a lot about what words were used when because we have lots of letters and discussion from the time period we are talking about (300 BCE to 600 CE). This sets an “earliest” date.
3. Ideas conveyed – If I found a letter in my attic that said “we need to get power to the people to fight the establishment, because then we can tune in, turn on, and drop out, with peace, love and drugs for all! I write this to you as we fight the civil war, signed, Abraham Lincoln”, then I’d be able to guess that it was written in the 1960’s, and that it is a forgery. From history, we know when certain ideas became prevalent. This sets an “earliest” date.
4. The earliest mention by other authors, in works of verified date. For instance, Hippolytus of Rome (Haer. 5.7.20) cites G of Thm around 230 CE, so G o Thm was written before that. This sets a “latest” date.

5. Mention of Historical events. For instance, if I find a document that talks about the Nuking of Hiroshima, it must date to 1945 or later. This sets an “earliest” date.
6. Knowledge of world of the year claimed. For instance, if I find a document that says it was written during the civil war, but the author is clearly clueless about how people lived then, and describes ways of life in the 1940s (like, say, buying a new refridgerator for most of a year’s wages), then it was probably written in the 1940’s, & not in 1862. This sets an “earliest” date.

Taken together, each of these factors suggests a date range, for instance, say I found a document, and applying each of these, found each suggested:

1. Before 420 CE
2. after 230 CE
3. after 210 CE
4. Before 250 CE
5. after 140 CE
6. around 240 to 310 CE

So taken together, all the data suggest this example letter (not G o Mary) was written around 230 to 250 CE. Then, I look and see if the claimed author lived then. If the author claimed is, say, Socrates, who died around 600 years before then, I’d say it was a forgery. Even if the author was alive when it was written, evidence must be used to show that HE wrote it. For instance, if I write a book and claim it was written by the Dali Lama, we don’t just believe it just because the Dali Lama is alive at the time the book was written.

Those are the criteria scholars use to guess what is a forgery and what isn’t. Using these, it appears that many of the books of the Bible are clear forgeries. The gospel of Mary appears to be a forgery due to criteria 3, 4 &6. Thomas is an interesting case, and is the single strongest case of a non-canonical gospel being authentic. Parts of Thomas probably date back to 70 CE, about 4 decades after Jesus’s death. However, other parts were clearly added as late as the 2nd century.

For Thomas, you might be interested in reading some of the books suggested here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

Same for Mary, here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html

You said “many theologians consider them valid”. True. Even if something is a forgery, it could still contain good information. For instance, the story of the Good Samaritan appears to have been made up (we can discuss that if you care why). Nonetheless, it is still a good moral story. Another example – the “ let he who is without sin cast the first stone” story about Jesus (John chapter 8) was added to the Bible around 1000 to 1100 CE. Obviously, “John” had been dead for 1,000 years so he didn’t write it – some Christian monk must have made the story up and added it. It’s a forgery – nonetheless, it’s a nice story, isn’t it? Doesn’t it have a nice moral?

So even if something is a forgery, it can still be useful to us. Otherwise we’d have to throw out much of the Naq Hammadi library.

I really shouldn’t take this much time on this. If you want to learn more about how historians learn about these things, I’d suggest this class on tape:


http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/6593.asp (audio form, $35)

I found that listening to them in my car on my commute worked great. They may also be in your library if you don’t want to spend money.

I hope that answered some of our questions. Those are some of the reasons why I guess that the Gospel of Mary is a forgery. Do you have any reason to think it is authentic other than the fact that the writer said he was Mary (which means next to nothing)? I agree that many scholars think it is “valid” (has good ideas) – but I don’t know of any by name that think Mary actually wrote it. Thomas has at least some claim to authenticity, but again was probably written by someone other than Thomas according to the data we have.

P. S. Note – I’m not arguing for traditional Christianity. The canonical Gospels in the Bible also have plenty of problems, and none of them appear to have been written by anyone who saw Jesus during his life. In fact, it doesn’t look like we have any writing, in any book, not even in the Bible, by anyone who saw Jesus during his life.

Have a great day-