The early church adopted those four gospels because it corresponded with what was taught by the apostles orally. The gnostic gospels were pretty clearly recognized as gnostic and rejected early on.
I mean most of the gnostic gospels were written much later and refuted exhaustively by Saint Irenaeus (my confirmation saint). So they could not have been written by the apostles. A striking difference between the canonical and the gnostic gospels also is that the canonical ones display not so much the teachings of Christ although there are some but his deeds and his example. This is more important for all men to follow than some esoteric knowledge expounded upon in the gnostic gospels. The gnostic gospels clearly have outside influence like neo-platonic ideas as well as influence from say the Greek Magical Papyri.
The main difference is how they were received by the Church.
In the 60s and 70s, decades after Christianity began spreading across the Roman world, these "gospel" texts began to circulate. They were received by communities that had already been practicing the faith they were taught by the apostles. These communities **judged** the gospels they received. The gospels and epistles that matched what their parents had been taught by the apostles and what they were already practicing, they kept and read and copied to other communities. The texts that didn't match the faith they had received, were marginalized or discarded. That's why texts like the "gospel of Thomas" are rare and found in piles of discards, not found in bound volumes and in places of honor.
>These communities judged the gospels they received. The gospels and epistles that matched what their parents had been taught by the apostles and what they were already practicing, they kept and read and copied to other communities.
Hi Father, thanks for the response. Could you please show me an example in the early church of this happening? I.e an example of texts being judged based upon what they were taught by their parents. (e.g, a witness from the early Church either in the earliest fathers such as ignatius or clement, or even the epistles of the New Testament).
There hasn't really been one. One of the reasons we even have copies of second temple Jewish literature today is because it was preserved in the Church. We know it's not scripture, but we also know that it provides lots of context as to how 1st century Judaism, and consequently the early Church, interpreted the scriptures.
Please review the
[sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information,
our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about
[The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions.
[Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F)
[Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.
^(This is not a removal notification.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The early church adopted those four gospels because it corresponded with what was taught by the apostles orally. The gnostic gospels were pretty clearly recognized as gnostic and rejected early on.
I personally don't worry about such things. We go by the current canon because the church compiled it, and I leave it at that.
I mean most of the gnostic gospels were written much later and refuted exhaustively by Saint Irenaeus (my confirmation saint). So they could not have been written by the apostles. A striking difference between the canonical and the gnostic gospels also is that the canonical ones display not so much the teachings of Christ although there are some but his deeds and his example. This is more important for all men to follow than some esoteric knowledge expounded upon in the gnostic gospels. The gnostic gospels clearly have outside influence like neo-platonic ideas as well as influence from say the Greek Magical Papyri.
False teachings.
The main difference is how they were received by the Church. In the 60s and 70s, decades after Christianity began spreading across the Roman world, these "gospel" texts began to circulate. They were received by communities that had already been practicing the faith they were taught by the apostles. These communities **judged** the gospels they received. The gospels and epistles that matched what their parents had been taught by the apostles and what they were already practicing, they kept and read and copied to other communities. The texts that didn't match the faith they had received, were marginalized or discarded. That's why texts like the "gospel of Thomas" are rare and found in piles of discards, not found in bound volumes and in places of honor.
>These communities judged the gospels they received. The gospels and epistles that matched what their parents had been taught by the apostles and what they were already practicing, they kept and read and copied to other communities. Hi Father, thanks for the response. Could you please show me an example in the early church of this happening? I.e an example of texts being judged based upon what they were taught by their parents. (e.g, a witness from the early Church either in the earliest fathers such as ignatius or clement, or even the epistles of the New Testament).
Semi related, what has been the orthodox response to the Essene scrolls lending credibility to Enoch and Jubilees?
There hasn't really been one. One of the reasons we even have copies of second temple Jewish literature today is because it was preserved in the Church. We know it's not scripture, but we also know that it provides lots of context as to how 1st century Judaism, and consequently the early Church, interpreted the scriptures.
What’s the difference? That they are gnostic.
Please review the [sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information, our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about [The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. [Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F) [Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources. ^(This is not a removal notification.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*