Crash Goes the Da Vinci Code/Part 8

By: Dr. Wayne Barber; ©2005
Christians have been concerned about false gospels since the early years of Christianity. In his classic Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200) refers to “an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves [heretics] had forged, to bewilder the minds of the fool­ish.”

by Dr. Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries, P.O. Box 2526, Frisco, TX, 75034. 214-618-0912. (Used by permission.)

Previous Article

Are the Gnostic Gosopels Reliable Documents?


The Nag Hammadi gospels “highlight glaring discrepancies and fabrications … [in] the modern Bible.” (Page 234)

The Nag Hammadi scrolls are “the earliest Christian records.” (Page 245)

“Fortunately for historians… some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert.” (Page 234)


Christians have been concerned about false gospels since the early years of Christianity. In his classic Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200) refers to “an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves [heretics] had forged, to bewilder the minds of the fool­ish.”[1] One of the Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 is The Gospel of Truth, about which Irenaeus says: “It agrees in nothing with the Gos­pels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blas­phemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of Truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us by the Apostles,… [then] that which has been handed down from the Apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of Truth.”[2] Origen (A.D. 185-253) noted that “the Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many.”[3]

Presently there are three theories about the formation of the Nag Hammadi collection. One theory is that the library belonged to a Sethian Gnostic sect who lived in the Nag Hammadi area. Seth, a son of Adam, was highly regarded as the ancestor of the race of enlightened Gnostics and is mentioned prominently in some Nag Hammadi texts. A second theory is that the library was collected by Christian Gnostic monks before the time when such monks were considered heretics and consequently expelled. Such monks may have hidden their gospels for safekeeping. A third theory is that the library was collected by orthodox monks for use in refuting Gnostic heretics. Regardless of which theory is correct, Da Vinci Code enthusiasts believe the Gnostic Gospels are authentic. But are they?

Most scholars agree that the Gnostic Gospels date far too late to be reliable. The earliest Gnostic Gospels may date as early as A.D. 150, but most date in the third and fourth centuries. Further, there are no historical or geographical ele­ments in these “gospels” that can be objectively verified, as is true in the canoni­cal gospels. There are certainly no genuine eyewitness accounts in these late gospels. Moreover, no one—not even liberal theologians—believes The Gospel of Thomas was written by the biblical Thomas, and that The Gospel of Philip was written by the biblical Philip.

The canonical gospels have been thoroughly tested in regard to history, and have been found to be exceedingly accurate. Earlier I noted that scholar William Ramsey set out to prove, through many years of research, that Luke was not a reliable historian, either in his Gospel or in the book of Acts (which he also authored). Following his exhaustive study, Ramsey concluded that Luke was a first-rate historian in terms of geography, people, place names, and the like. And, as noted earlier, Luke’s Gospel is dated at A.D. 60. Recall that Luke’s Gospel is mentioned as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18, and 1 Timothy is dated at A.D. 63. Hence, Luke’s gospel was recognized as Scripture within three years of its writ­ing—hundreds of years before most of the Gnostic gospels.

Related to this, I need to point out that the apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution, which took pace in A.D. 64. Paul was certainly still alive as of the end of the book of Acts. This means Acts was written prior to A.D. 64. We further know that Luke wrote his Gospel (“Luke”) before he wrote the book of Acts, which means that Luke was written around A.D. 60, which places him notably earlier than the Gnostic Gospels.

Scholars have often pointed out that all four canonical gospels must date prior to A.D. 70 for one simple fact: All four of them fail to mention anything at all about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in A.D. 70 at the hands of Titus and his Roman warriors. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be on a par with the Holocaust in modern times. For this horrific event not to be men­tioned can mean only one thing: the four canonical gospels must have been written prior to this time.

As far as the Gnostic Gospels go, one does not have to read them for long to discover that they are irreconcilable with the New Testament Gospels. This is an important point, because if the historical evidence supports the New Testament Gospels (as I have argued above), the Gnostic Gospels are thereby proven to be false and doctrinally unreliable. Consider the following:

1. The Gnostic Gospels portray Jesus as commanding the disciples to keep his teaching secret, but the New Testament Jesus commissioned the disciples to share the good news with the whole world. The Gospel of Thomas begins with these words: “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke…”[4] The Apocryphon of John, another Gnostic document, contains a sober warning by Jesus of a curse that would fall on any who share his secret teaching with outsid­ers: “Cursed be everyone who will exchange these things for a gift, or for food, or for drink, or for clothing, or for any other such things.”[5] Jesus also allegedly commanded John to put written records of his secret teachings in “a safe place.” Does this sound like the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount?

It was quite common among Gnostics to be protective of the gnosis, or secret teaching. Nag Hammadi analyst John Dart comments: “The ‘curse’ of Jesus in The Apocryphon of John, put into Jesus’ mouth by Gnostic authors, followed a time-honored practice of mystic groups warning their members that such sacred scriptures should not fall into the wrong hands. For historians, much more inter-esting was the advice to put the writings in a safe place. In the case of the Gnos­tic papyri, the place, wherever it was, had been ‘safe’ for centuries [until 1947].”[6]

Such a secretive attitude, however, is completely unlike the Jesus of the New Testament Gospels. In what is traditionally called “The Great Commission,” Jesus commanded the disciples: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…” (Matt. 28: 19). Before He ascended into heaven following His resurrection, Jesus said to the disciples: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Clearly, the New Testament Jesus wanted people everywhere to hear the good news of salvation.

2. The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels are utterly incompat­ible with Gnosticism. Some of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels may be open to a variety of interpretations, but this is a far cry from saying that they can be con­strued to teach any form of Gnosticism. Among other things, the Gnostics taught

  1. the existence of both a transcendent God and a lower God (the Creator-Demiurge), whom Gnostics equated with Yahweh of the Old Testament;
  2. spirit is good but matter is evil;
  3. man’s spirit is imprisoned in the material body but will escape this imprisonment at death; and
  4. there is no physical resurrection of the body.

The New Testament Jesus taught none of these ideas. Contrary to Gnostic teachings, scholar Gary Habermas tells us that “Jesus does not refer to Yahweh as less than the supreme Creator and God of the universe. Neither does he speak of the physical body as a necessary evil which imprisons the soul. With regard to eternal life, Jesus taught the [physical] resurrection of the body, not the [mere] immortality of the soul.”[7]

3. The Gnostic Gospels offer us a redemption through gnosis, whereas New Testament redemption is based wholly on faith in Christ. The truth of The Gospel of Truth (for the Gnostic) is the knowledge that he is “a being from above.”[8] This “gospel” assures us that “whosoever has knowledge understands from whence he has come and whither he goes.”[9] The Teachings of Silvanus, another Gnostic document, portrays Jesus as teaching salvation by enlightenment: “Bring in your guide and your teacher. The mind is the guide, but reason is the teacher. They will bring you out of destruction and dangers…. Enlighten your mind…. Light the lamp within you.”[10]

Contrary to this, redemption in the New Testament is a free gift for those who believe in Jesus: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16); “Whoever believes in him [God’s Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18); “Everyone who looks to the Son and be­lieves in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40b); “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life” (John 6:47); “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies” (John 11:25).

4. The Gnostic Gospels portray Jesus as a “Gnostic Revealer” and not as Christ the Savior and Redeemer. In the New Testament, when Jesus asked Peter, “Who do you say I am?” (Matt. 16:15), Peter rightly responded, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 16). In The Gospel of Thomas, however, Jesus and the disciples are portrayed in a much different light:

Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell Me whom I am like.” Simon Peter said to Him, “You are like a righteous angel.” Matthew said to Him, “You are like a wise philosopher.” Thomas said to Him, “Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom You are like.” Jesus said, “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.” And He took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?” Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up.”[11]

F. F. Bruce, a noted Bible scholar who has done significant research on the Nag Hammadi documents, detects Gnostic elements in this encounter: “Here the answers [to Jesus’ question] are attempts to depict Jesus as the Gnostic Revealer. Those who have imbibed the gnosis which he imparts (the ‘bubbling spring’ which he has spread abroad) are not his servants but his friends, and therefore ‘Master’ is an unsuitable title for them to give him.”[12]

As for the three words Jesus secretly uttered to Thomas, Bruce says these words conveyed to Thomas Jesus’ hidden identity and “are probably the three secret words on which, according to the Naassenes, the existence of the world depended: Kaulakau, Saulasau, Zeesar.”[13] Jesus as a Gnostic Revealer is often portrayed as communicating secret things to one or more disciples in the Gnostic Gospels. How unlike this is to the New Testament Jesus who openly communi­cated His teachings to all who would listen.

5. The Gnostic Gospels cannot properly be called gospels. Neither The Gos­pel of Truth nor The Gospel of Philip, as case examples, contain an orderly account of the birth, life, deeds, death, and resurrection of Christ. Both lack Old Testament background, ethical exhortations, and end-time eschatology. Igno­rance is said to be the primary culprit of man’s condition, not sin.[14] Therefore, in no sense of the word can these documents be properly referred to as gospels.

The Gospel of Thomas is another case example. F. F Bruce notes: “No collec­tion of sayings of Jesus can properly be called a Gospel because by its nature it has no passion narrative, and the passion narrative is the core of the essential gospel. But least of all can this collection be called a Gospel because not only does it lack a passion narrative but it includes only one saying (55) remotely hinting at the passion.”[15] Moreover, unlike the New Testament Gospels, the content of The Gospel of Thomas is “anti-Judaistic, anti-Old Testament, anti-ritualistic and almost antimoralistic.”[16]

By contrast, the four New Testament Gospels all contain orderly accounts of the birth, life, deeds, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They also point to the glorious “good news” of redemption in Jesus Christ, and are therefore “gos­pels” in the truest sense of the word.


  1. Irenaeus, ADVERSUS HAERESES, i.20.1.
  2. THE BIBLICAL WORLD, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), pp. 404-405.
  3. FIRST HOMILY ON LUKE; cited by Yamauchi, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCY­CLOPEDIA (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1980), s.v. “Nag Hammadi,” Vol. 3, p. 182.
  4. THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, ed. James M. Robinson (San Francisco: Harper & Row Pub­lishers, 1978), p. 118.
  6. Dart, p. 16.
  7. Gary R. Habermas, ANCIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS (Nashville,: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), p. 64.
  8. Cited in THE BIBLICAL WORLD, p. 405.
  9. Ibid.
  10. TEACHINGS OF SILVANUS, 85.24-106.14, in NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, pp. 347-56; cited by Pagels, GNOSTIC GOSPELS (New York: Random House, 1979), p. 127.
  11. THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, Saying 13, Cited in THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, p. 119.
  12. F. F. Bruce, JESUS & CHRISTIAN ORIGINS OUTSIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids: World Missions. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), p. 118.
  13. Bruce, p. 118.
  14. THE BIBLICAL WORLD, p. 405.
  15. Bruce, p. 155.
  16. THE BIBLICAL WORLD, p. 407.

Read Part 9

Leave a Comment