The Gospel of Gamliel

Mus Zibii

Reaction score
I've seen the Ethiopian quasi-gospel listed in books of apocrypha, but I can't find it on the net. Anybody know anything about it or where I could find it without buying a book of stuff I've already read?

Also, a Christian related chunk in the Talmud is identified by a character within its context called Gamliel. This isn't what I'm talking about. As far as I know the Ethiopian gospel was a fully formed, extra-canonical gospel.
No. It seems that is how they sell that material. they kind of juggle the contents around like sheet music on albums so you have to keep buying more to get them all.
I'm afraid I've never heard of this one - never come across it among New Testament or Jewish Aporcypha. Sorry.
It may be a 'lost' book, written about but no longer around. Though I've never heard of it. I saw it listed in the content of The Apocryphal New Testament by Jk Elliot. Peter Kirby might know what if anything it is.
While this may not be a particulary scholarly view, i believe that the books of Aporcypha could in no way be Gods word for the reason that most of them are lost or only fragments survived.

Surely God would protect his Word. The 4 Gospels we have appear in vast numbers of manuscripts, while only a few ms. of Aporcypha survive.

While there is much cynisism about how the NT canon was put together by a council of bishops, with some suggesting that they may of had political or personal motives in their decisions, it is true that God will use people for His purpose - even if the motives of the people involved are not right. You only have to look at the histories in the old testament to see that occuring (The pharoah in exodus, God hardening hearts against him or his ppl etc).

Also it seems inevitable that there would be False Gospels springing up, one was even written in the middle ages (one i remember by a spanish convert to Islam, trying to discredit the 4 Gospels).

This view does raise one question though, ill leave that for now :D.

Let none read the gospel according to Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of Mani's three wicked disciples.
--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathechesis V (4th century A.D.).
That's a good point, but there's no claim in any religious writ other than the Quran that what is being read is from god, but rather an account of the works of god. I may be wrong but even the Jewish prophets were only writing in human tongue what Yaw supposedly passed on to them through revelation. The NT especially consists of letters and commentaries directed to specific groups. And the followers of the four gospels were at odds with one another. Iraneous was revolutionary in saying there was nothing wrong with worshipping more than one gospel. Then you have to consider why an almighty god would rely on the fragility of the written word, why 'his word' is written in numerous languages, etc. If only the NT is true, why does Jude and Paul quote heavily from the Book of Enoch? What of the Catholic apocrypha? What of the evidence that the authorship of the NT is pseudonymous? If one relies on what god says, then only Christianity is true, only Judaism is true, only Islam is true. To say nothing of lesser Abrahamic faiths - Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rasta, etc.

Also, that quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem concens what is now called the Infancy of Thomas and though its not at all historical there's really no evidence that it was authored by Mani or Marcion or Valentinus or any of the Orthodox boogy-men. As opposed to the Gospel of John, which is thoroughly gnostic and says...

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
I forgot to say, I e-mailed Peter Kirby and he said he didn't know anything about it (even though he links books that contain it). I've come to the conclusion that it must be redundant. I'm chasin' after a B-side.
Could well be a later mediaeval invention, if it exists. In which case, there's a good chance that it's simply ignored in theological research of the first couple of centuries. Heck, when I was compiling the New Testament Apocrypha here it was something of a push to include the Gospel of Barnabas precisely because it was relatively recent.
Robocombot-- Hey as far as I know none off thre 4 gospels were written by teh apostles.
Oh my god! LOL I found a Finnish copy. Any Fins here that could translate? I'm so cheap.
didymus said:
Robocombot-- Hey as far as I know none off thre 4 gospels were written by teh apostles.
If the Apostles did not approve of the Gospels we would have some evidence that they would of tried to fight against their propogation. They would not of been accepted by the early church either.
If we look in cities that are mentioned in the New Testament as places where the Apostles preached, such as Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Corinth, or Ephesus, or Rome, we find that in each of them there is a Christian congregation, headed by a bishop who is part of an unbroken and orderly line of bishops going
back to the time when the Church in that city was first established
by an apostle. Moreover, we find, if we do a little comparing, that
the Church in Ephesus and its bishop teach the same doctrines as the
Church in Antioch and its bishop.
While some of what you said may be true it is speculation that the apostles would have disapproved. As far as I know some of the apostles were dead by the time the gospels were written. And I'm not positive but the gospels were not used until the second century as a canon of scripture.

Also, if you read the texts there are clear differences in what is written in them; virgin birth(not mentioned in Mark) the empty tomb( first it is one man sitting there and then there are two men in another gospel) geneologies don't match. There are many other discrepancies to mention.

And how do you respond to the apocrypha that was originally part of the Roman Catholic Bible? This was included until after 1611 when King James translation came out, then it was removed. The same group that put the 4 gospels in included the apocrypha. Why was it removed?
KnightoftheRose said:

That's mondo-bizarro. Why would anyone want Pilate saint-ified (that's a word - who said it wasn't?!)?
Well, some traditions, building off of the clementia felt toward the Romans by the gospel authors, say Pilate converted and was martyred. In the... I forget now, Acts of Pilate maybe, Pilate practically makes the Christian argument before the High Priests himself. Christian traditions are queer things. If you believe them all, everyone in the gospels are related. LOL
didymus said:
And how do you respond to the apocrypha that was originally part of the Roman Catholic Bible?
Yeah, there's no argument in favor of a canon. Its all about faith. If a tradition says something that agrees with a certain creed, then its true. If it conflicts, then its heredox non-sense. There's no evidence whatsoever the apostles knew anything about written gospels. Peter and Paul in Acts and the Epistles argue at length about food laws. They use nature, Socratic reasoning, and Jewish scripture. Neither Peter nor Paul cite Jesus' own words negating the food laws which occur most clearly in Mark, considered to be the first penned gospel. Was Jesus' rock knowingly contradicting his Lord? Did Paul succeed in putting words in Jesus' mouth?