I asked ForeverHers about this on the thread titled Believer. FH suggested I start it's own topic.

I haven't read the "missing gospels" myself. However, my priest has talked about them and the early church.
I asked FH if these early writings were included in his statement of about the bible excluding gospels not included, and his view of the selection process by which some of the writings became part of the canon and some were left out.

However, I welcome thoughts from everyone, especially facts and theories and opinions.

Just so everyone knows, I'm not having a crisis of faith. I'm just curious how different people and denominations appraoch this.

And, KA, if you're Morman, I'd appreciate you chiming in, including the BoM.

I'm not sure from what you wrote what "missing gospels" you are referring to, but it might be what are referred to as the Gnostic Gospels.

This may be of some help as a starting point to exploring your question:

About the "missing gospels"

My "view" of the process that was used to establish the Gospels (and all 66 books) is that it was very carefully and correctly done.

Totally agree. And thank you for upholding traditional Christian values and beliefs.

Greengables - Also, if you'd like another good resource for research on your question concerning the Canon and what books were included and why "those" books were included, I would recommend a book called Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell. Chapter 3 of that book discusses The Canon in detail, but in Outline format that makes it very easy to read and understand.

Ah, yes, that's them.

FH, can you elucidate what you mean by "very carefully done"?

The way I see it God spoke through his prophets in the beginning. Those words got told over and over before being written down. When those histories were told, did the storytellers have free will? If so, than would not those histories be subject to the same phenamena found in oral histories?

Then there's the gospels which were told years before being written down, and they were based on the memories of the apostles. Would God have protected those memories? Obviously, not every moment of Jesus's time since he realized he was the Messiah was captured. Did God or Man chose what was remembered and written down? When the early church decided which books to go into the canon, did they have free will? If divinely inspired, to what extent?

As for translations, they are very tricky. Try reading different translations of the Inferno, for example, or Beowolf. Makes a huge difference in the English language in particular. English is very tricky because we have so many words. I don't remember the exact figure but I think we have three times as many words as Spanish. The English speaking peoples are nuanced peoples.

In my above post, I used the word "elucidate." I could have chosen Define, Explain, Illuminate, Expand upon, or Tell. But, they actually mean something slightly different. Define would restrict, put parameters on the FH's thought. Explain is didactic, Illuminate is the closest, meaning to shed light, but applies more to the physical world. Expand upon would suggest that the orginal thought is pretty much there, just needs to go further. Tell me is rather forceful in this case, more of an directive. Oops. I forget Share with me. So, you can see how translating anything into English is a problem. Connotations of words change the tone, if not the literal meaning.

So, each time the Bible is translated, how much free will in word choice do the translators have?


In closing I'd like to send up a personal prayer of thanks for Guttenberg. Without him, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Not without writing a "book," as the saying goes.

So let me just quote from "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" as partial answer to you question and encourage you to read up on it on your own for a broader perspective.


"Meaning of the word "Canon"

The word canon comes from the root word "reed) (English word "cane"; Hebrew form ganeh and Greek Kanon). The "reed" ws used as a measuring rod and eventually meant "standard."

Origen used the word "canon to denote what we call the 'rule of faith,' the standard by which we are to measure and evaluate...." Later it meant a "list" or "index."

One thing to keep in mind is that the church did not create teh canon or books included in what we call Scripture. Instead, the church recognized the books that were inspired from their inception. They were inspired by God when written.


"Tests of a book for inclusion in the Canon."

We don't know exactly what criteria the early church used to choose the canonical books. There were possibly five guiding principles used to determine whether or not a New Testament book is canonical or Scripture. Geisler and Nix recore these five principles:

1. Is it authoritative - did it come from the hand of God? (Does this book come with a divine "thus saith the Lord"?)

2. Is it prophetic - was it written by a man of God?

3. Is it authentic [The fathers had the policy of "if in doubt, throw it out." This enhanced the "validity of their discernment of canonical."]

4. Is it dynamic - did it come with the life-transforming power of God?

5. Was it received, collected, read and used - was it accepted by the people of God?

Peter acknowledged Paul's work as Scripture parallel to the Old Testament Scripture (II Peter 3:16)

(Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p.29)


The chapter includes much more information relative to the books that comprise the Old Testament and the New Testament canonical books and why "other" books (i.e. the Apocrypha) were not included as part of the Canon.

Specific to the Apocrypha:

Historical testimony of their exclusion

Geisler and Nix give a succession of 10 testimonies of antiquity against accepting the Apocrypha:

1. "Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C.-A.D.40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically and even recognized the threefold division, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

2. "Josephus (A.D.30-100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22. Neither does he quote these books as Scripture.

3. "Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

4. "The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D.90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

5. "No canon or council of the Christian church of the first four centuries recognized the Apocrypha as inspired.

6. "Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.

7. "Jerome (340-420), the great scholar and translator of the Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. He disputed across the Mediterranean with Augustine on this point. He at first refused even to translate the Apocryphal books into Latin, but later he made a hurried translation of a few of them. After his death, and literally "over his dead body," the Apocryphal books wer brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version.

8. "Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation periond rejected the Apocrypha.

9. "Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

10. "Not until A.D.1546, in a polemical action at the Counter Remformation Council of Trent, did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

(Evidence That Demands A Verdict, pp.35-36)


There is a lot more information in that chapter about New Testament Canon, etc. if you want to expand on this inquiry for yourself.


With respect to "other gospels" of more current "minting," the Apostle John (the "apostle whom Jesus loved") wrote the following definitive declaration in the last book of canon of the New Testament, that CLOSED the apostolic "office" and the authority given by God to the them to write and establish the New Testament, as the writers of the Old Testament were also inspired BY God:

"I warn everyone who hears the words fo the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in thsi book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He (Jesus) who testifies to these things says, "Yes I am coming soon." Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen. (Rev.22:18-21, NIV)


With John's death, the apostolic "office" closed and the authority given to write and establish the New Covenant Scripture ended. There are no new "apostles" as that was an office specifically established by Jesus for the fulfillment of the commission He had given them.

If you are asking for my opinion here, rather than stating a rhetorical question, I will give you my opinion as to an answer.

I believe that the translators have/had FULL FREE WILL.

There is nothing "wrong" with "free will," but they put their will under submission to the Lord's will and very carefully try/tried to translate not just the word itself, but all the meaning of the word in the context in which was used.

If I can give you a "modern day" example; my wife's aunt and uncle lived for years with a tribe of Aborigines in Australia. There was no written language when they started, so they first had to learn the language, then develop a written language of the people, then they translated the New Testament into that language. A process that took decades and in which they were extemely careful to convey not just the "word" but the meaning the word represents so that it would be understandable in the native language as it was intended to be conveyed in the Scripture. They DID NOT misuse their "free will" to change things to make the translations say something "different" or to create "their own gospel" to further their own "interests."