Christianity today: is it the same as it was in A.D. 33?
Updated: Oct 26
How can we know if orthodox Christianity, with its doctine concerning Jesus and the books of the New Testament (NT), lines up with that of the early church in the first century AD?
Quick Chapter Links:
Introduction
Many years after Dan Brown’s bestseller The Da Vinci Code, social media platforms are still buzzing with
new “revelations” about church history. These involve claims that the church suppressed the truth about its past and the New Testament (NT) canon, and that Jesus – rather than being the redeemer of humanity’s sins with both divine and human natures – was merely a human teacher who promoted a mystical spirituality (largely Gnostic in nature). According to this revisionist view, orthodox Christianity was a fiction created by a male, power-hungry hierarchy in the fourth century.
It is further claimed that the Bible – particularly the New Testament – is a distorted and late collection of hand-picked documents, chosen by clergy intent on pushing a particular myth and driven by a political agenda. Critics often point to the Council of Nicaea that was convened in AD 325, suggesting that before Nicaea there were many thriving Christian communities with different beliefs about Jesus, and that the more powerful orthodox wing crushed eventually these “equally valid” beliefs. The assertion, then, is that the NT canon was created from the “top down” – that the church hierarchy dictated which books were included and which were discarded.
Rather than focusing much on the council and Constantine’s purported role in it, this article will examine the revisionist claims concerning early Christianity and the establishment of the NT canon that underpins orthodoxy.
These assertions matter. If they were true, orthodox Christianity would have been a lie for almost 2,000 years, and millions of Christians around the world would have been deceived.
1 An Age of Testing Rather than Defining
From the beginning, the supremacy of the apostles (Jesus’ original disciples) as authoritative interpreters of Jesus Christ was recognized. By the second century, church leaders were quoting most of the books we now call the New Testament, precisely because they could be traced to the apostolic circle.
A process of recognition and collation occurred in the early churches: writings recognized as stemming from the apostolic age were included, while late or unorthodox texts (such as the Gnostic gospels) were excluded. While the canon was not yet closed in the sense of an official list, the core outline of the NT was already clear by the end of the first century. The letters of Paul were so firmly accepted that they were cited by all early Christian writers – Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin. Even heretics like Valentinus and Marcion had to use apostolic material to give their heterodox ideas credibility.
Some writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and the Didache were highly regarded in some circles because of their early date and orthodox content, but they were ultimately excluded for reasons we will address later.
The church father Tertullian (c. AD 160–220) was the first to designate the second part of the Bible as the “New Testament.” While he did not define it precisely, he clearly recognized a body of authoritative writings. He also accused Valentinus of misinterpreting it and Marcion of mutilating it. His criteria for determining canonicity were simple: apostolic authorship and orthodox content. These two principles remained decisive in the decades that followed. It was an age of testing rather than defining. After an exhaustive process of examination, the church recognized the canon of 27 books of the New Testament.
Kurt Aland, a distinguished NT scholar and editor of the standard Greek New Testament, summarized it well:
“It was not imposed from the top, be it by bishops or synods, and then accepted by communities … the organized church did not create the canon: it recognized the canon …” (Green, 81).
In addition to apostolic authorship and orthodoxy, a third principle – catholicity (how widely it was read in churches) – was also applied. Let’s look at the three tests in more detail.
1.1 The Test of Apostolic Origin
Since Jesus himself left no writings, the most authoritative documents were those that came from his immediate circle. Apostolicity became the key principle of canonicity. Jesus had appointed his apostles – shaliachim in Jewish terms, meaning "representatives carrying the full authority of the sender".
Rabbinic teaching put it this way: “He that is sent is as he who sends him.” Jesus confirmed this when he said to his disciples: “Whoever receives you receives me” (Matthew 10:40). After his resurrection, he reinforced it: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21).
When the disciples sought a replacement for Judas, the qualifications of an apostle were clear (Acts 1:22):
a follower of Jesus during his public ministry,
an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection, or
someone specifically called by the Lord.
Because their authority was unique, the apostles could not pass on their office. Their role as eyewitnesses was unrepeatable. Instead of appointing more apostles, they ordained presbyters and bishops to oversee house churches and gatherings of believers.
Dr. Michael Green, a distinguished academic and writer of over 40 books, explains: “… the apostles were the guarantors of continuity between the incarnate Jesus who walked the streets of Palestine and the glorified Jesus whom the church worshipped. You can only have one generation of eyewitnesses of the resurrection, only one bottom storey of a building” (Green, 85).
1.2 The Test of Apostolic Teaching
Conformity with apostolic teaching became another essential criterion, especially when the church faced challenges from Valentinus and Marcion in the second century. Their innovations bore little resemblance to what the church had “heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:24). In response, the church formulated a “rule of faith” – a summary of the apostolic gospel. Writings claiming authority had to be measured by their content. As the Muratorian Canon warned, it would not do to have “poison mixed with honey” (Green, 89).
From the early second century onward, Gnostic writings were consistently rejected by the church fathers. Their content simply did not match apostolic doctrine. Far from being another “branch” of Christianity, they represented an alien theology. Texts like the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip – hailed today by some revisionists – were rejected as spurious. Green sums it up bluntly:
“You only have to glance at a page of these works to see what a farrago of theosophical nonsense they are: they are a world away from the writings of the New Testament” (Green, 89).
The early church father Irenaeus argued forcefully against the Gnostics, pointing to the continuity of apostolic teaching in churches founded by the apostles themselves, with recognized lines of succession. In contrast, the so-called Gnostic gospels bore clear signs of later invention and doctrinal deviation.
The appeal to orthodoxy is quite obvious in bishop Serapion’s interaction with the village of Rhossus and their affection for a supposed Gospel of Peter. Its account of Jesus’ death was tinged with Docetism, the belief that the divine Christ only seemed to be human and only seemed to suffer. And despite its apostolic name, its apostolic content was found wanting. So, he forbade its use. Docetism was prevalent in Gnostic theology, as can be seen also in the Acts of John, and the Apocalypse of Peter.
It is ironic that popular writers such as Dan Brown get it all so wrong in The Da Vinci Code he claims that the Gnostic gospels were the originals suppressed by a corrupt Catholic Church that divinized the original human Jesus. However, the Gnostic gospels do not present us with an earthly, human Jesus at all – he is an ethereal, docetic Jesus far removed from the mortality and pains of our world!
1.3 The Test of Catholicity
Finally, a writing had to demonstrate catholicity – that is, widespread and longstanding use across the Christian world. Books known only in isolated regions were unlikely to be accepted as canon. Eusebius, for instance, expressed doubt about 2 Peter because “it had not been quoted by the ancient presbyters” (Green, 91). Handwritten copies of New Testament writings were made and distributed among the churches, and it is evident that certain documents were copied more frequently than others, resulting in their broader circulation.
Final Thoughts
The early church used three primary criteria for recognizing the canon: apostolicity, orthodoxy, and catholicity. If a writing appeared in the second or third century, bore a pseudonymous name, and contained unorthodox teaching (as with the Gnostic gospels), it was naturally excluded.
What is striking is not the disputes on the edges of the canon, but the astonishingly early and universal acceptance of its core. The four Gospels, Paul’s letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John were established by the start of the second century and never challenged. Green observes:
“It is not the uncertainties on the edge of the canon that should cause us surprise, but rather the early and universal acceptance of the major part of it, in the face of a lot of non-apostolic material that circulated in the second and third centuries” (Green, 92).
By the time of Irenaeus (c. AD 180), the four Gospels were undisputed as canonical – the only ones traced back to the apostolic age.
2 Development from the “Bottom-up”
Returning to the earlier reference to critics’ “top-down” claim – that the canon was imposed by church authorities – it becomes clear that the exact opposite is true. By the time of the Council Nicaea, the New Testament canon had already been in existence for some time, albeit unofficially. As early as AD 100, there is evidence that many New Testament writings were widely circulating among the churches.
Over time, there was a progressive filtering of the books that could confidently be attributed to apostolic authority. This was grounded in the belief that Jesus had sent out his apostles with full authority to represent him. Any serious and competent historian will admit that the canon of Christian writings developed from the “bottom up,” rather than being imposed from the church hierarchy (Visalli, 83). By the end of the second century, all 27 books of the New Testament were listed as authoritative (although some were still disputed as canon by certain churches).
2.1 Early indicators of a list of authoritative New Testament books
The following four early church leaders or theologians were contemporaries or even students of the apostles:
Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35–107)
This second or third bishop of Antioch after Peter’s leadership in the city, had personal contact with the apostles, and in particular with John. Ignatius referenced Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Timothy, James, and 1 Peter in his letters addressed to seven churches, written on his way to martyrdom for his belief in the resurrection and divinity of Jesus.
Clement of Rome (AD 30/35–100/110)
As the third bishop of Rome (88 to mid-90s AD), he listed at least eight NT books and recognized the authority of Paul’s letters to Corinth. This may be the same Clement referred to in Philippians 4:3. Irenaeus wrote that Clement “… had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only, for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles.” Similarly, Epiphanius tells us that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul.
Papias (AD 60/70–130)
Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis (Turkey), provides the earliest extant account of who wrote the Gospels. On Mark, he writes: “In his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, [he] wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory….” On Matthew, he writes: “… Matthew put the logia (things said or done) in an ordered arrangement….” He also cites 1 Peter. Irenaeus described Papias as “an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp.”
Polycarp (AD 69–155)
The bishop of Smyrna and a major figure in the early church, was taught by the apostles and conversed with many “who had seen the Lord” (Green, 51). He referenced 15 NT books. He wrote letters of encouragement to three local churches and one in Rome, begging them not to deprive Ignatius of the privilege of martyrdom (AD 107).
It is obvious how deeply rooted Polycarp was in the teaching of the apostles, when considering how much he quoted them. In one letter, he quotes from 1 Peter 8; Ephesians 8; 1 Corinthians 4; 2 Corinthians 2; Galatians 4; 1 Timothy 3; 2 Timothy 2; Romans 2; 1 John 1; Philippians 2; and 2 Thessalonians. Polycarp wrote, “I am persuaded that you are well schooled in the sacred writings,” and goes on quoting Ephesians 4:26, Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Philippians. It seems beyond dispute that when referring here to “the sacred writings,” he meant the authoritative apostolic writings.
2.2 Other ancient theological and secular writings that confirm an early, unofficial canon
Marcion (AD 85–160)
Although regarded by church leaders as a heretic – a “wolf in Pauline form” (Green, 59) – his writings are significant because he is the first person known to have published a fixed collection in his personal canon titled The Gospel, what would later be called New Testament books.
He thought that Paul was the only true apostle, but edited out any references to the Old Testament from Paul’s epistles. He claimed to have “purged” the epistles of Paul and a revised Gospel of Luke. This suggests the existence of some sort of canon already in place. Green responds “Explicit definition is usually a function of exclusion, not creativity” (Green, 60).
Didache (“Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” c. AD 100)
This slim manual of worship, dealing with Christian ethics and rituals such as baptism and the Eucharist, celebrates Jesus as “the true king.” Its quotations are mostly from Matthew 24.
The “Unknown Gospel” (AD 100–150)
It appears to draw from all four Gospels, suggesting that the four were already written and regarded as authoritative by this time.
Irenaeus (AD 130–202)
Bishop of Lyons in 177 AD and a skilled apologist, he listed 22 books of the NT as canon. He proclaimed the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as canonical.
The Gospel of Truth (AD 140–150)
This work by the heretic Valentinus presupposes and frequently refers to a large number of NT books, whose authority it assumes. He makes a distinction between writings in “common books” and those found “written in the church of God.” This strongly suggests he knew of an existing canon in the church (Green, 62).
Diatessaron (AD 160)
In this work by Tatian (AD 125–202), an Assyrian Christian writer and theologian, all four NT gospels are conflated into one single account. It became the standard text of the four gospels in the Syriac-speaking churches. This confirms that the four canonical gospels were already generally regarded as authoritative.
Muratorian Canon (no later than AD 160)
This document, with an unknown author, is mainly a list of accepted writings for reading in church. It refers to The Shepherd as “written by Hermas in the city of Rome very recently, in our own times…” (Green, 67). It also refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (AD 140–155), as “recent.”
It lists most of the New Testament books (except Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter), while regarding 1–3 John as inconclusive. It includes the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. It also condemns forged writings such as another letter in Paul’s name to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in accordance with Marcion’s heresy, and many others… since it is not fitting that poison should be mixed with honey!”
The Muratorian Canon makes no innovations – it simply tells us the settled convictions of Christians in Rome. Where there were doubts, they were expressed. For instance, it mentions the Apocalypse of Peter, but notes that although orthodox in content, some did not want it read, presumably because it was falsely attributed to Peter. The Shepherd of Hermas, though orthodox, was rejected because it was written “very recently, in our own times,” and therefore could not have come from the Hermas mentioned in the New Testament (Green, 69). A second-century text had no place in the canon of Scripture.
Forgeries were not new to the church. As far back as the days of Paul, he condemned them without mercy. Paul’s anger at this is evident after he heard of a forgery of a letter in his name to the church in Thessalonica. “We beg you – not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to come from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).
Origen (AD 185–254)
A theologian and philosopher at the Catechetical School of Alexandria, Origen listed all 27 books of the New Testament. He distinguished between “acknowledged” (the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation) and “disputed” (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, and Jude).
He personally believed in the authenticity of all of these but recognized that their brevity and poor circulation in churches prevented consensus. He also listed works like The Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas as authoritative but not canonical.
He further identified a third category of books that he called “false,” because they falsely claimed apostolic origin and taught error. This included the Gospel According to Basilides, the Gospel According to the Egyptians, and the Gospel of the Twelve.
2.3 Inconclusive or disputed books of the canon
Some books were initially regarded as authoritative, but not yet canonical, by early theologians or church fathers. These included 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, and Jude. Regarded as inconclusive were Philemon, 3 John, and Hebrews.
Another prominent example was The Shepherd of Hermas. Athenagoras (AD 133–190), Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–216), and Tertullian (AD 160–220) considered it canonical, but since its apostolic origin could not be traced, it was eventually regarded as valuable but not Scripture.
Final thoughts
Much more can be said about the early theologians and their writings, but it should be clear that the canonisation of the New Testament books developed early via a pragmatic process of testing and checking, and regarded as authoritative long before the Council of Nicaea.
The claim made in a YouTube documentary titled the Supressed History of Christianity: “These were not decisions based upon careful historical and literary analysis” is categorically false. Ironically, it is the alternative so-called Gnostic “gospels,” so readily accepted as authentic by some modern critics, that lack thorough critical, textual, and historical scrutiny.
While it is true that the early Christian movement had disagreements, these mainly involved questions regarding orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. For instance, the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15 debated whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be circumcised like the Jews. Another point of contention was whether Christians should eat meat offered to idols. None of these disagreements involved fundamental Christian dogma regarding the nature of Jesus.
The earliest Christianity was not a fluid melting pot of various conflicting perspectives about Jesus. New Testament writings reflect the testimony of the first-century church, dependent on the witness of Jesus’ own hand-picked apostles.
Secular writings of, among others, Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55–120), Pliny the Younger (c. AD 112), Emperor Hadrian (AD 117–138), Lucian of Samosata (c. AD 125–180), Suetonius (c. AD 70 - c. 160), and Celsus (c. AD 170), all of which mention Christians, describe an orthodox community of faith. None make any distinction between different “Christianities” – they refer only to “the Christians.” More on this in another article “The New Testament canon: is it reliable?” on this web site.
NB: What is obvious at this point is the deafening silence regarding the alternative Gnostic “gospels.” These do not appear until after c. AD 140. Let’s have a quick look at the most common beliefs in Gnosticism, because this will help explain the vigorous responses by many orthodox church leaders.
3 The Gnostic Writings
The various Gnostic systems described by the church fathers differ on many points of detail, because they were so diverse. But there are four elements common to them all:
3.1 A distinction between the transcendent, unknown, “true” God and the degenerate world-maker or Demiurge (generally identified with the God of the Old Testament). The Demiurge is the author of base matter, which the Gnostics despised. This is why Jesus is often portrayed in a docetic light (only having the appearance of a physical human being).
3.2 A belief that some humans have an affinity with God and possess within themselves a spark of divinity. The early Gnostic Valentinus thought there were three races of men:
the lowest, the hylikoi (earthly), incapable of salvation;
the psychikoi (ordinary church members), strengthened by faith and good works;
and the pneumatikoi (the truly spiritual – i.e., themselves), imperishable and unharmed by material actions. Only the “spirituals” could be confident of heaven (Green, 96).
3.3 A myth to explain how the divine spark could reside in humans whose physical bodies originated from an evil Demiurge. This bondage stirred a longing for deliverance, which Gnosticism claimed to satisfy.
3.4 Salvation through gnosis (knowledge) of the divine spark, granted only to an elect minority awakened to their true origin. Hence, their writings often contain wild theosophical speculation. Christ’s function was not to redeem humanity, but to bring gnosis to the chosen. As a divine being, he did not assume a real human body, but only the appearance of one.
Final thoughts
Gnosticism fostered an elitism that despised ordinary believers and emphasized knowledge over morality – a stark contrast to the catholicity and sanctity of early Christianity. Salvation came not through repentance and faith, but through belonging to the “in crowd” of the enlightened. Ordinary Christians were blind, for the Gnostic “Christ” came not to redeem humanity, but to impart secret knowledge to the elect. Humanity’s problem was not sin, but ignorance.
Historicity was usually unimportant to Gnostics, whose writings overflow with speculative myths and fantastic language. Contrast this with the New Testament writings (especially Luke and Acts), which anchor their message in historical events, people, and places.
Gnosticism was clearly incompatible with the teaching of the church. Yet it had a wide appeal in the second and third centuries, since, as Green notes, many Christian leaders “spilled a lot of ink writing against it” (Green, 99).
4 Criteria Historians Use for Determining Document Reliability
As mentioned earlier, one of the criteria employed by the early church to determine whether a text could be considered canonical, was its connection to the original apostles, the time when it was written, and the consistency of its theology with apostolic teaching.
The alternative “gospels” were written late – mostly in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. There is general consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the AD 60s, roughly 30–35 years after Jesus’ ministry. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians are regarded earlier – 5 to 15 years after Jesus’ time. It was composed during the lifetime of many who had personally heard Jesus teach and had witnessed his ministry and miracles. This proximity provided a corrective safeguard that would have been lost in any document written 60, 80, or 100 years later.
The Gnostic “gospels,” such as the Gospel of Thomas (discussed later), often cited by critics of orthodoxy, only appear in the historical record in the mid-2nd century (around AD 150 or later). Although most of them bear the names of apostles to legitimize their authority, they are far removed from the New Testament writings in terms of dating, geographical connection, cultural accuracy, and underlying motivation.
The four canonical Gospels initially circulated anonymously because their authority and authenticity were self-evident. The following are criteria used by historians, palaeographers, and biblical scholars to assess the reliability of ancient manuscripts:
4.1 Geographical Connection of Documents
The farther an ancient text originated from the location it describes, the less credible it tends to be. For example, as will be shown later, the Gospel of Thomas is linked to the Syrian churches in the late 2nd century AD and is far removed from 1st-century Palestine.
4.2 Cultural Accuracy of Documents
A credible writer should accurately reflect the cultural setting of the events or people described. For instance, whoever wrote the Gospel of Peter was unfamiliar with Jewish burial traditions, corpse impurity laws, and other first-century Jewish customs. It was clearly written in a context outside the Jewish society and culture of Jesus’ time.
4.3 Motivational Questions
Are the descriptions of events or people driven by philosophical bias?
4.3.1 Serapion’s opinion
Serapion, the eighth bishop of Antioch, wrote around AD 180 against the “false gospels” that occasionally surfaced. According to him, the motivation behind these spurious writings – such as the Gospel of Peter – was the product of “jealous Christians.”
4.3.2 Anti-Female motivations
The Gospel of Thomas (which is not a gospel but a compilation of supposed sayings of Jesus) is not, contrary to popular belief, pro-feminine. It typifies certain second-century Gnostic sects that held dualistic views and a negative attitude toward matter. Because women were associated with childbirth and the physical body, some Gnostic groups saw femaleness as something to be transcended.
For example, in Saying 114, Peter says that women are not worthy of life, and Jesus replies that he will make Mary “male” so that she may enter the kingdom. This reflects the Gnostic idea that femaleness represented physicality and imperfection, which had to be spiritually overcome.
Another heretical text, the Dialogue of the Savior (section 144), describes Jesus advising his disciples to “pray in the place where there is no woman… Destroy the works of womanhood.” (Green, p. 103)
4.3.3 Feminist motivations
The Gospel of Mary – with its distinctly Gnostic tone – survives only in fragments. Its oldest copy is a single page of Greek papyrus dating to the third century, while the Coptic text discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 dates to the late fourth century. The text is fragmentary and lacks even a proper title (Green, p. 116).
In this gospel, Jesus is said to have given Mary Magdalene special treatment and a secret revelation, which angers the male disciples. Jesus is portrayed as the original feminist who entrusts the church to Mary rather than Peter (contrary to the canonical Gospels). Beyond its strong Gnostic elements, this text also advocates for women’s right to teach.
Enter Craig Evans, PhD – professor of the New Testament and a prolific scholar known for his historical precision, who has commented on Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, Michael Baigent’s The Jesus Papers, and the Gospel of Judas (for which he served as an advisory board member to the National Geographic Society. He comments that Gospel of Mary’s motivation appears to be a protest from the mid-second century against emerging church restrictions on female teachers (Strobel, p. 47).
On Women and the early church
The Gnostics clearly held differing views of women—some were feminist in outlook, while others were distinctly misogynistic. Although the early Church ostensibly did not permit women to teach, Jesus’ attitude toward women was revolutionary within the ancient Greco-Roman world. He regarded them with deep respect, as the Gospels clearly demonstrate. They faithfully record that it was women who discovered the empty tomb—at a time when women’s testimonies were not even considered valid in court. The women were the last to remain with Jesus at the cross and the first to encounter him after his resurrection. Mary Magdalene and others were sent by Jesus to tell the other disciples that he had risen. In this sense, Mary Magdalene could be regarded as a female apostle (“one who is sent”), which is precisely how Hippolytus, writing in the third century, understood her.
4.3.4 Fabrications and forgeries to support Gnostic worldviews
Dan Brown makes gross assumptions based on the Gospel of Mary, claiming that Jesus was Mary Magdalene’s lover, that they married, and that their descendants formed a royal bloodline in France. He even identifies Mary herself as the Holy Grail.
Brown’s agenda is clear: to portray Jesus as the “original feminist” who celebrated the “eternal feminine” central to paganism. He was heavily influenced by the 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was based on an elaborate hoax involving the “Priory of Sion.” This fabrication was orchestrated by the French con artist Pierre Plantard, who produced and then “discovered” forged parchments to support his claims during the 1960s–70s.
The book popularized Plantard’s falsehoods, claiming that the Merovingian line of kings descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and that the Priory (and its supposed military arm, the Knights Templar) existed to guard the secret of this “bloodline.” Plantard even insinuated that he himself was a direct descendant of Jesus Christ.
But, “No legitimate scholar believes they were wed,” Evans replies. “It’s the irresponsible – the Dan Browns and Michael Baigents of the world – who use the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip to make that claim. Those texts are not only unhistorical, but they don’t even say they were married. Only the gullible – or those with an agenda – buy into that.” (Strobel, p. 48)
The Jesus Papers
This brings us to another fabricator of history: Michael Baigent, author of The Jesus Papers. Baigent was not a historian; he held degrees in psychology and “mysticism and religious experience.” This alone should raise a red flag about his credibility. Unsurprisingly, his “findings” align closely with Gnostic ideas about Jesus.
Baigent claimed to have discovered two Aramaic papyrus documents dating back to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, allegedly written by Jesus himself to the Sanhedrin, asserting that he never claimed to be God but merely embodied God’s Spirit.
His account of this discovery, which no one can verify, is extremely unconvincing. Evans summarizes: “We have an author with dubious credibility, an unidentified antiquities dealer, documents that Baigent can neither read nor produce, and two archaeologists who are dead.” (Strobel, 53)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
This supposed gospel, with its homoerotic undertones, was “discovered” by Morton Smith – himself gay – in the 1950s and 1960s, when homosexuality was still socially suppressed. Conveniently, the document has since vanished, preventing verification.
Smith’s scholarship was met with justified scepticism from colleagues. It seems he may have had an axe to grind, too – he had been denied tenure at Brown University and, as Evans notes, “may have wanted to demonstrate his intellectual superiority by pulling off something like this.” (Strobel, p. 50). Smith later wrote two books analysing the so-called “Secret Gospel,” one of them a 450-page scholarly treatment published by Harvard University Press.
Final Thoughts
The Jesus Papers and The Da Vinci Code represent “unbelievably bad scholarship,” says Green. “To reject the testimony of those who lived alongside Jesus in favour of fourth-century Coptic gospels found in a rubbish heap in the Egyptian sands is astonishingly wrong-headed. To claim that Constantine – the first Christian emperor – destroyed thousands of manuscripts that told the story of a merely human Jesus is sheer fantasy.” (Green, p. 148)
Despite their speculative content and outlandish claims, books like these often top bestseller lists. Why? Because the secular media eagerly promotes any bizarre or new sensational claim about Christianity – they make “good headlines.”
This is precisely what happened with the Jesus Seminar of the early 1990s, which presented its so-called “findings” not to seminaries or academic institutions, but directly to the public. Its founder, Robert Funk, had predetermined its outcome even before it started: to strip Jesus of his divinity and make Christianity culturally “more acceptable”. He wanted to liberate church people from the “dark ages of theological tyranny”. In his own words: “We want to liberate Jesus. The only Jesus most people know, is the mythic one. They don’t want the real Jesus; they want the one they can worship. The cultic Jesus” (Wilkins & Moreland, 2).
Both conservative and liberal scholars alike were angered by this academic charade. Yet it didn’t matter to the mainstream media – controversy sells!
5 Dating of Manuscripts
5.1 The canonical Gospels
Most scholars date the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) to the mid-to-late first century AD. The broadly accepted approximate ranges are:
Mark: c. 65–70 CE
Matthew: c. 70–85 CE
Luke: c. 80–90 CE
John: c. 90–100 CE (some suggest slightly later, up to AD 110)
Many of Paul’s letters are dated between AD 50–60. Certain scholars argue that 1 Corinthians can be dated as being written five to 15 years after Jesus’ time.
And yet, some radical scholars attempt to smuggle the controversial “gospels” into the first century by hypothesizing earlier versions of what are clearly second-century documents. According to Evans:
“Real historians laugh at that kind of procedure. At the same time, these critics often push the canonical Gospels to later dates to make it appear that both the canonical and Gnostic writings emerged during the same period. (Strobel, p. 35)
5.2 The Gospel of Peter
One example concerns the Gospel of Peter. Liberal scholar John Dominic Crossan, a leading member of the Jesus Seminar, dated it as early as AD 50 in his book The Cross That Spoke. He even went so far as to suggest that it contains an early core upon which the canonical Gospels depend.
Could the Gospel of Peter, with its many cultural inaccuracies, really be considered authoritative? As Evans points out, when this fragment is examined, it reveals numerous errors concerning political and cultural realities. For instance, it portrays the ruling priest spending the night in a graveyard – something no Jew in Palestine in the AD 50s would have written, given Jewish burial customs and laws concerning corpse impurity.
The fragment is also anti-Semitic.
Would the Jewish authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John base their accounts on a document riddled with obvious errors and anti-Jewish bias? The writer of Peter does not even know who ruled which parts of Israel. Essentially, it is a patchwork of details drawn from the canonical Gospels (especially Matthew), embellished with “pious imagination and bizarre depictions of supposed events.”
For example, in its version of the resurrection, Peter describes two angels and a Jesus whose heads reach into the clouds. Following Jesus out of the tomb is a talking cross! Clearly, this belongs to the realm of legend and myth.
Moody Smith of Duke Divinity School asks:
“Is it thinkable that the tradition began with the legendary, the mythological, the anti-Jewish, and indeed the fantastic, and moved in the direction of the historically restrained and sober?” (Strobel, p. 46)
By contrast, the canonical Gospels – especially Luke – are written in a measured, matter-of-fact style. They go to great lengths to name specific locations, rulers, and governors at the time of the events described. Although a few references remain debated, they are clearly written as historical biographies, not as philosophical or mythical treatises. The Gnostic gospels, as pointed out earlier, show little interest in historical context and are primarily concerned with conveying esoteric or philosophical ideas.
5.3 The Gospel of Thomas
As a favourite among some liberal scholars, the Gospel of Thomas deserves special attention. Only one complete text survives, dating to the fourth century, yet a few scholars argue for an implausibly early date of AD 50–70. Does this gospel carry equal weight with the canonical ones? Not if it can be demonstrated that it was written much later than the New Testament texts and that its theology diverges sharply from original apostolic teaching.
Gnostic Theology
The Gospel of Thomas contains strange sayings that clearly reflect Gnostic thought. For example, in Saying 22, Jesus is asked, “Shall we as children enter the kingdom?” He replies: “…when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male be not male nor the female, female.” This echoes the Gnostic belief that humanity would ultimately be united in an androgynous form.
Similarly, Saying 11 refers to the “heaven above the heaven,” suggesting a Gnostic cosmology, while Saying 62 – “I disclose my mysteries to those who are worthy of my mysteries” – reveals a typical Gnostic elitism, very different from Christian humility, which recognizes that none are worthy.
Saying 24 – “There is a light within a man, and it lights up the whole world” – illustrates how, in Gnosticism, Christology becomes anthropology: the divine is redefined as an inner human feature. (Green, p. 108)
Familiarity with Other New Testament Books
Almost half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas. Craig Evans notes that he is unaware of any Christian text before AD 110 that shows such extensive familiarity with the New Testament.
For example, the Epistles of Ignatius (written around AD 110 and universally regarded as authentic) do not quote even half as much of the New Testament as Thomas does. Yet Thomas reflects knowledge of 14 or 15 of the 27 New Testament books.
Furthermore, Evans points out that Thomas does not contain early, pre-Synoptic material. Mark, the earliest Gospel, is unpolished in Greek grammar and style, while Matthew and Luke refine and improve upon Mark’s wording. Thomas, however, reflects the later, more polished forms of these texts – and even contains material from John, which was written around AD 90.
How could Thomas have been composed in the 50s or 60s if it quotes from a Gospel written decades later?
Late Syrian Development
Evans further challenges the claim that Thomas is early and independent by noting that it reflects Syrian development.
The canonical Gospels were originally written in Greek. As Christianity spread eastward, the faith reached regions where people spoke a dialect of Aramaic known as Syriac. The Gospels were not immediately translated into Syriac. Around AD 175, the Assyrian Christian writer Tatian (AD 125–202) produced a harmony of the four Gospels in Syriac, known as the Diatessaron (meaning “through the four”).
In harmonizing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Tatian created unique Syriac expressions and structures – and these distinctive forms appear in Thomas. Nicholas Perrin’s research revealed that Thomas mirrors the order and arrangement of the Diatessaron, indicating that Thomas must have been written after it, that is, sometime after AD 175.
This fits perfectly with the evidence that Thomas demonstrates extensive familiarity with the New Testament. Moreover, Thomas reflects distinctively Syrian traits. It refers to its author as “Judas Thomas,” a name found only in Syrian Christianity. The Syrian church also valued asceticism and rejected wealth and commercialism – values that appear in Thomas. It was likewise characterized by elitism and mysticism, both of which permeate the text.
Structure of Thomas
Perhaps the most compelling evidence, according to Evans, lies in the structure of Thomas. When read in Greek or Coptic, the 114 sayings appear random. However, when translated into Syriac, something remarkable happens:
“Suddenly, you discover more than 500 Syriac catchwords linking virtually all 114 sayings to help people memorize the gospel. Saying 2 is followed by Saying 3 because it repeats a specific word; Saying 3 then leads to Saying 4, and so on. It was a memorization aid.” (Strobel, 38)
Summary and Conclusion
The Gospel of Thomas contains distinctive Syrian idioms.
It refers to the author as “Judas Thomas.”
It includes Syriac catchwords used as mnemonic devices.
It reflects knowledge of roughly half the New Testament.
All this points to Thomas being written no earlier than AD 175, and more likely closer to AD 200.
What About Earlier Traditions?
The claim that Thomas preserves earlier traditions is likely true to some extent. However, those who assert that there was an earlier Gospel of Thomas – a coherent, complete, and independent work – must provide evidence for such a claim.
Some draw parallels between Thomas and the hypothetical “Q” source, but as Green notes, this undermines their case. Even if “Q” existed, it was merely a collection of Jesus’ sayings, not an alternative gospel. “Frankly,” says Evans, “there is no such evidence. That’s when a few scholars turn to what we call ‘special pleading.’ They realize the evidence embarrasses their theory of an early Thomas, so they invent a hypothetical earlier form.” (Strobel, 39)
“Instead of modifying their theory to fit the evidence, they modify the evidence to fit the theory. When you do history, you’re not allowed to get away with that.” (Strobel, 39)
According to Evans, some radical scholars are hypercritical of the canonical Gospels – pushing them as late as possible – while being completely uncritical of the Gnostic texts, and dragging them earlier to make them all appear contemporary.
Revisionist scholar Elaine Pagels has claimed that Thomas preserves teachings venerated by a first-century community of “Thomas Christians.” Evans’s response is categorical: “No. The ‘Thomas Christians’ were the Christians of Syria, and they thrived at the end of the second century.”
“Think about this: if ‘Thomas Christians’ were around in the first century, how come church fathers writing in the 90s, around AD 100 or 110, never mention them? How come they don’t appear on the radar until the end of the second century?” (Strobel, 39) The answer is obvious.
The Jesus Seminar and Thomas
In the early 1990s, the Jesus Seminar elevated Thomas to equal status with the canonical Gospels in its publication The Five Gospels. Evans strongly rejects this: “If Thomas is to be included, then why not the Diatessaron, since that’s its source? Why not any patchwork written by anyone at the end of the second century that blends second- and third-hand materials? Would even a Jesus Seminar scholar seriously argue that the Jesus of Thomas is closer to the historical Jesus of the 20s and 30s than the Jesus we find in Mark or Q? I can’t believe that!” (Strobel, 39)
5.4 Dogmatic Prejudice?
Critics of orthodoxy often assert that the New Testament canon “had an agenda.” Well, there probably is no writing without an agenda. In a sense, it is true: the canonical writings openly affirm that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. But their claims can be tested historically.
Questions such as:
Are they culturally accurate?
Were they written within the right time frame and proximity to the events of Jesus’ life?
Are they consistent with what we know from other historical sources?
The answer to all these is yes. In contrast, when the same questions are applied to the alternative “gospels,” the answers are almost always no. As Evans notes, these texts were written too late to have historical authority, often from foreign contexts with key inaccuracies. “We can see they’re derived from earlier sources,” he says (Strobel, 33). Moreover, they are more concerned with promoting a philosophy – especially Gnosticism – than with recording historical events.
Helmut Koester of Harvard Divinity School once claimed: “Only dogmatic prejudice can assert that the canonical writings have an exclusive claim to apostolic origin.” (Strobel, p. 33)
Evans’s response is incisive:
“That statement would only be true if someone asserted it dogmatically without considering the evidence. But it isn’t just guesswork or opinion. When you apply the same historical criteria used for secular historians like Suetonius, Tacitus, or Thucydides, the New Testament Gospels perform very favourably. In fact, those other historians were much further removed from many of the events they describe.” (Strobel, p. 33)
When critics point a finger at orthodoxy for having “dogmatic prejudice,” the irony is that three fingers point back at them! Consider the open agenda of the previously mentioned Jesus Seminar, or liberal, revisionist Bible scholars like Elaine Pagels, who admitted to being a Gnostic herself in her book Beyond Belief.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were earlier than all the other so-called gospels and have credible connections to the first generation of apostolic eyewitnesses. It can really only be “dogmatic prejudice” for someone like Koester to make the kind of statement that he does.
6 The Council of Nicaea: What Happened (or didn’t happen) There?
6.1 Who decided the NT canon?
The church council convened by emperor Constantine in AD 325 was intended to settle growing disputes surrounding a Christian sect known as Arianism, named after its advocate, Arius. This theology held that Jesus was an exalted, created being – not fully divine and subordinate to God the Father.
Many scholars believe that Constantine’s motives in calling the council were primarily political rather than theological, and that he influenced many of the attending bishops to decide in favour of a theology that would serve the emerging “imperial church.” The outcome of the council – the condemnation of Arianism as heresy and the confirmation of orthodox Christianity — is therefore viewed by some as predetermined. In a sense, this may contain some truth: for Constantine, preserving unity within his empire was a powerful motivation.
However, whatever his motives — and this is crucial — Constantine did not decide which books of the New Testament were canonical. The canon was not even a topic of discussion at the council, and Constantine himself did not take part in the debates. As discussed earlier, Christian communities had already been using collections of New Testament writings since the second century — the four Gospels, Paul’s letters, and others. The canon emerged gradually through church use and consensus, becoming largely solidified by the late fourth century. Some books (such as Hebrews, Revelation, James, and 2 Peter) were debated in certain regions, but the core of the New Testament was firmly established long before Constantine.
The claim made in the YouTube documentary Supressed History of Christianity that these “were not decisions based on careful historical and literary analysis” is baseless. Likewise, the assertion that passages and texts not serving the “imperial church” were excluded is pure fiction.
Constantine supported the new term used to describe Christ’s nature – homoousios (meaning “of the same essence as the Father”) – not because he deeply understood its theology, but because it was the clearest and strongest word to silence Arian ambiguity. His adviser, Hosius, promoted it, and Constantine used his imperial authority to make it stick. This may have been a new term, but not a new concept to Christianity: the apostle John delineated this at the beginning of his gospel: “In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) Later he writes: “No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is Himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.” (John 1:18)
At Nicaea, nearly all the bishops signed the Creed containing homoousios. Only Arius and two bishops refused, and they were exiled. However, many bishops who signed, did so reluctantly – not because they disagreed with the term. They disliked homoousios – not because it equated Jesus with the Father, but because of its earlier association with heresies (such as those of Paul of Samosata) or because they feared it blurred the distinction between Father and Son. Once the council ended, opposition quietly began to regroup.
6.2 After Nicaea
Later, Constantine commissioned Eusebius of Caesarea to produce fifty copies of the Bible for use in Constantinople. While he promoted the use of Christian Scripture and funded these copies, the claim that he decided what counted as Scripture is false. Eusebius simply used the texts already recognized by the church.
The bestselling book Holy Blood, Holy Grail asserts that all Christian writings found during the reign of Emperor Diocletian were destroyed – allegedly explaining why no New Testament manuscripts survive from before the fourth century. It further claims that Constantine later commissioned new versions of these documents, allowing the “custodians of orthodoxy” to edit, revise, and rewrite the material as they pleased. Supposedly, this was when Jesus assumed the unique divine status “he has enjoyed ever since” (Strobel, 97).
Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and one of the world’s leading authorities on textual criticism, dismissed this notion outright: “That’s just looney! Do these authors know anything about history at all?”
Wallace notes that Diocletian did destroy several Christian texts, but mainly in the East and South. As for the claim that we have no manuscripts prior to the fourth century – we actually have more than four dozen Greek manuscripts predating that era. These contain numerous passages – John 1:1, John 1:18, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1 – that affirm the deity of Jesus (Strobel, 97).
In the decades following Nicaea, Arianism resurfaced multiple times. Constantine became increasingly lenient toward it, allowing exiled Arians to return and even being baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a bishop sympathetic to Arian theology. It appears that Constantine eventually undermined the very bishops who had opposed Arius at Nicaea. Athanasius, one of the chief defenders of orthodoxy at the council, was exiled by the emperor just two years later after refusing to reconcile with Arian leaders. Constantine’s son, Constantius II, was likewise sympathetic to Arianism.
Final thoughts
It is important to note that the decades of theological reversals and contradictions following Nicaea had no effect on the New Testament canon. One might also ask: if Constantine’s motivation for convening the Council of Nicaea was purely political and not theological, why did he later change his stance toward Arianism? If imperial unity was his only concern, it would make little sense to undermine his own “champions” of orthodoxy (such as Athanasius) and reopen the door to controversy and instability. The fact that Constantine was baptized only on his deathbed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, suggests that he may have personally wrestled with these theological questions for years.
6.3 Eusebius and Church History
Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. AD 260–339), is often called the “Father of Church History,” as his Ecclesiastical History is the earliest surviving attempt to record a systematic account of Christianity from the apostles to his own time. However, some historians have long debated whether he was a trustworthy source — or whether he shaped, omitted, or even fabricated material to serve his theological and political aims.
One major reason for this scepticism is Eusebius’s own admission that he avoided recording certain events that might harm readers’ faith (such as Christians who recanted under threat of execution). He also polished Constantine’s image — downplaying the emperor’s darker traits — and clearly sought to inspire faith, using martyrdom stories as powerful moral exemplars.
At times, he altered wording slightly to suit his narrative. Scholars have noted that his quotations from authors such as Papias and Josephus occasionally differ subtly from what survives in the original texts.
So, the big question is: did Eusebius fabricate church history? We’ll have a look at several key points of contention to determine the truth.
6.3.1 Should we disregard historical writings because the authors may have been biased?
With Eusebius’s apparent bias, and the authors of the canonical Gospels under critical scrutiny, liberal scholars assert that the presence of certain biases significantly undermines historical reliability. For instance, Jesus Seminar founder Robert Funk claims that the Gospels are largely fictitious because the writers were “emotionally involved, fervently believing in their story” – meaning they were not impartial observers.
Through the discipline called redaction criticism, scholars have demonstrated that each Gospel author shaped his material in particular ways for different audiences. For instance, assuming that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when compiling their Gospels, it seems clear that Matthew tended to soften Mark’s material, editing out some embarrassing or potentially offensive features. One example is the passage in Mark stating that Jesus could not perform many miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5). Matthew reports instead that Jesus simply did not perform many miracles there (Matthew 13:58).
We cannot dispute the alleged biases of the Gospel writers and early Christian historians like Eusebius. They were passionate devotees who sought to help people “… believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing [they] may have life in his name” (John 20:31, NRSV).
However, modern scholars also claim that the Gospel authors made Jesus into their own image because of their theological biases. We should now ask the question: does the fact that the authors were biased warrant such sceptical conclusions? Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy, authors of the book Lord or Legend: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, present the following reasons why they think not.
6.3.2 Should all historical reports from people who were emotionally involved, fervently believing their stories, be dismissed as unreliable?
If Funk’s argument were to be followed through to its logical conclusion, then all historical reports from people who were emotionally involved and fervently believed their recollections should be dismissed as unreliable.
To illustrate: would it have been reasonable for Western leaders in 1942 to reject eyewitness reports of what was transpiring in Nazi concentration camps on the grounds that those witnesses were emotionally involved and fervently believed their accounts? Of course not. If what these people were saying was true – as it turned out to be – should we not have expected them to be emotionally involved? In fact, if such reports had not been emotionally involved, their reliability would have been suspect.
So too with the Gospel authors and church historians. If their narrative was based on factual historical events, should we not expect them to be emotionally involved, fervently believing their reports and doing their best to drive home their message? The authors, in essence, report that Jesus made worldview-jarring claims about himself, performed miracles, lived the most perfect life in history, and rose from the dead. “This, they declare, is what convinced them, against their most basic Jewish assumptions [and culture], that this crucified man was the long-awaited Messiah – in fact, the embodiment of Yahweh on earth” (Boyd & Eddy, 98). Most of the apostles died as martyrs to seal their testimonies concerning Jesus. This countercultural offshoot of Judaism had no motivation to lie, for they had nothing to gain from it – only persecution (first by the Jews, later by the Romans) and death in the first few centuries.
Virtually all ancient history would have to be rejected
If we applied the argument against the reliability of the Gospels consistently, we would have to reject ancient history in general.
Much ancient history was remembered by groups and individuals because it meant something to them. They believed fervently in their stories. The very idea of “… doing history from a detached, impartial perspective is a rather modern concept …” (Boyd & Eddy, 98).
The second argument flows from this: in our postmodern world, everyone experiences and communicates about the world from a biased perspective. Yet we do not customarily dismiss reports as unreliable because of this. Indeed, biases colour the truth, but they do not necessarily undermine it.
So, unless one is willing to conclude that people can never report events reliably, it is not fair to dismiss Christian authors because of their biases.
6.3.3 Eusebius on Christian persecution
I haven’t read Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History or Martyrs of Palestine, but it is generally believed that he described a nearly unbroken sequence of persecutions from Nero (AD 64) to Diocletian (AD 303–311), implying that they occurred empire-wide.
Modern historical and archaeological research, however, paints a more measured picture:
Before AD 250, persecutions were sporadic and local, not empire-wide.
From AD 250–311, circumstances changed: Decius (AD 249–251) and Valerian (AD 257–260) launched the first empire-wide persecutions, requiring public sacrifices to Roman gods. After Valerian, there was a long lull until Diocletian’s Great Persecution (AD 303–311), which was indeed severe—especially in the East.
Thus, persecution was real and sometimes brutal, but not continuous or uniformly empire-wide, as Eusebius supposedly implied.But some sceptics’ claim that the scope of the persecutions he described was “greatly exaggerated” is, however, overstating the case. For instance, Eusebius’s description of the first severe persecution under Emperor Nero is corroborated by the Roman historian Tacitus, who, in a passage dated AD 115, referred to the vast persecution of Christians:
“Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred of mankind.” (Wilkins & Moreland, 216)
Modern Scholarly Assessment
Most modern historians agree that while Eusebius was biased and apologetic, he was not a fabricator. He worked within the conventions of ancient historiography, where moral and theological interpretation were expected.
A. Eusebius as an Apologist-Historian
Averil Cameron, in Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire (1991), argues that Eusebius shaped history to support the Christian imperial narrative but did so through interpretation, not invention.
Timothy D. Barnes, in Constantine and Eusebius (Harvard, 1981), emphasizes that Eusebius was a sincere believer who sought to record what he saw as providential history – he didn’t fabricate, but he certainly idealized.
B. Eusebius’s Use of Sources
Eusebius had access to earlier documents (letters, martyr accounts, church lists) that are now lost.
While he sometimes quotes selectively, the textual and archaeological evidence often confirms that he preserved genuine early material rather than inventing it. Example: His citation of Papias and Hegesippus, once doubted, is now supported by later manuscript evidence.
Summary of claims and a scholarly response
Criticism | Likely Reality (per modern scholarship) |
|---|---|
He fabricated events. | No solid evidence of fabrication; he drew from authentic (many now-lost) sources. |
He exaggerated Constantine’s virtues. | Yes – he wrote panegyrically, but this was standard in ancient historiography. |
He omitted embarrassing details (e.g., Church divisions). | Yes – selective omission is evident, especially in Life of Constantine. |
He falsified martyr accounts. | No proof; his work Martyrs of Palestine aligns with other contemporary accounts. |
Final thoughts
Eusebius was biased and selective, but he did not fabricate church history in the sense of inventing events or persons.However, he framed history through an apologetic lens – portraying Christianity’s rise as divinely ordained and Constantine as a chosen instrument of God. His work is therefore part historical record, part theological narrative.
Modern verdict: He was an apologist, not forger.
Eusebius preserved many invaluable documents (letters, martyr accounts, fragments of early writers) that might otherwise have been lost. So, even if biased, his work is indispensable. Where some of his sources have survived independently, they show that he was in fact accurate in many of his quotations. He framed history through an apologetic lens – portraying Christianity’s rise as divinely ordained.
Below are examples where Eusebius’s accounts of Christian persecution are corroborated by independent ancient sources:
6.3.4 Corroborated Martyr Accounts
A. Nero’s Persecution (c. AD 64, Rome)
Eusebius’s claim: He describes Nero as the first great persecutor, initiating a long line of imperial hostility against Christians.
Independent evidence: As already mentioned, Tacitus (Annals 15.44) confirms that Nero ruthlessly punished Christians after the Great Fire of Rome. He used them as scapegoats to draw attention away from himself, as he was suspected of starting the fire. Tacitus described Christians as “a class of men loathed for their vices” and noted that after the fire in 64 AD, Emperor Nero found them guilty and executed them – not so much for arson, but for their “anti-social tendencies.” (Boyd & Eddy, 126). This echoes Jesus’ warning to His disciples shortly before his crucifixion: “The world will hate you.” (Matthew 24:9)
Of particular value is Tacitus’s confirmation of Jesus’ historicity in the following passage:
“Christus, from whom the name [Christian] has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius under one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus; and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…” (Boyd & Eddy, 126).
Side note: What could this “most mischievous superstition” have been? Most likely, the Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection. For this conviction, many paid with their lives in the following decades, since acknowledging Christ alone as Lord was regarded by Roman emperors as political defiance during periods of mandated emperor worship.
A particularly wild claim made in the YouTube documentary Suppressed History of Christianity states: “The theological positions that Christians’ ancestors died for did not even exist at the times of sporadic persecution.” This is categorically false. The main reason Christians were persecuted from AD 64 onward was their refusal to pay homage to the emperor through worship, because they only worshipped Jesus as their Lord. Another was their denial of the “great gods” of the Greco-Roman world – leading to accusations of atheism. This likely explains why Tacitus referred to them as “a class of men loathed for their vices.”
B. Domitian’s Alleged Persecution (c. AD 90s)
Eusebius’s claim: Domitian supposedly continued Nero’s hostility, persecuting “those of the house of David” and exiling the apostle John to Patmos.
Independent evidence: Suetonius (Domitian 10) mentions Domitian executing some for “Jewish practices,” though not a general Christian persecution.
C. The Pliny–Trajan Correspondence (c. AD 112, Bithynia)
Eusebius’s use: He quotes (accurately) this exchange as evidence of early imperial hostility.
Independent evidence: Pliny, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote to Emperor Trajan seeking advice on how to deal with Christians who refused to worship images of the emperor – resulting in temples being “almost deserted” (Visalli, 155).
At this time, false rumours and smear campaigns against Christians were widespread. They were accused of cannibalism (due to the symbolic language of the Lord’s Supper) and incest (since they called one another “brother” and “sister” and exchanged kisses). Initially, Pliny executed some Christians but later investigated the credibility of the charges. He asked Trajan whether he should continue persecuting them simply for bearing the name “Christian,” or only if they were guilty of crimes.
After investigating, Pliny discovered that Christians met peacefully to sing hymns to “Christ as a god,” and that the food they shared was “ordinary” and “harmless.” (Boyd & Eddy, 123)
Side note: This provides an early secular confirmation that the early Christians worshipped Jesus as God.
D. Decius’s Edict (AD 249–251)
Eusebius’s claim: Portrays this as one of the fiercest assaults on the Church.
Independent evidence: Papyrus libelli (certificates of sacrifice) from Egypt confirm Decius’s empire-wide order requiring all citizens to sacrifice to Roman gods. Eusebius’s account here is largely accurate – this was indeed the first systematic persecution of Christians.
E. Valerian’s Persecution (AD 257–260)
Eusebius’s claim: Reports the executions of prominent leaders like Cyprian of Carthage and Sixtus II of Rome.
Independent evidence: Cyprian’s own writings and martyr acts confirm these events precisely. Valerian’s rescript (recorded by Cyprian) matches Eusebius’s description.
F. Diocletian’s “Great Persecution” (AD 303–311)
Eusebius’s claim: Describes a horrific empire-wide persecution involving mass arrests, torture, destruction of churches, and countless martyrs – especially in Palestine and Egypt.
Independent evidence: Imperial edicts of AD 303 – 304 (known from inscriptions and Lactantius’s On the Deaths of the Persecutors) confirms the general picture. However, archaeological and documentary evidence (especially from the West) shows that enforcement varied greatly. In Gaul, Britain, and much of the Western Empire, persecution was relatively mild; in the East – especially under Galerius and Maximinus Daia – it was far harsher.
Eusebius’s Martyrs of Palestine lists many genuine cases, though he may have exaggerated some numbers and idealized the martyrs’ suffering.
Assessment: Substantially accurate in outline, though dramatized to emphasize the triumph of faith.
Conclusion
Eusebius’s descriptions are largely accurate in outline but dramatized for theological effect. Most historians do not believe he fabricated history by inventing people or events; rather, he curated it – selecting what supported his view of divine providence, shaping quotations, and minimizing contradictions. This type of bias is evident in much of ancient historiography. It is unfair for critics of orthodoxy to portray Eusebius as a fraud. They should then also dismiss all ancient historians.
If the main source of church history can be disqualified, then every claim concerning Christ and the early Christians can be viewed with deep suspicion or even dismissed without considering historical facts.
*For further reading, see the post “The New Testament Canon: Is It Reliable?” on this site.
6.4. Calling Out and Rejecting Heresies — Was It Just a Political Stunt?
With the possible exception of Arianism, the claim that all other “versions” of Christianity were declared heresies only after the Council of Nicaea is false. As shown earlier, most older alternatives, such as Gnosticism, had already been debunked and labelled heretical by mid–late second-century theologians. The Council of Nicaea only confirmed what the Church had long held to be heretical.
Tatian (AD 125–202) criticized writers who altered accepted Christian texts in his Against Heresies, attacking Marcionites and Gnostics.
Tertullian (AD 160–220), famous for saying “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church,” was an energetic opponent of Gnosticism. He also condemned the writings of Marcion and Valentinus.
Hippolytus of Rome (c. AD 170–235) wrote Refutation of All Heresies (Philosophumena), a massive ten-book work exposing false teachings and pagan philosophies. It remains one of our richest sources of information on Gnostic movements and other early sects.
There is little doubt that the canon was firmly established by the time of Eusebius.
5 When Church History was Really stained by a Corrupt, Imperial Church
What cannot be disputed is the tragic developments after Christianity became the official state religion in AD 380. It’s worth noting that Constantine played no part in the Edict of Thessalonica issued by Emperor Theodosius I. In fact, Constantine never outlawed paganism; he even continued to support certain traditional cults, including the Sol Invictus (“Unconquered Sun”). He was baptized only on his deathbed, which may suggest a hesitation in fully renouncing pagan or heretical traditions.
After the Edict of Thessalonica, the Church gradually transformed into a monstrous political machine more interested in power and wealth than in theological truth. The Bible was kept in Latin – specifically St. Jerome’s Vulgate – a language that, by this time, only priests and bishops could understand. The Bible was thus kept beyond the reach of the common people, who were made dependent on the clergy to interpret it for them. This new, institutionalized, imperial church became known in the West as the Roman Catholic Church.
Later, in the Middle Ages, those who believed everyone should have access to Scripture in their own language were branded “heretics” and ruthlessly persecuted. Yet a faithful remnant always remained. Entire communities, such as the Waldensians and Petrobrusians, clung to the core teachings of the New Testament and defied the Roman Catholic Church.
This defiance incurred the Church’s wrath. Two reputed theologians, among many others, paid the ultimate price for it:
John Hus (c. AD 1372–1415) – a respected Czech priest, philosopher, and early reformer whose teachings anticipated the Reformation a century before Luther – was burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church.
William Tyndale (c. AD 1494–1536) – a learned English scholar, priest, and one of the key figures of the Reformation — was executed for translating the New Testament from Greek into English.
Many of the so-called “witches” burned during the Middle Ages were in fact women of faith who challenged Church authority. For more information about Christian persecution by the Roman Catholic Church, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (first published in 1563 by John Day) remains a valuable resource.
What This Means
Critics hostile to orthodox Christianity often point to this corrupted era of church history, claiming that orthodoxy – “the result of the newly created state religion after Nicaea” – is a false system. However, this is a straw man. It is a fallacy to refute a position by attacking a distorted version of it. No distinction is made between the false church and the true church that did adhere to the teachings of Christ.
Anyone familiar with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament can see that this “imperial church” had strayed far from the message of Jesus, who warned:
“Not everyone who calls out to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of My Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, we prophesied in Your name and cast out demons in Your name and performed many miracles in Your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from Me, you who break God’s laws.’” (Matthew 7:21–23)
Shortly before His crucifixion, Jesus warned His disciples that even religious people would persecute them:
“I have told you these things so that you won’t abandon your faith. For you will be expelled from the synagogues, and the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service for God. This is because they have never known the Father or Me.” (John 16:1–3) This is so true for the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquisition.
7 New Trends: What it’s Really all About
In our postmodern world and so-called “post-Christian era,” relativism has replaced objective truth in a Western culture dominated by secular humanism. There is a growing interest in spirituality without the trappings of organized religion or dogma – and who can blame people, if all they see are the darker aspects of organized religion and the failings of the church to imitate Christ? This is why Gnosticism, in its various forms, is again alive and well in Western culture.
“It’s sort of like reading Nostradamus – it’s ambiguous, vague, and open to all sorts of interpretation,” says Craig Evans (Strobel, 43). It doesn’t place heavy demands on anyone – you’re chastised for ignorance, but not for immorality or unrighteousness, the very things the authentic Jesus did address. There is no need for a Redeemer beyond ourselves.
The Self reigns supreme, inner divinity is preached, and objective truth claims have become irrelevant. The revisionist approach to Christian history is the product of a modern agenda that is politically correct and multicultural. It reflects an attitude that diversity is always good, truth is negotiable, and all opinions are equally valid. Truth claims are deemed “intolerant” and regarded as the new “evil”.
Academia
Another factor feeding the growing popularity of alternative church history is the culture within academia. As Evans observes, “The problem in academia nowadays is that there are so many people pursuing doctorates, writing dissertations, seeking tenure, and trying to get published that there’s a tendency to push the facts beyond where they should go.” “Nobody is going to get excited if you say the traditional view of the Gospels seems correct. But if you come up with something outrageous – that Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs, for example – then that warrants a headline. Or if you say there’s a gospel just a valid as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but it was suppressed in an early Christian power play, well, that’s news.” (Strobel, 32)
My theological perspective
Even though I grew up in a pastorage, I've been a sceptical seeker for most of my life, and even now cannot claim to have all the spiritual answers I've been seeking. But, through my years of research, especially after the Da Vince Code was published, I found that the faith that I've grown up with, is, in fact, based on very solid, historical evidence.
Everyone has biases – including those hostile to orthodox Christianity. But bias alone, as has been demonstrated, is insufficient for proving or disproving someone's position. One has to look at the facts presented. Allow me to offer my personal interpretation of the current trend in our modern Western culture.
Jesus had much to say about the days preceding His second coming, and it was not exactly encouraging. He placed great emphasis on deception. His first word of warning about the end times was: “Don’t let anyone mislead you.” (Matthew 24:4). He declared that many would be deceived by false Christs (Matthew 24:5) – and indeed, we have no shortage of alternative “Christs,” both in theory and in practice, in our day. “And many will turn away from Me and betray and hate each other. And many false prophets will appear and will deceive many people.” (Matthew 24:10 – 11).
On another occasion, Jesus posed this rhetorical question: “But when the Son of Man returns, how many will He find on the earth who have faith?” (Luke 18:8b).
The apostle Paul writes in his second letter to the Thessalonians that prior to Christ’s return (again), starting with the warning of deception, there will be a great falling away, or apostasy, before a false world messiah – “the man of lawlessness” – will then be revealed. (2 Thes 2:3) This trend is already evident in the West, particularly in Europe. As confusion increases about “good vs bad”; “right vs wrong”, a general lawlessness is starting to take shape in our society.
Why the orthodox view of Jesus’ nature still makes sense
If Jesus was to be both the Redeemer of humanity and the Revealer of God, it was necessary for Him to share the nature of both. As Michael Green puts it: “If He was to prove a bridge over the troubled water that separated sinful humanity from a holy God, He had to be a bridge grounded on both sides of the water.” (Green, 115)
Furthermore, only a sinless human being could serve as a legitimate substitute for humanity’s sins. If Jesus had been merely human—nothing more than the biological child of both Mary and Joseph—He would have inherited humanity’s sinful disposition and thus would have been disqualified from serving as a substitute for others’ sins.
Of all the religious writings I have encountered, the Bible presents the most realistic view of the human condition: “For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard.” (Romans 3:23). The ancient prophet Jeremiah describes the human heart as “… the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?” (Jeremiah 17:9).
We cannot save ourselves. A special kind of human was needed to do it – one free from sin and with divine attributes capable of bearing the full wrath of God for all of humanity’s cumulative transgressions – one held accountable for every act of rape, incest, murder, cruelty, sadism, megalomania, infidelity, cheating, jealousy, theft, false witness, lies, gossip, slander, and much more committed throughout human history. Only the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, was qualified and able to do this.
That is why Christians have worshipped him in adoration for two millennia. Perhaps one of the earliest manifestations of this conviction is from a hymn that Paul quotes in his letter to the Philippians, written around the mid-50s AD. Speaking of Jesus, he writes:
“Though He was God, He did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, He gave up His divine privileges; He took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When He appeared in human form, He humbled Himself in obedience to God and died a criminal's death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:6-8).
Spiritual salvation is simple – it doesn’t require any fancy religious rituals or practices or exclusive “knowledge”, because there’s nothing that we can do to earn God’s pardon. It requires only a simple step of faith in the One who did it for us, offering it freely to anyone coming to Him: “But to all who believed Him and accepted Him, He gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12)
Recommended reading:
Green, Michael. The Books the Church Suppressed: fiction and truth in The Da Vinci Code. Oxford. UK & Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. Monarch Books, 2005
Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus: a journalist investigates current attacks on the identity of Christ. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 2007
Bock, Darell L. and Wallace, Daniel B. Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ. Thomas Nelson, Nashville, Dallas, 2007
Evans, Craig. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholarship Distort the Gospels. IVP, 2007
Komoszewski, Ed J., Sawyer M. and Wallace, Daniel B. Reinventing Jesus: How contemporary sceptics miss the real Jesus and mislead popular culture. Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 2006
Sources:
Johnson, Aaron P. Eusebius. I.B. Tauris, 2014
Grafton, Anthony and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book. Harvard University Press, 2006
Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. University of California Press, 1991
Boyd, Gregory A. and Rhodes, Paul E. Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus dilemma. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 2007
Collins, Michael, and Matthew A. Price. The Story of Christianity: 2000 years of faith. Dorling Kindersley Limited London, UK. 1999
Green, Michael. The Books the Church Suppressed: fiction and truth in The Da Vinci Code. Oxford, UK & Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. Monarch Books, 2005
Schott, Jeremy M. Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008
Muncaster, Ralph O. Examine the Evidence: exploring the case for Christianity. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon. 2004
Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus: a journalist investigates current attacks on the identity of Christ. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 2007
Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius Harvard University Press, 1981
Visalli, Gayla. After Jesus: the triumph of Christianity. The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., New York, USA. 1992.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, Great Britain. 2003
Wilkins, Michael J. and Moreland J.P. Jesus under Fire: Modern scholarship reinvents the historical Jesus. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA,
All Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, unless otherwise stated.
Comments