Review of Dr. Darrell L.

Bocks The Missing Gospels Matthew Philip Miller Since the inception of Christianity, there have arisen numerous counterfeits and alternatives which have claimed to be equal to the orthodox Christian faith in terms of authority and validity. The early church defended orthodoxy against various forms of Gnosticism. Today, in light of newly discovered, early Christian writings, the church is found echoing those early Christian defenses, only this time against textual critics rather than Gnostic adherents. In The Missing Gospels, Bocks argument against the new schools use of the missing Gospels as proof of early, alternative Christianities is best summarized this way: the theological content of the missing Gospels is incompatible with the theological content of the earliest Christian writings. Bock points out that the newly discovered writings are falsely attributed to apostolic writers. Many of these controversial writings bear titles claiming apostolic authorship when they really have no coherent links to the period to which their title points (Bock 7). These Gospels use Christian terminology, but they do so in a way that is foreign to New Testament usage, such as the use of the term Christ (78, par. 2). Bock also makes a careful point to correctly define the opposing side. Although these early writings are not entirely Gnostic (21), they all have Gnostic leanings and counter-orthodox theological concepts. Thus, it is important not to stereotype all of these early writings as Gnostic but to look at each one individually to determine its place in the missing Gospels debate. The existence of tertiary sources actually weakens the new schools position (my argument). There is also hot discussion concerning the dating of Gnosticism (Chapter 3). The new school claims that Gnosticism pre-dates Christianity and that the early Christians borrowed Gnostic elements. However, with a clear, Bockean definition of Gnosticism, we see that the two

foundational elements of the early church, community practice and praise (24), were absent in Gnosticism. Therefore, Christianity did not borrow its faith or practice, even if Gnostic theology does pre-date Christianity (which has not been convincingly proven). Although there are early sources of diverse views within Christendom, we can know what the early church taught, believed, and practiced (207-208). Bock makes a strong case against the new schools theory and, in doing so, makes a strong case for historic, orthodox Christianity. The rest of his work, chapters 6-13, is spent exploring these missing Gospels and comparing their theological concepts to those of historic Christianity.

OPPOSITION STRENGTHENS ORTHODOXY

Skeptical criticism of the entire Christian canon is rampant in our post-modern culture. This criticism inevitably spills over into Hollywood, which then influences minds across the world, both old and young alike. It is, therefore, very important for the New Testament scholar to approach the newly discovered Gospels with tremendous care. As Bock has shown, the case for orthodoxy can be strengthened greatly if the facts are handled carefully and correctly. This relationship is, perhaps, the most valuable aspect of his work and presentation. So, what is it about these newly discovered Gospels that will make such a case for orthodoxy? First, by comparing and contrasting the missing Gospels with the historic Gospels, there remains less room for a subjective interpretation of their differences. When a verse in a new Gospel is set beside a corresponding verse in a historic Gospel, the differences and similarities will become apparent. This is exactly how Bock presents his work in chapters 6-13. Aside from an elementary knowledge of historic Christianity and its proposed alternatives, there is no scholarly detective work required for one to see that the two accounts are on two theological planes, despite their shared use of language or terminology. When one sees the

obvious differences between the two accounts, it is the early Christian faith which is clarified and thus strengthened, while the alternatives remain incompatible. A good example of this is in the two camps view of Jesus divinity. The alternative view in the Gospel of Philip is that Jesus was not born of the virgin Mary because, in this alternative view, the Holy Spirit is seen as feminine (Sophia), and two women cannot pro-create (100-101). Instead, Philip sees Jesus as being re-born supernaturally when he is baptized by John, and in this new birth he puts off the body of flesh and becomes a spiritual being. At the very least, this concept has a serious theological implication on the atoning work of Christ (Hebrews 9:22): Without a physical death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, there is no substitutionary sacrifice, and, in one fell swoop, two thousand years of orthodoxy are nullified. However, when Philip is compared side-by-side with the apostolic witness in Scripture, such as Luke 24:39 and Colossians 2:9, orthodoxy is strengthened as it remains the only way to keep intact the meta-narrative of redemption throughout the entire canon a feat which alternative Christianities cannot reproduce . When viewed side-by-side, even a child can see the incompatibility between the two theologies. Bocks work is a great aid in this way. Second, the case for orthodoxy is strengthened by what these missing Gospels reveal about their early alternative views. In these missing Gospels, we see that early alternatives lacked unity in doctrine (42), lacked unity in practice (24), and continue to lack sources earlier than the earliest orthodox sources (52-54). In comparing the success of orthodoxy against that of early Christian alternatives, it is clear why the missing Gospels went missing. Works Cited Bock, Darrell L. Ph. D. The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2006.