Gnostic and apocryphal texts Sources for the historicity of Jesus

a number of later christian texts, dating second century or later, exist new testament apocrypha, among gnostic gospels have been of major recent interest among scholars. 1945 discovery of nag hammadi library created significant amount of scholarly interest , many modern scholars have since studied gnostic gospels , written them. however, trend among 21st century scholars has been accept while gnostic gospels may shed light on progression of christian beliefs, offer little contribute study of historicity of jesus, in rather late writings, consisting of sayings (rather narrative, similar hypothesised q documents), authenticity , authorship remain questionable, , various parts of them rely on components of new testament. focus of modern research historical jesus has been away gnostic writings , towards comparison of jewish, greco-roman , canonical christian sources.

as example, bart ehrman states gnostic writings of gospel of thomas (part of nag hammadi library) have little value in historical jesus research, because author of gospel placed no importance on physical experiences of jesus (e.g. crucifixion) or physical existence of believers, , interested in secret teachings of jesus rather physical events. similarly, apocryphon of john (also part of nag hammadi library) has been useful in studying prevailing attitudes in second century, , questions of authorship regarding book of revelation, given refers revelation 1:19, post ascension teachings of jesus in vision, not narrative of life. scholars such edward arnal contend gospel of thomas continues remain useful understanding how teachings of jesus transmitted among christians, , sheds light on development of christianity.

there overlap between sayings of jesus in apocryphal texts , canonical christian writings, , not present in canonical texts called agrapha. there @ least 225 agrapha scholars have studied them have drawn negative conclusions authenticity of of them , see little value in using them historical jesus research. robert van voorst states vast majority of agrapha inauthentic. scholars differ on number of authentic agrapha, estimating low 7 authentic, others high 18 among more 200, rendering them of little value altogether. while research on apocryphal texts continues, general scholarly opinion holds have little offer study of historicity of jesus given of uncertain origin, , later documents of lower value.