Why did the Gnostics adopt other Gospels I guess is my real question? I was watching Da Vinci Code (I know, I know…I was incredibly bored and my roommate had it on the shelf so…) and they were talking about the gospel of Phillip, the gospel of MARY, the gospel of Thomas, and it all just seemed confusing to me.
Then one of the characters said “At Nicea they only chose the gospels that made Jesus look like more than a man.” That line didn’t bother me though because the truth is the truth and there must be a reason they chose Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John over Phillip, Mary, Thomas, and Judas!!!
These other “gospels” are described as Apocrypha. There is an interesting article on the apocrypha at new advent
newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm.
It is odd that the duh vinci code uses ‘gospels’ but never, ever the earliest gospels (matthew mark luke and john), only those written after the eye witnesses had died. Here are the relevant extracts from the new advent (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Gospel of St. Philip
Only one or two quotations remain of the Gospel of St. Philip mentioned by Epiphanius and Leontius of Byzantium; but these are enough to prove its Gnostic colouring.
The Apocalypse of Mary
This is probably what is mean by “Gospel of Mary”
The Apocalypse of Mary is of medieval origin, and is probably merely the outcome of an extravagant devotion. It describes the Blessed Mother’s descent to Limbo, and exists in Greek manuscripts. It has been printed in the Tischendorf collection (Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti).
Gospel of St. Thomas
There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution.
Other Gospels
It is enough to note the existence of other pseudo-Gospels, of which very little is known beside the names. There was a Gospel of St. Andrew, probably identical with the Gnostic “Acts of Andrew” (q.v., inf.); a Gospel of Barnabas, a Gospel of Thaddeus, a Gospel of Eve, and
even one of Judas Iscariot, the last in use among the Gnostic sect of Cainites, and which glorified the traitor.
for other good info go to catholic-resources.org- good stuff easy to understand. God bless