© 2006 Jan Herca (license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0)
¶ The Sources of the Fourth Part of The Urantia Book
The writer of the fourth part of The Urantia Book was a single being, a secondary midwayer who had in his custody the apostle Andrew (LU 121:0), who, assisted by a commission of eleven other midwayers and a Melchizedek, committed this part to writing.
The midwayer relied on the following sources for writing it:
- His own recollections of assisting the Apostle Andrew, and the recollections of other celestial beings (LU 121:8.1).
- The lost writings of Andrew (LU 121:8.1). Curiously, I have found that there must have indeed existed a gospel of Andrew, which is mentioned in wikipedia, and of which absolutely nothing has come down to us.
- Human concepts or expressions of two thousand human authors, who have lived from the time of Jesus until the time when the fourth part of The Urantia Book is written. It appears that some of these authors were even alive at the time of this writing (LU 121:8.13). These concepts and ideas, he claims, have been used in such a way that they have been modified, if necessary, to make the concept more truthful.
- The four extant gospels (LU 121:8.1).
¶ Facts from The Urantia Book about the composition of the gospels
Regarding the process of gospel formation, The Urantia Book describes a series of writings that appeared under the influence of one another and by different authors. The list is as follows:
- The original Gospel of Mark (LU 121:8.3): This was written by John Mark, who was Peter’s collaborator in Rome and was the son of Elijah Mark, the owner of the house where Jesus celebrated the Last Supper. In reality, this gospel was sponsored by Peter. Mark wrote it between 67 and 68. When he finished it, the last fifth was destroyed. This gospel, without this last part, is what we could call the original Gospel of Mark. The Urantia Book says that Mark based his work entirely on his personal memories and those of Peter. It was not based on any other previous writing.
- Gospels based on Mark (LU 121:8.3): these were modifications of the original Mark, mainly removing passages and adding material to the blank final section. It is curious that for quite some time there has been talk of a Secret Gospel of Mark, discovered in 1958 in a supposed letter by Clement of Alexandria. In my opinion, this letter is speaking of copies of some of these gospels based on the original Mark. The famous inconsistent verse in Mark (Mk 10:46) may be the point where, as The Urantia Book says, this gospel broke down with the loss of its ending.
- Current Gospel of Mark: This is one of the gospels based on the Original Gospel of Mark that finally got the Church’s approval and was accepted as the correct one.
- Matthew’s Original Notes (LU 121:8.5): Matthew took notes of many of Jesus’ sayings during Jesus’ lifetime (LU 139:7.5), and also shortly after Jesus’ death (LU 121:8.5). They were written in Aramaic. In my opinion, they served as a basis for other writings, but they have never been preserved on their own.
- Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic (LU 121:8.6): This is a gospel written in the year 40 (The Urantia Book does not say who the author was) and which was an expansion and correction of the original Notes of Matthew. It was apparently a personal document that someone owned or distributed very little, and the last copy was destroyed in a fire in a Syrian monastery in the year 416. In my opinion, this is the gospel that scholars call the Gospel of the Hebrews, of which only quotations have survived.
- Gospel of Matthew in Greek (LU 121:8.7): was written by a disciple of Matthew, named Isador, in the year 71, at Pella, on the Jordan. For this he used, according to The Urantia Book, only Matthew’s recollections, Matthew’s original notes, and the original Gospel of Mark. In my opinion, he also used the Modified Notes of Andrew.
- Current Gospel of Matthew: is the result of successive modifications of the Gospel of Matthew in Greek until it was finally fixed as we know it today.
- Record by Cedes (LU 121:8.9): Kedes was a believer in Antioch who wrote this text in 78 AD. The Urantia Book does not mention its contents. I have found no record of such a writing anywhere.
- Andrew’s Notes (LU 139:1.9): Andrew wrote these just after Jesus was crucified. Copies of this document circulated for a time among Christian communities.
- Andrew’s Modified Notes (LU 139:1.9): These are the Andrew’s Notes that were progressively modified to try to make them appear gospel-like.
- Andrew’s Gospel (LU 139:1.9): This is the document that the Andrew’s Modified Notes eventually became, after various additions and corrections by different authors. The last copy was destroyed in a fire in Alexandria about a hundred years after Andrew wrote the original. In my opinion, this gospel is the one that scholars also call the Gospel of Andrew, of which only mentions have come down to us, and which is wrongly considered identical to the so-called Acts of Andrew, and it is also, in my opinion, the one called by scholars the Q Document, so called because it is considered the original source of Matthew and Luke, and of which no copy has come down to us,and it has only been regenerated by analyzing the current gospels.
- Gospel of Luke (LU 121:8.8-9): Written by Luke, a disciple of Paul, from Antioch in Pisidia. He wrote it in 82 AD in Achaia. He based his work on the teachings of Paul, dozens of witnesses to the life of Jesus, the original Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew in Greek, the Article of Cedes, and the Modified Notes of Andrew.
- Current Gospel of Luke: This is the result of some modifications made to the Gospel of Luke.
- Acts of the Apostles (LU 121:8.8-9): This is the second part of his gospel that Luke wrote. His intention was to write a third part, I suppose recounting the adventures of Paul and Peter in Rome, but Luke died before finishing Acts.
- Selta’s Apocalyptic Writing (LU 176:2.8): Selta was a clerk in Caligula’s court who wrote this article on the Messiah and the parable of the ten virgins. In the second century, the gospels of Matthew especially (Mt 24-25), and some of Mark (Mk 13) and Luke (Lk 21), were expanded to include a modified version of this writing of Selta as if it were an end-time discourse given by Jesus. This was apparently the greatest alteration that these gospels ever underwent in a spurious manner, and it grossly distorted the Master’s authentic teachings on this subject.
- First Epistle of Peter (LU 139:2.12). It was written by Peter himself, although the present version is a modification of the original by a disciple of Paul.
- Original Gospel of John (LU 121:8.10 and LU 139:4.15): was written by Nathan of Caesarea, a disciple of John, in 101 AD, in Ephesus of Asia (John was extraordinarily long-lived). Nathan based his work on John’s recollections and all other existing documents. In my opinion, the originality of the content of this gospel, which shows details that the other three current gospels do not,It is proof that there were other gospels and writings that also contained much valuable information.
- Current Gospel of John (LU 121:8.10): The original gospel was greatly altered over time to make it appear as if it had been written by John himself. The striking Prologue, for example, was most likely a later addition.
- Original Revelation of John (LU 139:4.14): This was written by John during an exile on Patmos. The original was much longer than the present book.
- Current Revelation of John: This is a version of the original, with large portions omitted and others modified.
- First Epistle of John (LU 121:8.10): According to The Urantia Book, this was written by John himself to explain the work Nathan had done. However, there is no indication of this in this letter, such as a mention of Nathan or his gospel.
- Notes of Thomas (LU 139:8.12): A few weeks before his death, Thomas began writing a gospel. It is not clear to me whether this document is the current Gospel of Thomas of the scholars. In my opinion, this text uses the early writing of Thomas, but then adds many supposed Gnostic-type sayings of Jesus that were not part of Thomas’s original writing. The final document is very Gnostic in its flavor, with cryptic, double-entendre statements.
There are many other books called “apocrypha” in Christian literature, as we will see later, but a quick glance at them shows that they are no longer documents related to the life of Jesus, but rather legends about Jesus (especially about his birth), parallel or derived stories from the gospels, or pseudo-mystical speculations. There is nothing of value left in these writings, since the original sources are exhausted with the previous ones.
¶ The Two-Source Theory
In my opinion, the two-source theory is correct (Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English), and The Urantia Book conforms to it. Basically, what this theory says is that both Matthew and Luke used a double source to write their gospels, one that is known to us, the Gospel of Mark, and another completely enigmatic one, of which we have no news whatsoever, and which experts have baptized as the _Q documen_t. This would explain the coincidences between Matthew and Luke that are not reported in Mark.
But first, we should say that in The Urantia Book we are missing a mention that says that Isador wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Greek, also using Andrew’s Modified Notes as a source, just as Luke did. This is logical if we consider that we are told that Isador moved from Jerusalem to Pella (LU 121:8.7). Isador must have known Andrew, who surely also lived in Jerusalem with Peter for a time. Therefore, Isador must have had access to Andrew’s writings, the Andrew’s Notes or one of their modified versions.
Continuing with the two-source theory, what experts call the Q document would be none other, according to The Urantia Book, than the lost writings of the apostle Andrew, the Modified Andrew’s Notes (which is precisely a document that is not lost in the celestial world and was used as an invaluable source to write the fourth part of The Urantia Book, according to UB 121:0.1).
The name that experts give to some works is indicated by an equal sign (=). In orange, the documents for which we have no text today; in orange stripes, we have some indication in Christian literature with some fragment; in green, the documents that we have complete. The lines mark the influence that some writings exerted on others. The dotted line is the only one not mentioned in The Urantia Book, and which I assume is also valid.
¶ Considerations on the composition process of the gospels
As we can see, the number of gospels that were written was very low. The reason given by The Urantia Book is that the first generation of disciples (the apostles) very faithfully followed the idea that Jesus had instilled in them of not recording his teachings in writing (LU 121:8.3).
The second generation of disciples was something else. It is curious to note that all the evangelists were actually second-generation writers: Mark was actually a follower of Peter, although he knew something about Jesus; Isador was a disciple of Matthew and the authentic writer of the Gospel of Matthew; Luke was a follower of Paul, who, moreover, did not know Jesus; and finally Nathan, the writer of the fourth Gospel, was a disciple of John Zebedee.
There could have been six gospels. It is clear that we are missing the Gospel of Andrew, which is nothing more and nothing less than an expanded version of what experts today call the Q document, and which surely contained many unpublished passages from the life of Jesus that no other gospel mentioned, and which now, fortunately, The Urantia Book rescues for us (LU 121:0.1). And we are also missing the Gospel of Thomas, but not because it had the misfortune of being destroyed, but simply because Thomas died before he could finish it. The only thing that has come down to us from it are some sayings, surely many of which were certainly written by Thomas, which is what experts today call the Gospel of Thomas.
Of the five gospels that we finally have, something remarkable is clearly evident: practically the story told follows a unique scheme or pattern. The only gospel that truly appears very original and outside this pattern is the Gospel of John. This offers us a deplorable panorama for trying to obtain a plural view of Jesus’ life. What we really have in the five gospels is, at best, a dual view.
Basically, the accounts of Jesus’ life were composed following these stages:
- During his life or just after Jesus’ death, we have some notes taken by Matthew and Andrew. They are basically phrases, sayings of Jesus, and some speeches.
- Some disciples augmented these writings by adding short stories related to Jesus. These are the gospels that have not survived to this day, such as the Q document (in reality, the Q document was the proto-gospel of Andrew, which I call the Modified Notes of Andrew) or the Gospel of the Hebrews, which I call the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. These writings circulated in a very limited way and surely contained many inaccuracies because they were never under the patronage of an important apostle, hence their designation as “of the Hebrews” and similar titles (Nazarenes, Ebionites). Later, these writings were considered incorrect and marginalized until they disappeared. It is striking that the Gospel of Andrew, the authentic Q document I believe, and which had so much subsequent influence, ended up as a mere mention and no one bothered to preserve more copies, to the point of disappearing. Mustn’t its content have been extremely original and important?
- The gospels begin to be written. The first to write it is Mark. He was the one who established the outline or model for all subsequent gospels (baptism-preaching-passion of Jesus in Jerusalem). It is curious that The Urantia Book says that Mark based himself entirely on personal memories and those of Peter, when he had access to the notes of Andrew and Matthew, or the gospels that arose from these notes. This fact is something that exegetes have already observed in Mark. Mark seems to have a unique originality and to be the first gospel to be written, while Matthew and Luke seem to copy Mark and also from another source.
- Matthew and Paul sponsor their gospels (Matthew and Luke). These writers write much more complete gospels, for they not only use Mark’s model, but also incorporate more material. Much of this material comes from Andrew’s notes (The Urantia Book doesn’t say so, but I am convinced that Matthew used Andrew’s notes as well). Unknowingly, when we read the gospels of Matthew and Luke, we are reading the lost gospel of Andrew. I believe this lost gospel is what scholars call the Q document, and it would explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke not found in Mark (the two-source theory). However, even though these evangelists added many new passages not in Mark and gave us greater insight into the life of Jesus, they ultimately follow Mark’s outline very closely. For example, a striking fact about these three Gospels (called synoptic because of their close similarity) is that Jesus’ entire preaching seems to take place over the course of just one year. Since there are few chronological references, it’s unclear how long Jesus’ public life lasted.
- Thomas begins to write his gospel, and begins like Andrew and Matthew with some notes with sayings and phrases of Jesus. But he dies soon after, and his intention of writing another gospel came to nothing. Some disciples expanded and wrote down these notes of Thomas, and that is the Gospel of Thomas that we have today. Experts have found that there are many unpublished phrases from Jesus in this writing that are not found in Mark, Matthew, or Luke, which shows that it was an original writing by Thomas, based only on his own memories. Unfortunately, we will never know what the gospel this apostle would have written would have been like. Would it have been based on the other three or would it have been an original story?
- An unknown author expands Andrew’s notes and turns them into a gospel. He surely used a lot of material from the other three gospels, so that this gospel ultimately seems like a copy of the others, although with enormous originality derived from the fact that it used a source with much important content. That this gospel must have been important in its content for understanding Jesus is derived from the fact that a quarter of The Urantia Book is largely based on this gospel, of which the heavenly beings have a copy. What a great shame that this gospel, unfortunately, was destroyed! How much more we would have learned about Jesus! The last existing copy was burned, according to The Urantia Book (LU 139:1.9), about a hundred years after the original was written (AD 30). This unfortunate event appears to have occurred during the Kitos War, from 115 to 117, since this date indicates a Jewish revolt that spread to Alexandria, during which the Jews burned many Alexandrian buildings. Curiously, it was the Jews who ultimately destroyed this gospel.
- Finally, John writes his Gospel, with the clear intention of narrating episodes from the life of Jesus that had not been told and of offering, in his opinion, a clearer and more accurate view of some of Jesus’ words. The amount of detail John offers about the Last Supper has no equivalent in other Gospels. And there are many miracles that no one else recounted, such as the one at Cana. It is clear that the Synoptic Gospels represent an outline in the story of Jesus’ life (which includes two sources, Mark and Andrew), but thanks to John we have a second, distinct and original view of Jesus.
¶ The Other Gospels That Experts Call Apocryphal
There are many other writings, apart from those already mentioned here, which are sometimes called Gospels, which belong to those writings that in Christianity were called apocryphal. However, it is very incorrect to call them Gospels. Most of them do not follow the real outline of a story about the entire life of Jesus (from his birth to his death and resurrection), with a significant number of sayings and teachings about him. These writings are essentially extensions of existing gospels or pseudo-mystical literature of the time, and none dates from as early as the 1st century; all are from the 2nd century or later. In my opinion, this literature is pure speculation by 2nd-century writers trying to fill in the gaps, and unfortunately, there is nothing in them that offers us new information about the life of Jesus.
A list of these writings, excluding the apocryphal ones already mentioned above, could be as follows:
- Protoevangelium of James (Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia): an account only of the conception and birth of Jesus, much of which was already present in the other gospels. It is simply an expansion made in the 2nd century. (Link on Urantiapedia)
- Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English): an expansion of the story of Jesus’ birth, with a multitude of fanciful stories about his childhood, made during the 2nd century. (Link in Urantiapedia)
- Book of the Nativity of Mary: a much later version, from the 9th century, of the previous writing. (Urantiapedia link)
- The Book of the Infancy of the Savior (Spanish Wikipedia): The same as above, a 9th-century version of the above writings. (Urantiapedia link)
- Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas, Israelite philosopher: A fanciful account of supposed miracles involving the child Jesus, 2nd-century. (Link on Urantiapedia)
- Arabic Infancy Gospel (Spanish Wikipedia): a later version of the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. (Urantiapedia link)
- History of Joseph the Carpenter (English Wikipedia): a 4th-century version of the above writings, which expanded on the part concerning Joseph’s life and death in old age. (Urantiapedia link)
- Armenian Infancy Gospel: A 6th-century expansion of the existing childhood accounts of Jesus. (Urantiapedia link)
- The Book of the Infancy of the Savior: An 11th-century compilation of the previously known childhood accounts of Jesus. (Urantiapedia link)
- Gospel of Peter (Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia): Only fragments of this text are available, and references are made to it by early Christian fathers. In my opinion, this Gospel is nothing more than a remnant of one of the Syrian versions of the Gospel of Matthew, which I have called the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic. It was written around 130. The Early Fathers, in fact, mention it critically, denying that it could be the work of the Apostle Peter. Some communities surely used the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic under the heading of the Gospel of Peter to give it greater authority, as it contained certain statements contrary to Christian orthodoxy. (Urantiapedia Link)
- Gospel of Nicodemus, Acts of Pilate, or Descent of Christ into Hell (Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia): is an account of the trial of Jesus, where Pilate is now not as guilty of the verdict, of the death and resurrection, and of Jesus’ descent into Hell, from where he returns victorious. Composed in the 2nd century. (Urantiapedia Link)
- Gospel of Bartholomew (Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia): Written in the 3rd century, it contains some very original dialogues between Bartholomew and Jesus, but also material on Jesus’ descent into hell that has been seen before. (Urantiapedia link)
- Book of St. John the Evangelist, the Theologian: description of Mary’s assumption into heaven. A very modern writing, from the 4th century. (Urantiapedia link)
- Book of John, Archbishop of Thessalonica: similar to the previous one, and also from the 4th century. (Urantiapedia link)
- Transit of the Virgin Mary or Narration of the Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea: a very late account, from the 13th century, about the assumption of Mary into heaven, following in the footsteps of the previous ones. (Urantiapedia link)
- Gospel of Judas (Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English): a series of conversations between Jesus and his apostles, where Judas has a special role, but which put into Jesus’ mouth pseudo-mystical statements of a Gnostic type, where the important thing is to know certain mystical secrets that provide eternal life. 2nd century.
- Gospel according to Mary (Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English): the same dynamic as the previous one, some conversations between Jesus and his disciples after his death, with a more important role this time of Mary Magdalene, where supposedly Jesus reveals some secret mysteries about the universe.
- Dialogue of the Savior (Wikipedia in English): this one does have an appropriate title because it is more of the same as the previous ones, some conversations between Jesus and his disciples where Mary Magdalene has a special role, and where she offers them mystical secrets. 2nd century.
- Secret Book of John (Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English): a speech, not even in the mouth of Jesus, with Gnostic ideas about gods, angels, demons and the genesis of creation. 3rd century.
- Secret Book of James (Wikipedia in English): is actually a letter attributed to James, from the first half of the 2nd century, where he narrates some words that Jesus said before his assumption into heaven. And the truth is that it is one of the few texts in which the speech has a tone quite similar to the traditional one.
- Gospel according to Philip (Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English): a set of mystical reflections of a Gnostic type, where the apostle Philip almost does not appear, from the 3rd century.
- Wisdom of Jesus Christ (Wikipedia): another book of conversations between Jesus and his disciples with Gnostic ideas from the mouth of Jesus. 3rd century.
- Letter of Peter to Philip: a letter supposedly from Peter that reverses the end of the Gospel of Luke. 3rd century.
- Book of Thomas the Athlete (Wikipedia): a speech by Jesus supposedly directed to the apostle Thomas, which contains Gnostic references but is largely original and whose words are very reminiscent of the traditional gospels. 2nd century.
- Revelation of Peter (Wikipedia in English): a vision supposedly by Peter, with clear Gnostic perceptions, and which seems to be a writing intended to disqualify a certain Pauline tendency by putting Peter as guarantor of the faith. 3rd century.
- Revelation to James (Wikipedia): Gnostic dialogue between Jesus and his brother James with a very similar outline to the previous ones. 3rd century.
- The Book of the Great Initiatory Discourse or the two books of Yeú (Wikipedia): a mystical treatise where mystical visions about the gods, angels and Gnostic rituals are offered, but where Jesus appears in a purely nominal way. 3rd century.
- Pistis Sophia (Wikipedia): as a continuation of the previous one, where in the form of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, Gnostic ideas about the origin and destiny of man continue to be revealed. 3rd century. (Urantiapedia link)
- Gospel of the Egyptians (English Wikipedia): discourse with typical Gnostic content of mystical names and strange explanations about the order in the cosmos. 2nd century.
- Gospel of Truth (Spanish Wikipedia): discourse or homily of Valentinian Gnostic style. 2nd century.
- Gospel of the Nazarenes (Wikipedia in English): we have a few fragments, but in my opinion, and following some experts who believe this, this gospel is nothing more than a copy of the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, which I have called Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic, like the Gospel of Peter. 2nd century.
- Gospel of the Ebionites or of the Twelve (Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English): we have a few fragments of this gospel that must have been a Gnostic-type text. 2nd century.
- Gospel or traditions of Matthias (Wikipedia in English): we have very few fragments of this gospel, supposedly written by Matthias, the successor of Judas Iscariot, to give us an idea of its content, and which only appeared mentioned by the Church Fathers with invitations to the ascetic life.
- Gospel of Eve (Wikipedia in English): this is how the Church Father Epiphanius called it, but it is a text of the sexual sect of the Borborites.
¶ References
Apart from all the Wikipedia references used, and which appear in the footnote, the following have also been consulted:
-
Aurelio De Santos Otero, Los Evangelios Apócrifos (The Apocryphal Gospels), BAC.
-
Elaine Pagels, Los Evangelios gnósticos (The Gnostic Gospels), Editorial Crítica, 2004.
-
Various authors, edited by Antonio Piñero, Todos los evangelios canónicos y apócrifos (All the canonical and apocryphal gospels), Edaf, 2009.
-
Antonio Piñero, Los Apocalipsis. 45 textos apocalípticos apócrifos judíos, cristianos y gnósticos (The Apocalypses. 45 Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Apocryphal Apocalyptic Texts), Edaf, 2007.
-
Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer and Gregor Wurst, El evangelio de Judas (The Gospel of Judas), National Geographic, 2006.
-
Antonio Piñero, Los cristianismos derrotados (The Defeated Christianities), Edaf, 2007.