[MineralMan]

You're right. The book was written around a number of non-fiction writings that said much the same thing. Same thing if you write a novel set during the Revolutionary War. You put some historical stuff in there for verisimilitude.

Here's the thing: The Gnostic Gospels, one of the sources for these oddball theories about Jesus, are contemporaneous with the writings that became the Christian Canon. The Gospel of Mary is especially interesting, in my opinion.

So, one set of old writings becomes "true" while the other is "false"

Oh, well. So it goes.

[Antoninus]

The Gnostic Gospels, one of the sources for these oddball theories about Jesus, are contemporaneous with the writings that became the Christian Canon. The Gospel of Mary is especially interesting, in my opinion. So, one set of old writings becomes "true" while the other is "false"

Uh, yeah. What do you think they did to decide? Flip a coin? Scriptural scholars who were conversant with the original documents and languages on a level unmatched even by the most acclaimed modern linguists went through every writing with a claim to cannonical status with a fine-toothed comb. Those which were rejected usually were for a very strong reason, ie., they contained error, falsehood, or were not actually written by one of the Apostolic fathers.

In truth, the core of the Christian Canon--the 4 Gospels and the letters of St. Paul--were settled very early on. If you actually read the non-canonical books, it's fairly obvious why they were excluded. Jesus most likely didn't turn a bully into a toad, no matter what Anne Rice seems to think.