The gospels and apocrypha.(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: I was gently amused by Mr Dungey's comments (Letters, January-February 2004) on my review of And Behold the Burning Bush (November 2003). I hadn't realised that the Evangelical tradition of flogging parsons had spread so far west, beyond the monstrous palace where our local Archbishop has the best address and best view in Sydney.

I entirely agree that Keith Windschuttle would have been a better reviewer than me, but I seriously doubt that he would support your correspondent's claims about the origins of the canonical gospels. There is not yet a shred of historical evidence that Mark's gospel was written in Rome under the guidance of Peter. I wish there were. Similarly, the beloved disciple, perhaps, would have been as old as Moses when he wrote Revelations in Ephesus.

He corrects me about the name of the Moore Theological College--I was wrong. Though I think that few Anglicans outside the Eastern Suburbs would agree that it is Australia's leading institution for the teaching of Holy Scripture. Outside Australia it is something of a joke. I commend him to Trinity College in Melbourne, but warn that he may be preached to, or served the host, by women.

The point of And Behold the Burning Bush is that it brings back to people of my age the memories of childhood learning--no doubt much of it was wrong. Of course the apocryphal gospels and the Gnostics are vague and of dubious origin (though Thomas will always be a worry) but they are part of the early history of the Christian church, and therefore part of our Western culture and traditions. They should not be sneered at.

Chris Thomson,

Sydney, NSW.

SIR: Contrary to Alan Dungey's belief that "there is no reason [to doubt that] Mark wrote his gospel in Rome based on the reminiscences of the apostle Peter, roughly between 60 and 70 AD" there are in fact many very powerful reasons to doubt this popular tradition.