> One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be

> One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be motivated to be accurate. Or they were motivated to present their view of things as seen by the various pseudepigrapha, large number of Gospels by the late 2nd century, disagreements in the community evident in Paul's genuine letters, and theological differences between canonical Gospels, such as what Matthew and Luke left out or changed from Mark. In the 2nd Century, we have Church fathers railing against other Christian communities for heretical writings and teachings. There were Jewish Christians (Ebioinites) who likely saw Paul as a false prophet, There were the various so-called Gnostic communities who thought the were legitimate Christians, and the proto-orthodox. There was also Marcion with his Gospel and followers. Half the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are similar to sayings in the Synoptics, but with a twist. Five of the 12 letters attributed to Paul were likely written later by other authors claiming to be Paul with their own theological views. Luke says things about Paul in Acts that contradict what Paul himself says in his genuine letters.