PLANK SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Yesterday the world learned of a newly-discovered early Christian text that depicts Jesus as a married man. Jesus’ wife may be big news today, but striking and unusual variations on Christian faith have been around for a very long time. Whether you call them the heretic gospels, the apocrypha, or Dan Brown’s raw material, the records left by some of Christ’s first followers make for pretty interesting reading. Pulling from a variety of early Christian texts, including the famous Gnostic Gospels, here are three particularly surprising heresies from outside the canon:
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Young Jesus the Menace
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Gospel of Thomas; apparently there were a limited number of names in the Levant) depicts 5-year-old Jesus as a little temper-tantrum-throwing tyrant. I’m talking way beyond mischief: the word “demonic” springs to mind.
A neighbor messed up the brook that he was supernaturally playing in, so Jesus cursed him; “thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. And straightway that lad withered up wholly” (III.2-3). Another boy bumps into him, and Jesus straight up killed the kid (IV.1). When that boy’s parents got mad at Jesus for, you know, murdering their child, he cursed them with blindness (V.1). Joseph tried to discipline him with some righteous ear-twisting, and Jesus said, “Vex me not” (V.3). Parents, keep your kids away from this gospel: they might get ideas.
I should mention that Jesus does eventually decide that his blinded, withered, and dead victims have learned their lesson, and he brings them all back:
Now let those bear fruit that were barren, and let them see that were blind in heart. I am come from above that I may curse them, and call them to the things that are above, even as he commanded which hath sent me for your sakes. And when the young child ceased speaking, immediately all they were made whole which had come under his curse.
But lest you think this is a happy, redemptive ending, check out the kicker:
And no man after that durst provoke him, lest he should curse him, and he should be maimed.
Yowza.
The Gospel of Judas: Judas was a good guy. No, really
You know that moment in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when Harry realizes, too late, that Severus Snape had been on the side of good all along? That eminently hateable villain was just doing what Dumbledore asked, and all he got was a bad reputation. Poor guy.
The Gospel of Judas is pretty much just like Deathly Hallows, except Dumbledore is Jesus, Snape is Judas, and we’re all Harry Potter. After two millennia of people using “Judas” as a synonym for traitor, this gospel tells us the poor man was just doing his job.
First, the text says Jesus was closer to Judas than any of the other disciples, and that he gave Judas some secret insider information on the nature of the universe: “Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom,” he says to Judas, and, later, “Come, that I may teach you about secrets no person has ever seen.”
Jesus both warns Judas of the condemnation to come and promises him he will be rewarded later: “You will become the thirteenth, and you will be cursed by the other generations—and you will come to rule over them... you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”
There are a lot of missing chunks, but it looks like Jesus and Judas—working together—plan the details of Judas’ betrayal and Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus needed his physical body to die in order to ascend to heaven, and he asked Judas to help him out.
This is drastically different from Jesus letting Judas betray him. Canonically, Jesus knew what was coming—“Verily I say unto you, that one of you will betray me”—and didn’t stop it, but that doesn’t mean he was happy about it. In fact, he said pretty clearly that “it had been good for that man if he had not been born,” which ain’t exactly friendly. (Matthew 26:21-24).
But as the Judas Gospel shows, not everybody was happy with that version of the story... Even in the 2nd century BC, some folks were still in love with Judas, baby.
The Gospel According to Philip: About that whole “virgin birth thing”...
The Philip Gospel, part of the Nag Hammadi codex, is most famous for the section that says “And the companion of the savior is Mary Magdalene. The savior loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her [word missing]” which, as you can imagine, has led to some truly delightful academic Mad Libs.
But an even more striking heresy occurs earlier in the Philip text, where the author lays out a nice, logical argument for why the virgin-birth business is nonsense—and in the process, directly contradicts Luke 1:35 and the Apostle’s Creed:
Some said, “Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.” They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. Whenever has a female been impregnated by a female?
(Now might be a good time to point out that some Gnostic communities seem to have believed in a female Holy Spirit, a sort of Mother figure to go along with the Father and Son.)
Mary is the virgin whom no power has defiled... Whoever of the powers (attempts to) defile this virgin, such powers are merely defiling themselves. And the Lord would not have said “My Father who is in Heaven”, unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply “My father”.
To recap: Mary was always virgin, indefilable, and so was not impregnated by the Spirit—not to mention that the Holy Spirit is female, and a lesbian divine impregnation is just not believable. Instead, Jesus has two fathers, one in Heaven and one not-in-Heaven, and presumably the not-in-Heaven one is the inseminator, but despite having two fathers, Jesus’ mother was still a virgin. Glad we cleared that one up.
As the Smithsonian article takes care to point out, these non-canonical texts aren’t biographical evidence; the new document does not prove that Jesus was married any more than the gospels of Thomas, Judas, or Philip prove that Jesus was a terrible five-year-old, Judas was a secret Snape, or that the virgin birth was... whatever Philip is trying to say it was. Instead, all the non-canonical texts stand as evidence of the diversity of early Christian thought, showing (sometimes colorfully) that before Church orthodoxy was established, early Christian beliefs varied widely. There was no “canon” to defy when these non-canonical texts were written: while churches today call them heresies, to the gospel-writers who recorded them, these Christian texts were God’s own truth.
11 comments
In the first and second centuries, the followers of Messiah Jesus differed as to whether He was of flesh or of spirit. The Gospel of John settled the issue (well, settled it for most). Whether Jesus was married has to be considered in that context; for those followers of Messiah Jesus who believed he was of flesh, a marriage would support them since spirits, at least those I know, don't have spouses and sex. Yes, there was a great deal of diversity among the early followers of Messiah Jesus, though "diversity of early Christian thought" is an anachronism. If TNR wishes to have more on the history of Christianity, I'm all for it. But how about recruiting, say, Bart Ehrman, or Garry Wills, who has been a long-time contributor to TNR. In the meantime, how about Amy Sullivan, the "resident expert".
- rayward
September 19, 2012 at 7:00pm
The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were intended to give a more or less accurate report of the life of Jesus. Scholars believe they used a now lost book of the sayings of Jesus, which they refer to as "Q". It is unlikely that even the authors or first readers of the gnostic gospels had any belief that they were in any sense historical. The line between history and historical fiction was not clearly drawn. The gnostic authors had a theological point(s) of view and writing a gospel would have seemed a natural way to express it. I am glad that Philip clears up that matter of the virgin birth, however.
- Vekert
September 19, 2012 at 8:10pm
Because I am crazy, I also participate on an evangelical Christian web site. I once was banned from that web site for making sarcastic remarks about conservative Christianity. The current web site fissioned from the one that banned me. I am about to be banned from this web site. Perhaps they are persecuting me because I am Jewish? This post and the comments so far sound like something that might be posted by the Onion, or by Cracked. There is a humor site for evangelical Christians. I tried to submit an article there once, but they weren't having any of it, and I am not even allowed to post stupid comments, as I am at TNR and at Cracked. Religious belief is nonsense. We are alone in a meaningless universe. Jesus may have lived (not absolutely for sure). He was not born of a virgin; he did not rise from the dead. I am not sure why the story is so popular and long-lasting. We're on our own, and in the end we all die. I don't want to die, but I know I will. Anybody who thinks they want to live forever is absolutely bonkers.
- skahn
September 20, 2012 at 12:01am
There's just nothing like TNR for the amazing diversity of interesting topics presented. And the commentators, like the two above, who have germane, interesting things to say on the topic at hand. What a great magazine. (I congratulate myself on recent renewal of my subscription.)
- Haole45
September 20, 2012 at 12:06am
If Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not a man, who cares what gender the Spirit was? I've always thought of spirit as gender-neutral. Well, the Church eventually did a number on the diversity of early Christian thought, didn't it? It crammed Jesus into a formulaic pigeonhole, from which He has yet to escape. Perhaps if He were a bit more complicated (read human), His followers would value his words more than his sometimes-puzzling actions. As we see from the article, many or most of His actions may have been simply made up. And many of them run counter to the core of His beliefs as the Prince of Peace. The above is a well-written and entertaining article.
- magboy47.
September 20, 2012 at 12:25am
I agree with skahn on one point. I certainly don't want eternal life. If the very thought of it wouldn't drive me bonkers, the experience certainly would. What the hell would I do in Eternity? Okay, if they have 25 ESPN channels there...okay, that would be Heaven.
- magboy47.
September 20, 2012 at 12:34am
Of course Jesus is just another element in the Great Jewish Conspiracy to rule the world.
- noga1
September 20, 2012 at 7:14am
Yes, there was a great deal of diversity among the early followers of Messiah Jesus, which the canons were intended to settle. My first comment was intended to confirm the diversity and provide one possible explanation for disagreement about whether Jesus had a wife. But rather than debate the unknowable (not just trivial issues like whether Jesus had a wife but the core issue of the faith, the resurrection), I suggested that TNR recruit a new testament scholar to address the knowable. And given TNR's history, I suggest that the first question the scholar address is the historical Jesus and Jesus's relationship to Israel. No, not the Mel Gibson version of ecumenism. But the historical relationship. In my first comment I mentioned that "early Christian" is anachronistic, because early followers of Jesus, including (and this comes as a surprise to many) Paul, did not believe they were creating a new religion; in Paul's case, he thought he was bringing the Gentiles into Israel not further dividing Jews and Gentiles. Today's faithful Christians are familiar with the old testament but I've found that few Jews are familiar with the new testament; and it's understandable, as why would a Jew wish to learn more about how the Jews crucified Jesus. So whenever someone uncovers new "facts" that raise questions about Jesus's divinity (would God have a wife?), it's snickers all around about those gullible Christians. Again, my suggestion is that TNR consider the knowable, not the unknowable. The subject is actually very interesting, and what readers learn may come as a surprise.
- rayward
September 20, 2012 at 8:09am
I'm actually reading a very informative book about Jesus, written by an Israeli professor, which situates the historical Jesus within the Jewish community of his times and postulates that Jesus was not a revolutionary intent on starting a new religion/Judaism, but totally a reformer focused on "modernizing" some Jewish aspects to bring it into line with the SPIRIT of Judaism as he understood it. The main theme of the research is that Jesus was not an anomaly within the Jewish community but rather than he was very much a man planted within Judaism and emphasizing ideas that had already been in popular circulation for at least a century and half before his lifetime. For example, the idea that the ethical core of Judaism is "Love the other as you would love yourself" was already a central tenet promulgated by the rabbinical school of Hillel long before Jesus was born. The book was translated into English: http://www.amazon.com/The-Sage-Galilee-Rediscovering-Genius/dp/0802825877/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1348157252&sr=8-3&keywords=flusser In Hebrew it is titled simply as "Yeshu". I'm reading it in Hebrew.
- noga1
September 20, 2012 at 12:14pm
I haven't done much reading in this area, but what piques my interest is why authors made such different claims. Presumably they were trying to emphasize something specific about Jesus's life or life lessons. But what is a story about a terrible 5-year-old or Judas's goodness trying to say about Jesus? That's what I don't know, and why the Synoptic Gospels mostly make sense to me, as emphasizing Jesus's lessons and the tragedy of his death.
- polcereal
September 20, 2012 at 12:26pm
The, ahem, very colorful gospels floating around in those early centuries (most of them a good bit later than the canonical gospels) have an awful lot of different motivations behind them, it would seem. Many, particularly those that start to appear in the second century, have some sort of Gnostic bent to them, particularly appealing to those who like to believe they're in the "in crowd" and know stuff other people don't (the Gospel of Judas would fit nicely there, of course). The Gospel of Philip sounds more like an early Marian-cult effort. (These poor apostles, having all these bizarrely off-key "gospels" attached to their name -- after all, what good's a gospel if it isn't associated with someone close to Jesus? Luke would be the only real exception, if you go with the old tradition associating Mark with the fellow who ran away naked from Jesus's arrest scene in Mark 14:51-52, which would at least give Mark some eyewitness cred.) For what it's worth, a year of NT gives me no clue what the author of that Infancy Gospel was trying to claim.
- cspencef
September 20, 2012 at 9:27pm