The Lost Gospels
On 30th December last, in his excellent blog “Captain Ranty” set some of his reasons why he was unhappy with organised religion, and Christianity in particular. One of the reasons for his problem with organised Christianity was that he thought the Bible was incomplete. There were many books missing from the official version, he observed, and he argued he wanted to have a full picture. He posed the question; what was it that had been cut out and hidden and why?
What a very, very good question.
Now, two points. First, anything which touches on religion tends to cause a considerable kerfuffle on the net, so let me say at once that this piece is NOT intended as a religious tract or to advance any particular view or argument (at least not consciously). It is written from the perspective of the amateur historian, with the emphasis very much on “amateur”. So if I am happy to be corrected if I have got matters wrong.
Second, I don’t propose to try to give a full answer, because I am not sure anyone knows the full picture. I certainly don’t.
Instead, I propose to dwell on the story of the “Gnostic Texts”, and of their re-partial discovery – which is a matter of fact, and not theology. It is, in my view, a fascinating story and with more true life twists and turns than a Dan Brown novel – with whom, as many will know, there is a connection.
Now where to begin?
It is the second century AD.
Christianity is a persecuted religion. Many Gospels are in circulation; perhaps as many as thirty, and many other Christian texts. But there are schisms and sects within Christianity.
In 180 AD Bishop Irenaeus of Lugdunum (now Lyons) writes a polemic[1] attacking what in shorthand we can call “Gnosticism.”
Quite what Gnosticism was is a matter which bears some consideration. “Gnosticism” derives from the Greek “Gnosis” meaning “knowing” or “those who know”, and this branch of Christianity appears to have preached tradition of secret knowledge handed down from Jesus.[2] There were other more profound differences with what might now call traditional Christianity. Put rather crudely, one is that the physical world is essentially painful, even evil, and is not the work of a creator God because it is imperfect. God was thus not the creator of the world in the way usually associated with traditional Christianity, although he is the Supreme Being. Thus, to be released from the evil of the world and inhabit the spiritual realm is a good thing.
In his polemic, Irenaeus attacks the Gnostics. He argues there are only four true Gospels, those today called the Canonical Gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, and what are now called the so called “Gnostic Texts,” were in fact heresies.
There was one of these “Gnostic Texts” in particular that Irenaeus had it in for:
“They [the authors] declare that Judas the Traitor, alone knowing the truth as no others did accomplished the mystery of the betrayal. They produce a fictitious story of this kind, which they style “The Gospel of Judas….” [My emphasis]
So, from Irenaeus’ tract we can be sure of some key facts. First, that there were many Christian Gospels and tracts in circulation by 180AD. Secondly, that many of these were from the “Gnostic” viewpoint. Thirdly, that one of these was the so called “Gospel of Judas.” Fourth, that whatever that was, it claimed Judas was possessed of some secret knowledge, unknown to the other Apostles, and that he accomplished something special. And finally, that Irenaeus hated what it said.
We now move forward to 367 AD. The Church is more firmly established. Athanasius of Alexandria is now a leading Christian Bishop and intellectual. Athanasius writes to his followers declaring that there are only twenty seven texts written after the birth of Jesus which should be read. These include the four Canonical Gospels. These, and ONLY these, he said, were approved scripture. Any text or Gospel other than those he named was heretical and should not be read. Indeed it was these twenty seven texts which ultimately formed what we now call the New Testament. The others were either suppressed or fell into disuse, and lost.
We now move forward 1,500 years to 1896. In Egypt, two British archaeologists are excavating ancient papyri written in Greek and Coptic (second and third century Egyptian) found in what appears to be an ancient rubbish dump.
Within the many thousands of fragments of papyri is one which lies unnoticed for years, until someone notices that it refers to “Mary”. Although only a small fragment remains, the text refers to a vision of Jesus which “Mary” has had soon after Jesus’ death and her discussion about it with the other disciples. The text records an argument. The disciple Peter appears to resent the fact that Jesus has made himself known in a vision to a woman rather than the other Apostles.
This is the so-called “Gospel of Mary Magdalene”, although it is right to say that no mention of the name Magdalene is made. But it suggests that a female figure, Mary, had a significant role within Jesus’ close followers at and after his death, or indeed according to some, that she was his closest disciple.
It is now 1945. Three hundred miles south of Cairo is a place of deserts and caves called Nag Hammadi. Egyptian farmhands searching for a type of fertile soil find a skeleton, and with it a sealed jar. At first they do not open the jar because they fear it might contain an evil Jinn. But the lure of gold tempts them. When they break open the jar they find not gold, but thirteen leather bound papyrus codices. How these then survive is itself a minor miracle (no pun intended) since the farmhands rip up the texts to divide them amongst themselves, some are discarded in a back yard and some of these dusty old papers are designated as kindling. But in the main they do survive. These are the Nag Hammadi texts, and they contain more than fifty early Christian texts, written in Coptic and dating from the 3rd or 4th century AD. They now reside at the Coptic Museum, Cairo.
They include the almost complete Gospel of Thomas, which is not a narrative but a list of 114 sayings of Jesus, at least half previously unknown, many decidedly cryptic, The Sophia (“wisdom”) of Jesus (an important Gnostic concept is “Sophia”), and The Gospel of Philip.
It is The Gospel of Philip which causes the most controversy, because it suggests that Jesus had a very close (though not necessarily sexual) relationship with Mary Magdalene. Tantalisingly some words have been destroyed, but the usual translations of the key parts are as follows:
“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Saviour answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”
As I mentioned above, it does not necessarily follow that this involves a sexual relationship; it could be that in the context of the time the act of kissing on the mouth – if that is the correct translation – is a spiritual symbol for the exchange of wisdom, the spirit, or spiritual knowledge. Once again, however, the figure of Mary Magdalene is very much to the fore in Jesus’ life. Please note that I am expressing no view on the authenticity or significance of the account – that is for each individual. But the document is a genuine 3rd century papyrus. However, it is this text which in part gives rise to the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, which forms the basis of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code.
Finally, and most controversially, in 1978 and again in Egypt, a farmer searching for treasure allegedly finds leather bound codex in a cave. The book is in decent condition and finds its way to Cairo and from thence to the international antiques market. It is a murky word, and a web of intrigue then surrounds who owned or (perhaps) stole the book. In 1982 attempts are made to sell it to an American university at an asking price of $3 million. The academics who examine it can see it is significant, and can recognise the repeated references to “Judas”, but do not have that amount of money and are not given time to study the text in detail. The deal goes off. Ultimately, the codex is left in an American bank vault for 17 years without appropriate protection. The result is that the papyrus begins to dry out and degenerates significantly. Nevertheless, rumours of what the codex might be abound in the antiquities market. In 1998 an antiquities dealer receives a “mystic urge” to track down the codex (or make money, depending on your view). She does so, and negotiates a purchase. She takes then the now crumbling papyrus to Harvard University.
When properly examined, it is found that it is entitled “The Gospel of Judas.”
Is it genuine? Experts note its similarity to the Nag Hammadi texts and vouch for its authenticity. Carbon dating confirms the date of the document to circa 280 AD. It is genuine, at least in the sense of being from the 2nd or 3rd century AD.
The document has become desiccated and utterly fragmented, but in an astonishing feat of patience experts slowly reconstruct it; a fragile million piece jigsaw in an ancient language. About 85% is restored and readable.
This Gospel turns the traditional image of Judas on its head. According to this account, Judas is closest to Jesus and his understanding of Jesus’ teaching is more profound than the other disciples. Jesus imparts Judas with special knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven, and according to this version, it seems that it is on Jesus’ own instruction that he “betrays” Jesus, knowing that he does so at his own cost because he will be hated by the other disciples. Jesus seems to choose Judas to do this, because it is only Judas has the strength to do what Jesus believes is necessary. Note how this matches Irenaeus’ complaint about this Gospel above:
“Judas the Traitor, alone knowing the truth as no others did accomplished the mystery of the betrayal…….”
And this is by no means the end of the story. There are many more “mainstream” documents that did not make it into the New Testament. An example is The Gospel of Peter, which was known to exist but thought lost until a part was found by French archaeologists in 1886. One might think a text by the first acknowledged leader of the Church would have made the grade, but it did not.
I do not propose to suggest why. Instead, if a reader is interested, I merely say I draw much of this account from the excellent BBC documentary “The Lost Gospels” by Anglican priest Peter Owen Jones, who has the time and space to explore the issues, and with whom viewers may agree or disagree at their own leisure. I commend it. It can be found via YouTube, beginning here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U&feature=related
There is also a rather cheesily over the top but still informative National Geographic documentary on the Gospel of Judas. Ironically, in true archaeological style it is slightly incomplete, but it is still a most interesting watch when the experts give their views. Here is a link to the start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywJdMezcqio
Finally, I emphasise again that I am NOT advancing any theory on these topics. Faith (or lack thereof) is a private matter and I have no monopoly on truth. Indeed, a summation of my life would suggest that I have a talent only for error. But I hope you found the story of some of what was cut, and what turned up, an interesting one.
Gildas the Monk
[1] “Against Heresies”
[2] I think “Gnosticism” survived on in the form of the Cathar religion until it was ultimately and horribly violently suppressed in the 13th Century. I commend a reading of Kate Mosse’s excellent novel “Labyrinth”
January 6, 2011 at 17:15
-
Or a night in the raccoon’s arms …….
Now here’s a thought to conjure with …..
- January 6, 2011 at 00:22
-
Referring back to Anna’s description of this forum : in how many
bars should we expect to hear a discourse of such quality ?
My thanks to you, Gildas, for the article and to all for the insightful
comments.
ΠΞ (an agnostic but sceptic)
- January 6, 2011 at 06:44
- January
5, 2011 at 21:19
-
Great post, Gildas. Thank you for taking the time to present it.
- January 5, 2011 at 20:03
-
Excellent post Gildas and following on from another excellent piece by
Captain Ranty (which I read but did not comment on). Although completely non
religious myself (unless sitting in the garden sipping a cold beer, watching
insects busy around the flowers and reflecting on how wonderful nature is
counts as being a pagan) I do think in the past religion did perform the
function of binding communities (in fact that was the first purpose of tribal
religions, bloody and horrible though they were by most accounts) and the
state’s atempts to full that role and sideline religion have failed.
It seems therefore the Gnostic Gospels may have a lot to offer us.
- January 5, 2011 at 18:55
-
- January 5, 2011 at 20:05
-
Lenko,
Although difficult to understand Enoch does throw a lot of
light on the New Testament doesn’t it?
-
January 6, 2011 at 11:40
-
I am ashamed to admit that I haven’t yet read it. Perhaps
tomorrow….
-
January 6, 2011 at 05:09
-
Thank you for this link. This eliminates me having to chase it down in
the library one day.
-
January 5, 2011 at 18:07
-
I read the entire Gnostic Gospels prior to beginning to read the approved
Bible, King James Version – and I am very happy I did it, in that order.
The Gnostic Gospels should be available in local libraries, translated into
English and a very good read for anyone curious. It was also very easy reading
I thought, a little on the mystical side, but easy to follow.
I thought they were very consistent from one writer to the next, they
seemed to reinforce the same storyline.
The Shepherd’s Story (I think that’s what it was called) with its visions
and messages from Heaven and stories from when Jesus was a young child are
something you can’t find in the approved Bible. The Jesus as youth stories, I
wasn’t quite sure if that was entirely believable to me, but was certainly an
interesting take which the approved Bible doesn’t go into details.
In the approved Bible and the Gnostic both, I came away thinking that
Jesus’ intention was very much to “fullfill the prophecies” regarding dying on
the Cross and fulfilling the role of Messiah as something He wanted to achieve
in all earnesty – and in the Gnostics, given that Jesus would have felt that
as His prime mission here on earth, then when it is portrayed that Judas was
actually doing something “good” by turning Jesus in to authorities, that would
seem logically to make sense, that Jesus would have approved. Otherwise, the
mission wouldn’t have come to pass and He needed someone to fulfill that role,
which couldn’t have been easy.
And in the approved Bible, there is the part where Jesus tells one of the
disciples to, “Get behind me satan”, when the disciple wishes to intercede
somehow to stop Jesus’ arrest and martyrdom from taking place. So in that
light, it would almost make sense that Judas did something “good”, to achieve
a higher goal, even though he’s seen as the bad-guy in the approved version.
And that would make me question then, why in the approved orthodoxy, is this
consistent portrayal of Judas as “bad” – when in fact had he not did what he
did, then the entire Crucifixion might never have happened – and Jesus’ life
would have died in vain.
I am just an ignorant person though, no expert in religion, who knows no
large words to describe what I’ve read. I’m not preaching religion either. I
am just making comment to say that yes, the Gnostic Gospels, as I have read
them, do say all the things mentioned above, and much more, should one care to
read them.
I would check out a local library and see if they have an English
translated version in stock. It’s not a difficult read and is quite
interesting to ponder.
I hope that doesn’t make me a “heretic” against the orthodoxy for having
read them, but I am able to make the intellectual decisions on my own, as to
whether any of it might have been true, not true or maybe a small bit of truth
thrown in here and there throughout it – also caused me to ponder why some of
it might have been omitted and it left me with some ideas on that too. You
would of course have to draw your own conclusions after reading it, but
personally don’t see why the Gnostic Gospels were necessarily so offensive,
from a non-political ponit of view in them formulating the Bible the way they
did.
I am hoping one day to find the book of Enoch, something else that
apparently didn’t make it to the official Bible, because of some things said
in that book, perhaps another one considered heretical – but I live life so
cavaliar that I will risk my chances on reading the so-called heresies – as
the mere act of reading them certainly isn’t going to condemn me to hell,
necessarily, I hope.
- January 5, 2011 at 17:17
-
Interesting stuff about the Gospel of Thomas. It is basically a list of
quotes attributed to Jesus. Unfortunately there is no narrative or
chronology.
This Gospel of Judas does sound very interesting and I expect it would not
have been welcomed by Paul because he was a terrible misogynist. I expect his
thinking would be mirrored by churchmen of the second and subsequent centuries
too. That and the awful PR that Judas has had for the past two thousand
years.
It’s hardly surprising that Jesus, an obviously charismatic indivifual,
wuld have had female admirers and followers. Maybe this is part of the way he
scandalised society of the time as alluded to in the four main gospels
recoding some of his more extreme actions. Or I could be talking complete
rubbish. Or even writing it too!
- January 5,
2011 at 16:52
-
Thank-you Gildas, this is an account that I, as a Church person, am very
satisfied with.
For clarification: Some Christians were Gnostics but not
all Gnostics were Christians.
The canonical Gospels agree that Mary
Magdalene was the first to see Jesus afterhis crucifixiton, not as a vision,
but as a living man.
Gnostic gospels are unlikely to imply that Jesus had a
sexual relationship with Mary M. because gnostics were not very keen on sex.
Some modern liberal Christians think that too much gnosticism is to be found
in traditional Christian teachings.
Gnosticism teaches that the Spiritual
is so opposed to the Material that they were created by two different Gods.
Christians believe there is only one God, so Gnosticism is ulitmately
incompatible with Christianity.
-
January 5, 2011 at 16:27
-
How apt that Gildas puts this post up on a day another heretic is buried in
the Punjab for opposing the blasphemy Laws publically.
Organised religion says more about the fraility of Man than the Divinity of
a God. The Pelegian heresy threatened schism in the early Church because of
its stance on free will and the denial of the original sin.
The conflict between the Celtic Church and Roman Church when the heathen
English were being converted shows that there has never been an orthodox
Christianity with the sole rights on the ‘word of God’
Having seen the Dead Sea Scrolls in Jerusalem it is a facisinating
subject.
- January 5, 2011 at 16:57
-
I agree – and it’s not just Christianity. These clips about the Koran are
interesting in the same context.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1JsyFrpKg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk40dR8UpaU&feature=related
I think it adds to the argument that all religions need to be interpreted
within the changing conditions of life within our communities and on the
planet, rather than on the judgements made within the past 2,000 odd years
by people who were not even there at the time.
Thanks Gildas for some education today.
-
January 5, 2011 at 15:46
-
Thank you for the kind and (so far) moderate posts! I enter this area with
some terpidation for the reasons set out above. I merely add that the “Gospel
of Judas” and “the Gospel of Thomas” are clearly a “Gnostic” texts in style
and content. What readers make of them is entirely a matter for them. I
express no view whatsever.
I hope it has been of interest.
G
- January 5, 2011 at 15:30
-
I has become a good habit in my circles to avoid discussions about
religion, politics and soccer, as they tend to get very heated and are
generally unproductive, as no one will give up his POV on these matters.
Thank you for providing a link to the BBC documentary. I will certainly
watch it later today. One comment I read there, will be quoted from time to
time by me: “A good man will do good things. An evil man will do evil things.
For a good man to do evil things he needs religion”.
- January 5, 2011 at 15:32
-
We specialise in sex, politics and religion round here – we give the
soccer a miss – far too controversial!
-
January 5, 2011 at 22:14
-
I know, Anna. That’s why I continue to post here
Sex … did you say “sex” …?
- January 5, 2011 at 15:07
-
Thanks for that… just finished watching “The Lost Gospels”, some of which
came as news to me. It seems the Church had its origins in local power
struggles, anti-woman feelings, suppression of ideas that didn’t fit, and good
old plain corruption. Hasn’t changed a bit.
I’m not a scholar, but I’ve always had the feeling that local politics at
the time had a lot to do with the beginnings of the Christian movement, and
that maybe Jesus and his followers were some kind of passive resistance
group.
Also, I’ve heard it said (perhaps untruly) that there is no contemporary
record of Jesus and his crucifixion, in an age where Greeks, Romans and Jews
all were prolific letter writers. Though there IS evidence of a man called
Yeshua in about 200 BC, who preached much the same things.
Anyone care to comment?
- January 5, 2011 at 21:23
-
The most powerful book I have read on the subject is ‘Jesus the Man’ by
Dr Barbara Thiering and I would recommend it to anyone who wishes to know
the background story of what went on 2,000 years ago.
-
January 6, 2011 at 11:38
-
Thanks — will try to get hold of a copy
- January
5, 2011 at 14:55
-
A most enlightening read. Thank you for taking the trouble.
- January 5, 2011 at 14:47
-
Gildas,
A great post. I find it fascinating not from a faith standpoint but one of
historical record. I have no problem with those works that were genuinely lost
or accidentally destroyed (like the library in Alexandria) but I do get narked
at writings that are deliberately hidden, or heavily edited.
And I wonder at CC’s assertion that anything “not agreed with” is false?
Was it not Einstein who said “It only takes one scientist to disagree with me
to cause doubt”? (I have paraphrased). I also imagine (I don’t have evidence
to support this) that those early disagreements are what caused splits in the
church and that may be why we have so many Christian “sects” today. (Over
7,000 at the last count).
One of the points raised in the comments in my original piece was that
heresy could have been the reason these texts were omitted. But there seems to
be confusion over what actually constitutes heresy.
I am now quite pleased at the original outrage my first piece (now deleted)
caused. As a result I have learnt an awful lot.
CR.
- January 5, 2011 at 15:42
-
CR
The establishment of the canon of NT scripture was not formulated
by the same kinds of authoritarian structures that we associate today with
the Roman and Orthodox churches; the canon was a result of consensual
agreement – not papal diktat. The agreement of the canon was accomplished by
church leaders and theologians relatively soon after the events of the
Gospels and Acts; the only writings in any contention since then have been
the intertestamental Apocrypha – which, as I explained in my posting on your
blog – I have reason to believe only existed in Aramaic (not Hebrew), and
reached the Gentile world through the Septuagint (Greek) and the Latin
Vulgate. They don’t appear in the Hebrew scriptures (Law, Prophets and
Writings).
A propos the multitudes of sects in Christianity – this is not
a serious issue unless there’s variance concerning the essentials of
theology and doctrine (in which case the word ‘cult’ would apply to those
embracing heterodoxy). For the most part the divisions in Protestantism
revolve around church governance and baptism. As a Protestant I would also
take issue with certain RC doctrines, but on the essentials I’m in agreement
with them.
- January 5, 2011 at 16:25
-
Thanks for explaining (again) CC.
- January 5, 2011 at 14:13
-
Thanks for the post, Gildas. It’s a question worth raising, since there’s a
lot of confusion on the issue. Gnosticism derived from the mystery religions
that were abundant at the time of the NT. It’s no coincidence that the apostle
Paul in his 2nd letter to Timothy says “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted
to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely
called ‘knowledge’ (gnosis), for by professing it some have swerved from the
faith.” It was evidently a real pastoral problem because it was undermining
people’s faith.
As you already state, the principal claim of the Gnostics
was some esoteric knowledge – usually allegedly imparted from the lips of
Christ, and not part of the body of orthodox Christian teaching as laid out in
the NT. This contrasts with the openness and accessibility of the received
teaching through the NT canon, which was formally agreed by consensus as to
its genuineness and its theological consistency with the rest of the divine
revelation. It excites a great deal of interest from those who are outsiders
to the Christian Church – Dan Brown and the conspiracy theorists certainly
know how to tickle such curiosity, since it’s easy to assume that the
Christian church has somehow suppressed things that would otherwise blow the
whole thing apart. The actual reasons for the non-inclusion of Gnostic
writings into the canon of Scripture however is more pedestrian. It was agreed
that it was inconsistent with what was agreed. In other words, false.
- January 5, 2011 at 14:06
-
What of the Essene Gospel? I’m sure this dates from C2 also. For me, the
most interesting aspect is, “Jesus imparts Judas with special knowledge of the
Kingdom of Heaven…”, as this description concurs with the abilities of many
other religious prophets since Jesus. This Gnostic aspect could be the rock on
which faith is based – a direct experience of God within.
-
January 6, 2011 at 17:21
-
Try Googling ‘Essene’.
More ‘Mystic’ than ‘Gnostic’, IIRC.
-
January 6, 2011 at 17:26
-
Oh, and more C2BC than C2AD.
-
January 5, 2011 at 13:30
-
Forget novels – read this
http://www.amazon.com/Montaillou-Cathars-Catholics-Village-1294-1324/dp/0140137009
{ 30 comments }