Lost Gospels: heresies or Lost Christianities?

[Darwin]

Sunday, Dec. 14, 2003
New York -- Dozens of early Scriptures are experiencing a resurrection, filling "a perceived need for alternative views of the Christ story on the part of New Age seekers and of mainline believers uncomfortable with some of their own faith's theological restrictions," David Van Biema writes in TIME's cover story, "THE LOST GOSPELS. Early texts that never made it into the Bible are suddenly popular. What do they tell us about Christianity today?"

Scriptures with names like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, The Acts of John, The Homilies of Clement and the Gospel of Truth are are examples of obscure texts that are becoming objects of popular discourse, according to TIME.

"You might think of them as lost Christianities if you’re a religious liberal or as early heresies if you’re a conservative," notes Van Biema.

http://www.time.com/time/press_relea...561441,00.html

What thinkest thou?

[Dave G]

I would classify them as heretical in that they were excluded from the canonization process. I took a cursory look at the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Truth because my memory is poor. The Gospel of Peter is fragmentary, and has the troubling aspect of the angels and Jesus have heads that reach into heaven. If the Homilies were written by Clement, I suppose they have as much value as any homily, but that wouldn't make them scriptural. The Gospel of Truth is Gnostic, and even though I once owned the Nag Hammadi library, I haven't been able to make sense of documents that claim secret knowledge.
Also interesting is the tradition that the Gospel of Mark is a collection of Peter's recollections anyway. For the Gospel of Peter to have some authority it would have to be assumed that Peter was telling about Jesus to other scribes besides Mark, and they have contradictory accounts.
I haven't checked the Gospel of Mary or the Acts of John.

[Jaltus]

Good grief, they were considered heretical by the early church for a reason: they are pure fabrications! If skeptics do not like the four gospels we have, all written within 60 years of Christ, why in the world would one hold to the historicity of one written 300 years later?

For that matter, the later gospels tend to be anti-woman, gnostic, and obviously forged.

[GrayPilgrim]

Where's my favorite? I had a neighbor who said that it was left out by the church because the church was mysoginistic, and it was too nice to women. Well this is just how nice--

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

<Sarcasm>

So I guess all the women should be making a bee line for sex changes if you care about your eternal souls

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[hospitaller]

I agree with Jaltus insofar as if nonChristians think that the canonical gospels beggar belief and offend, they should check out the noncanonical stuff!

I would see them as heretical insofar as they were written to imbue the reader with a leaning towards a particular sect and its beliefs. Heresy is not error, heresy is promotion of division and party spirit. That's the sense in which it is used in the Greek of the scriptures. Not all the noncanonical early Christian writings are heretical, and all of them (heretical or not) are (IMHO) essential for a deeper understanding of Christianity.

[BKofNM]

It happens every year. The Christmas season rolls around and the press decides to publish more articles that question Christianity. It is rarely a positive article because the press only knows how to question, not to answer.

I suggest that anyone who is really interested in these texts visit a website called Development of the New Testament Canon and specifically to their cross-reference table (http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml) Just glancing at this table shows how the books that ultimately made it into the NT as part of the canon were almost universally accepted from the very beginning. The only exception being the early church "father" (who was actually a heretic himself) Marcion who either rejected or questioned all of the books because they didn't match his heresy, and Justin Martyr who simply didn't mention any of the other books outside of the Gospels.

Of the "other books" mentioned in articles such as the one mentioned, NONE of them are accepted universally by the early church. NONE are accepted by even a quarter of the early church.

The books in the NT canon (with the exception of a few questionable book, i.e., 2 Peter, James, 2 and 3 John) are in the canon because it was obvious that they belonged there. These other books were excluded because it was obvious they didn't belong there.

You think that press could get that much right.

BK

[HerodionRomulus]

Yesterday @ 11:50 PM post located here
GrayPilgrim:

Where's my favorite? I had a neighbor who said that it was left out by the church because the church was mysoginistic, and it was too nice to women. Well this is just how nice--

114 Simon Peter said to them, &quot;Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.&quot; Jesus said, &quot;Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.&quot;

<Sarcasm>

So I guess all the women should be making a bee line for sex changes if you care about your eternal souls

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

More sarcasm
Guess that would make everyone gay, since all the women are now men!!!!!!!!!!


What paper??? Finish it when???????????????

[Etcetera]

DMG:

Greetings in the name above all names.

You wrote:

I would classify them as heretical in that they were excluded from the canonization process.

Exclusion from the process of canonization constitutes heresy? So all books that failed to make the cut are heretical? Surely that is far too strict a definition of heresy.

The Gospel of Peter is fragmentary, and has the troubling aspect of the angels and Jesus have heads that reach into heaven.

Many parts of the canonical scriptures have "troubling" aspects. The fact that Elisha's relics are claimed to have raised the dead may be troubling to Protestants. A prophet cooking over dung may be considered troubling in some circles. A sword coming out of Jesus' mouth may be troubling in others. I do not think that one of the criteria for canonicity was lack of troubling features. Was it not always apostolic authority?

Besides, the head stretching to the heavens was a literary device expressing the glorified, if you will, nature of the body. If this device were applied (as it is in the Acts of John!) to Jesus' preresurrection body, the text would be docetic. But applied to his resurrection body? (In the gospel of Peter the resurrection coincides with the ascension.) That of itself is not heretical. It may be mistaken, but not heretical.

Our first recorded orthodox reaction to the gospel of Peter comes from Serapion, as cited in Eusebius' History of the Church, book 6, chapter 12:

• For we, brethren, accept Peter and the other apostles as [we would] Christ [himself], but, as experienced men, we repudiate what is falsely written under their name, knowing that we have not had any such things delivered to us. For I, when I was with you, supposed that all of you adhered to the right faith, and, not having [yet] gone through the gospel which they produced under the name of Peter, I said: If this is all that seems to cause you scruples, let it be read. But now that I have learned, from what has been told me, that their mind had its lair in a certain heresy, I will take care to come to you again. So, brethren, expect me soon.

Note carefully the criterion that Serapion applies to the text: Was it written by Peter, or was it falsely ascribed to him? Serapion asserts the latter, but still, so as not to be contentious, allows the gospel to be read in the congregation. It is only when he learns that some are using it to promote a docetic heresy that he reacts differently.

He continues:

• ...we have been allowed to borrow this very gospel from others who used it, namely the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae (for most of their notions belong to that school), and to go through it, and to find that most of it is of the right word of the savior, but some things are adventitious, a list of which we have drawn up for you.

So Serapion, having already concluded that the gospel of Peter was pseudonymous, goes through the book itself and compares its contents to the genuine books point by point. Nothing ever comes up of "troubling" aspects. The only point was: Was it really written by the apostle? And then, when the answer is no, how does it compare point by point with the real writings?

For the Gospel of Peter to have some authority it would have to be assumed that Peter was telling about Jesus to other scribes besides Mark, and they have contradictory accounts.

If the gospel of Peter were actually included in the canon of scripture, any perceived contradictions with the other accounts would surely have elicited a heartier effort at reconciliation. I am not saying that it does not contradict the others. But it is remarkable how quickly we resort to that word when the work in question is not part of our own sacred set.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Jaltus:

Greetings in the shared love of the Lord.

Good grief, they were considered heretical by the early church for a reason: they are pure fabrications!

Fabrication was not, so far as I am aware, a basis for charges of heresy. Exclusion from the canon, yes. Heresy? Not to my knowledge.

If skeptics do not like the four gospels we have, all written within 60 years of Christ, why in the world would one hold to the historicity of one written 300 years later?

300 years later? The gospel of Peter was written in the middle of the second century at the very latest. The gospel of Thomas? Papyrus Oxy 1 dates from about 200 (and surely it is not the autograph!). The gospel of Mary? Papyri Rylands 463 and Oxyrhynchus 3525 date from the middle of the third century. These fragments rival the dates for the earliest canonical papyri. Papyrus Egerton 2, to bring another noncanonical gospel into the picture, is in fact our earliest fragment except for Rylands P52 (first half of the second century).

For that matter, the later gospels tend to be anti-woman, gnostic, and obviously forged.

Gnosticism, despite (or perhaps because of) its androgynous view of the creation, did tend to be anti-woman. You are correct on that.

I notice the term "later gospels" (which would dovetail with your mistaken interval of 300 years above). The lateness of some of these gospels is something that must be proved, not asserted. In terms of actual hard evidence (whether desert fragment or patristic citation) the Egerton papyrus, the gospel of Peter, and possibly even the gospel of Thomas beat out the Acts of the Apostles, for example. I am not at all saying that all those gospels predate Acts, or that Acts was written in the late second century. I am simply stating the obvious, that the earliest patristic or manuscript evidence circumscribes the latest actual date of composition.

Who is to say that some of these writings do not predate some of the canonical writings? The fact remains that early composition was never the crucial question for canonicity (except insofar as a document cannot be actually penned by an apostle after the death of said apostle!). The question was always apostolic origin. (Eusebius stated that many in his day respected Papias just because he was "an early man," but no one tried to canonize his writings.) So the last phrase in your statement, "obviously forged," comes closer to the truth.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Socrates]

12-18-2003 @ 03:50 PM post located here
GrayPilgrim:

Where's my favorite? I had a neighbor who said that it was left out by the church because the church was mysoginistic, and it was too nice to women. Well this is just how nice--

114 Simon Peter said to them, &quot;Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.&quot; Jesus said, &quot;Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.&quot;

Thank you GP. That pseudo-Christian Islamic Godzilla said he liked the Gospel of Thomas and whinged when I said here, "What a rabid misogynist you must be." The above is what I meant, and if IG likes that he has no right to whinge.

[Socrates]

12-19-2003 @ 03:30 AM post located here
BKofNM:

It happens every year. The Christmas season rolls around and the press decides to publish more articles that question Christianity. It is rarely a positive article because the press only knows how to question, not to answer.

More likely, most journalists are rabidly liberal anti-Christian bigots. Trust the likes of Darwin to cite something from the general cesspool of media anti-Christianity.

I suggest that anyone who is really interested in these texts visit a website called Development of the New Testament Canon and specifically to their cross-reference table (http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml) Just glancing at this table shows how the books that ultimately made it into the NT as part of the canon were almost universally accepted from the very beginning. The only exception being the early church &quot;father&quot; (who was actually a heretic himself) Marcion who either rejected or questioned all of the books because they didn't match his heresy, and Justin Martyr who simply didn't mention any of the other books outside of the Gospels.

Of the &quot;other books&quot; mentioned in articles such as the one mentioned, NONE of them are accepted universally by the early church. NONE are accepted by even a quarter of the early church.

Of course! The Church recognized what was already functioning as authoritative; it did not "choose" the Canon. See my post Bruce and Metzger on the Canon, which cites two of the world's greatest experts on the topic.

The books in the NT canon (with the exception of a few questionable book, i.e., 2 Peter, James, 2 and 3 John) are in the canon because it was obvious that they belonged there. These other books were excluded because it was obvious they didn't belong there.

As GP documented in spades with the GoT!

You think that press could get that much right.

Fat chance when it has anything to do with biblical Christianity.

[Dave G]

Etcetera,

Greetings to you as well.

You wrote:

12-22-2003 @ 08:00 PM post located here
Etcetera:

Exclusion from the process of canonization constitutes heresy? So all books that failed to make the cut are heretical? Surely that is far too strict a definition of heresy.

Yes, if the books are claiming a status that would give them a canonical authority, such as "gospels." I would say that all heretical books therefore failed to make the cut.

Many parts of the canonical scriptures have &quot;troubling&quot; aspects. The fact that Elisha's relics are claimed to have raised the dead may be troubling to Protestants. A prophet cooking over dung may be considered troubling in some circles. A sword coming out of Jesus' mouth may be troubling in others. I do not think that one of the criteria for canonicity was lack of troubling features. Was it not always apostolic authority?

Besides, the head stretching to the heavens was a literary device expressing the glorified, if you will, nature of the body. If this device were applied (as it is in the Acts of John!) to Jesus' preresurrection body, the text would be docetic. But applied to his resurrection body? (In the gospel of Peter the resurrection coincides with the ascension.) That of itself is not heretical. It may be mistaken, but not heretical.

I think you will have to choose whether the literary device expresses the glorified body of Christ or whether it symbolizes the ascencion. Either way, the troubling features you are mentioning come from prophetic and apocryphal books. Can you give an example of a literary device such as this used in a bioi? The actual authority of the texts is, of course, the Holy Spirit, and He gives the apostles their authority. So why exactly would a text inspired by the Holy Spirit be afforded mistakes? And how are you able to determine the difference between a mistake and a lie?

Our first recorded orthodox reaction to the gospel of Peter comes from Serapion, as cited in Eusebius' History of the Church, book 6, chapter 12:

• For we, brethren, accept Peter and the other apostles as [we would] Christ [himself], but, as experienced men, we repudiate what is falsely written under their name, knowing that we have not had any such things delivered to us. For I, when I was with you, supposed that all of you adhered to the right faith, and, not having [yet] gone through the gospel which they produced under the name of Peter, I said: If this is all that seems to cause you scruples, let it be read. But now that I have learned, from what has been told me, that their mind had its lair in a certain heresy, I will take care to come to you again. So, brethren, expect me soon.

Note carefully the criterion that Serapion applies to the text: Was it written by Peter, or was it falsely ascribed to him? Serapion asserts the latter, but still, so as not to be contentious, allows the gospel to be read in the congregation. It is only when he learns that some are using it to promote a docetic heresy that he reacts differently.

He continues:

• ...we have been allowed to borrow this very gospel from others who used it, namely the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae (for most of their notions belong to that school), and to go through it, and to find that most of it is of the right word of the savior, but some things are adventitious, a list of which we have drawn up for you.

So Serapion, having already concluded that the gospel of Peter was pseudonymous, goes through the book itself and compares its contents to the genuine books point by point. Nothing ever comes up of &quot;troubling&quot; aspects. The only point was: Was it really written by the apostle? And then, when the answer is no, how does it compare point by point with the real writings?

That's actually two points. You don't explain why a point-by-point comparison was necessary if apostolic authority was already disestablished. It was necessary to show the list of troubling aspects. You didn't quote the first part of Book 6, chapter 12:

• It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion's literary industry, but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions.

So it appears that Serapion did find troubling aspects, and what is more heretical than falsehoods disguised as scripture?

You continued:

If the gospel of Peter were actually included in the canon of scripture, any perceived contradictions with the other accounts would surely have elicited a heartier effort at reconciliation.

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church in canonizing Scripture? And also that Serapion perhaps did not understand the full nature of the work he was entrusted to do?

I am not saying that it does not contradict the others.

Then what are you saying?

But it is remarkable how quickly we resort to that word when the work in question is not part of our own sacred set.

I find it remarkable that you are referring to me with the word "we." I don't believe you are referring to yourself in your post, are you? So shall we consider that a mistake, or a lie?

[Etcetera]

DMG:

I mentioned three items that could, to some, seem "troubling":

1. Elisha's relics raising a man to life, which could potentially occasion discomfort to some Protestants.

2. A prophet cooking over dung.

3. A sword coming out of Jesus' mouth.

To which you replied:

...the troubling features you are mentioning come from prophetic and apocryphal books.

The second comes from a prophetic book, yes. But none come from apocryphal books. All three come from canonical writings.

Can you give an example of a literary device such as this used in a bioi?

(The singular, by the way, is bios.) Whence did this point suddenly come from? If you originally meant that it was troubling seeing such a device in this genre, then that is something completely different from what I was addressing. But you nowhere specified genre. You simply stated that the device was troubling.

I disagree, by the way, that the gospels are bioi. They are gospels, in a class by themselves. Many similarities to the classical bioi, so the comparison may be quite fruitful, but they are their own genre. But I digress. Your original post had nothing to do with genre.

If genre is really the issue, then compare the gospel of Peter to that of Mark, for example:

• ...they saw three men coming out from the tomb, two supporting the other and a cross following them. The heads of the two reached up to the heavens and the head of the one they were leading by the hand went beyond the heavens. And they heard a voice from heaven saying, "Did you preach to those who sleep?"

• And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the spirit like a dove descending upon him.

The heads reaching to heaven are what the guards at the tomb saw. It is a visionary element. Likewise, heaven rending asunder is what Jesus saw. Another visionary element.

If these elements are troubling in Peter, then they are troubling in Mark too.

You don't explain why a point-by-point comparison was necessary if apostolic authority was already disestablished.

I did not have to, nor do I wish to. My point had nothing to do with what one does with a book that has already been deemed nonapostolic. My point was that the sole criterion for taking the work as authoritative was its apostolicity.

Let me back up here, since you seem to have misapprehended my point.

Serapion, like the other fathers, dismissed the extracanonical works because they were deemed forged or otherwise nonapostolic in origin. That much the quote makes perfectly clear, regardless of what comparisons he makes between works once their origin has been duly noted.

You, on the other hand, in your post seemed to apply a very different criterion: Troubling aspects.

Not only that, but you classified certain works as heretical simply because they were not included in the canon.

I would classify them as heretical in that they were excluded from the canonization process.

This needs to be made perfectly clear: A work is not heretical because it was excluded from the canon! (This point seems so obvious as to need no explication, so perhaps you were merely unclear as to your meaning?) Is the Didache heretical? The fathers did not think so, but it did not make the canon. How about the epistle of Barnabas? The Shepherd? Again, not heretical (according to the fathers, at any rate!), and yet not in the canon.

So it appears that Serapion did find troubling aspects, and what is more heretical than falsehoods disguised as scripture?

You have yet to produce a quote to this effect! You cited Eusebius (emphasis mine):

• ...and still another work composed by him on the so-called gospel of Peter. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions.

Notice (again) the first naming of this gospel: The "so-called" gospel of Peter. It has already been established, in other words, both for Eusebius and for Serapion, that the gospel is forged! Once the question of origin has been established the work of dealing with the contents of the forged work commences.

This quote expresses nicely exactly what I am saying. The prime, if not only, criterion for authority was apostolicity.

Yes, certainly Serapion was troubled by heretical ideas either promoted by or fostered through the gospel of Peter. To say such a thing is simply to say that heresy is troubling. Indeed.

But that was not what you were saying in your first post. You said that an image, a device, was troubling. I ask you then, what is heretical about such a device? If you think that Serapion is on your side here, you will have to show, not why such an image is "troubling", but why it is heretical. Because it was, according to the text, the heresy that disturbed Serapion. The text does not express how he felt about the gospel's literary devices or visionary elements.

I think you will have to choose whether the literary device expresses the glorified body of Christ or whether it symbolizes the ascencion.

Why? What does such a choice have to do with my point? Besides, I was quite clear that it symbolizes the glorified body. Was I not? I nowhere stated or implied that it symbolizes the ascension. Here are my words again (I have emphasized the most pertinent portions):

Besides, the head stretching to the heavens was a literary device expressing the glorified, if you will, nature of the body. If this device were applied (as it is in the Acts of John!) to Jesus' preresurrection body, the text would be docetic. But applied to his resurrection body? (In the gospel of Peter the resurrection coincides with the ascension.) That of itself is not heretical. It may be mistaken, but not heretical.

Now, what in that paragraph in any way intimates that the device may symbolize either the resurrected body or the ascension, or both?

Surely my words were not completely opaque.

I wrote:

If the gospel of Peter were actually included in the canon of scripture, any perceived contradictions with the other accounts would surely have elicited a heartier effort at reconciliation.

This was a hypothetical. Your response...:

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church in canonizing Scripture?

...plainly misses the point. My statement neither affirmed nor denied any such thing, and had absolutely nothing to do with anything that your statement seems to be addressing.

I find it remarkable that you are referring to me with the word "we." I don't believe you are referring to yourself in your post, are you?

Yes, I am. I am very self-conscious about the way I treat works that I do not find personally appealing. I often catch myself flippantly ascribing error or stupidity to authors with whom I disagree (without having given them the full array of options and "outs" that I might have given my favorite authors), and have to consciously step back and reassess.

So shall we consider that a mistake, or a lie?

Please, let us keep the discussion respectable.

In him.

Etcetera.

[HerodionRomulus]

Yesterday @ 04:54 PM post located here
Etcetera:

DMG:

I mentioned three items that could, to some, seem &quot;troubling&quot;:

2. A prophet cooking over dung.

I am not sure why this would be troubling. Use of dung, human or not is a common source of fuel, esp. in regions where other sources of fuel, (wood, coal, peat etc) are scarce. The practice continues today in many parts of the world.

Unless you had in mind that it might violate the purity codes of Leviticus???

[Etcetera]

Herodian Romulus:

Greetings in the name.

Unless you had in mind that it might violate the purity codes of Leviticus???

Yes. It might be troubling to an orthodox Jew.

Also, however, it just might be troubling to any of a more sensitive constitution. Part of my point on this thread is that "troubling" is a highly subjective concept! Another part of my point, of course, is that it played no significant role in determining which writings were and which were not to be authoritative in the early church.

You are correct to note dung's use in various countries. If you wish to ignore this particular element in my approach, feel free to substitute any biblical text that might seem troubling to you. (Surely there are some passages in the Bible that might occasion you difficulty, right? I mean, the Bible is hardly the most bland and inoffensive text that I can think of right offhand.)

Thanks for your insight.

Etcetera.