by Paul Foster
The English translations of the Coptic sayings are largely drawn from A. Guillaumont et al. (eds.), The Gospel According to Thomas: Coptic Text Established and Translated, revised edn. (Leiden: Brill, 1998), but other translations are consulted and the renderings offered here do not strictly follow any one translation. Also see the English translations in A. D. DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, with a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (LNTS 287; London: T&T Clark, 2006).
For a discussion of the enigmatic Saying 42, see R. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (London/New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 118. He notes that this saying is primarily about ‘disengagement’ and promotes ‘the centrality of individual as distinct from group identity’.
On James the Just, see B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), James the Just and Christian Origins (Leiden: Brill, 1999).
For a discussion of the possibility that salvation was a two-stage process for women, see J. Buckley, ‘An Interpretation of Logion 114 in The Gospel of Thomas’, NovT 27 (1985): 245–72. By contrast, DeConick suggests that ‘gender refashioning for women would have stressed encratic behaviour, particularly celibacy and their refusal to bear children’: The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, p. 297.
For a detailed discussion of the Valentinian perspectives in the Gospel of Philip, see M. L. Turner, The Gospel of Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
The page-referencing system for the Gospel of Philip follows that adopted by Isenberg in his standard edition of the text. W. W. Isenberg, ‘Gospel According to Philip’, in B. Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II, pp. 2–7.
The English translation of the passage in the Gospel of Philip where Jesus kisses Mary is taken from the work of W. W. Isenberg, ‘The Gospel of Philip (II,3)’, and is most conveniently accessed in J. M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, revised edn. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 148. The more sexualized version of this text is from R. McL. Wilson, The Gospel of Philip (London: Mowbray, 1962), p. 114. He helpfully brackets the reconstructed elements, and does not promote the speculative ideas that have often been built upon this text. Various Internet sites suggest the type of intimate relationship Jesus may have shared with Mary Magdalene.
For an important discussion of the term ‘docetic’, see M. Slusser, ‘Docetism: A Historical Definition’, Second Century 1.3 (1981): 163–72.
The translation of the passage about Jesus on the cross is taken from H. W. Attridge and G. W. MacRae, ‘The Gospel of Truth (I,3 and XII,2)’, in J. M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, revised edn. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 42.
The phenomenon of overlapping topics treated by both Justin and Valentinian texts has been noted by P. Parvis, ‘Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: The Posthumous Creation of the Second Apology’, in S. Parvis and P. Foster (eds.), Justin and His Worlds (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp. 22–37, esp. 32–4.
On the Gospel of the Egyptians, see A. Böhlig and F. Wisse (eds.), Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2. The Gospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) (Leiden: Brill, 1975). See also A. Böhlig and F. Wisse, ‘The Gospel of the Egyptians (III,2 and IV,2)’, in J. M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, revised edn. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 208–19.
The translation of the ‘nonsense vowels’ quote is taken from H. W. Attridge and G. W. MacRae, ‘The Gospel of Truth (I,3 and XII,2)’, in J. M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, revised edn. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 42.
Chapter 3
The quotes about the childhood Jesus are from T. Chartrand-Burke, ‘The Infancy Gospel of Thomas’, in P. Foster (ed.), The Non-Canonical Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2008), p. 126.
Apart from the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus recovered from the monastery of St Catherine at Mount Sinai, Constantin von Tischendorf also deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and published a critical edition of Codex Claromontanus containing the Pauline epistles. He was also active in publishing texts that now constitute the New Testament apocrypha: De Evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu (1851); Acta Apostolorum apocrypha (1851); Evangelia apocrypha (1853; 2nd edn., 1876); Apocalypses apocryphae (1866).
The English translations in this chapter of both the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protevangelium of James are largely drawn from R. F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1995). At a few points modifications are made based on a more exact translation of the Greek text. In particular, the translation ‘sodomite, ungodly and ignorant…’ more accurately represents the wording of the Greek text than Hock’s somewhat ‘domesticated’ translation ‘Damn you, you irreverent fool!’ (It is difficult to determine whether in this context the term ‘sodomite’ has overtones of condemning sexual practice, or is simply exploiting the motif of judgement against the inhabitants of the city of Sodom.)
For a variation on the schooling of Jesus, see Irenaeus, Ad. Haer. 1.20.1. The ‘alphabet’ incident is discussed more fully in P. Foster, ‘Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4 (2006): 7–33, esp. 22–5.
On the differences between Greek A and Greek B, see the discussion in T. Chartrand-Burke, ‘The Infancy Gospel of Thomas’, in P. Foster (ed.), The Non-Canonical Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp. 126–38.
Elliott notes that ‘Possible extracts of PJ [Protevangelium of James] may be found in the chronicle known as the Barbarus Scakiferi (or Excerpta Latina Barbarica) of the fifth century.’ See J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 54. The pros and cons of this suggestion have been debated in a series of foreign-language articles listed by Elliott.
For a fuller discussion of the textual problem of Anna’s pregnancy in the Protevangelium of James, see É. de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1961), p. 80.
The significance of certain miraculous phenomena surrounding Jesus’ birth is discussed in F. Bovon, ‘The Suspension of Time in the Protevangelium Jacobi’, in B. A. Pearson (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), pp. 393–405.
Chapter 4
The initial publication report concerning the codices at Akhmîmis to be found in U. Bouriant, ‘Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Énoch et de quelques écrits attribuésà saint Pierre’, in Mémoires publiépar les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire (t. IX, fasc. 1; Paris, 1892), pp. 93–147.
The Gospel of Peter. Peter is mentioned in Eusebius, H.E. iii.3.1–3 and vi.12.1–6.
For a recent discussion of the Gospel of Peter and docetism, see J. McCant, ‘The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered’, New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 258–73.
Perhaps the most famous critic of the more superstitious and miraculous elements of Christianity was the 2nd-century writer Celsus. His The True Doctrine is not preserved in its own right, though Origen, in his rebuttal of this work entitled Contra Celsum, reproduces large excerpts of it. See H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953; reprinted, 1965).
The phenomenon of transformation of body size is a feature of a number of early Christian texts. For a fuller discussion, see P. Foster, ‘Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity’, Journal of Theological Studies 58, Part 1 (2007): 66–99.
J. D. Crossan, The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1988). For a fuller discussion of Crossan’s theory, see P. Foster, ‘The Gospel of Peter’, in P. Foster (ed.), The Non-Canonical Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp. 30–42, esp. 38–40. The quote is from P. A. Mireki, ‘Peter, Gospel of’, Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. V (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 278.
The original publication of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 was presented in B. P.
Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part V (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1907), pp. 1–10; and in a separate pamphlet issued by the same authors, Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908). The translation basically follows that provided by M. J. Kruger, The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P.Oxy. 840 and Its Place in the Gospel Traditions of Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2005). See also T. J. Kraus, ‘P.Oxy. 840 – Amulet or Miniature Codex? Principal and Additional Remarks on Two Terms’, in T. J. Kraus (ed.), Ad Fonts: Original Manuscripts and Their Significance for Studying Early Christianity – Selected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 47–67.
On water baptism, see F. Bovon, ‘Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840, Fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an Early Christian Controversy Over Purity’, Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 705–28.
On Papyrus Egerton 2, see H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri (London: Trustees, Oxford University Press, 1935), and M. Gronewald, ‘Unbekanntes Evangelium oder Evangelienharmonie (Fragment aus dem ‘Evangelium Egerton’)’, in Kölner Papyri (P.Köln) 6, ARWAW.PapyCol VII (Opladen, 1987), pp. 136–45. The translations of the fragments of Papyrus Egerton 2 þ Papyrus Cologne 255 presented in this chapter are based on both those given by Bell and Skeat, as above, and T. Nicklas, ‘Papyrus Egerton 2’, in P. Foster (ed.), The Non-Canonical Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp. 139–49. For Papyrus Egerton 2 in general, there is an invaluable web-based resource: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/wie/Egerton/Egerton_home.html> (accessed 1 September 2008).
For opposing points of view on nomina sacra, see L. W. Hurtado, ‘The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal’, Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 655–73, and C. M. Tuckett, ‘“Nomina Sacra”: Yes and No?’, in J.-M. Auwers and H. J. Jonge (eds.), The Biblical Canons, BETL CLXIII (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 431–58.
The whole question of the definition of the term ‘Jewish–Christian’ has resurfaced in recent years as a major issue in biblical scholarship. See the two landmark works: O. Skarsauna and R. Heidar (eds.), Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), esp. pp. 3–55; and M. Jackson-McCabe (ed.), Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007).
The translations of passages cited by various Church fathers from Jewish–Christian gospels are modified from E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha, Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings, revised edn. (tr. R. McL. Wilson; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 134–178.
Chapter 5
For a discussion of various factors that may have led to Paul’s Damascus Road experience, see J. Ashton, The Religion of Paul the Apostle (New Haven, CT: Yale, 2000), esp. chapter 3.
For a racy description of the events surrounding the passage of Codex Tchacos, containing the Gospel of Judas, from its discovery to its publication, see H. Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot (Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2006).
The original publication of the English translation of the Gospel of Judas can be found in R. Kasser, M. Meyer, and G. Wurst, with additional commentary by B. D. Ehrman, The Gospel of Judas (Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2006). See also R. Kasser and G. Wurst (eds.), The Gospel of Judas – together with the Letter of Philip, James and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos: Critical Edition (Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2007), p. 30; and A. D. DeConick, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (London: Continuum, 2007). For the various competing translations, see the alternatives presented in parallel passages in both Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst, The Gospel of Judas, and DeConick, The Thirteenth Apostle.
The most recent critical edition of the Gospel of Mary is C. M. Tuckett, The Gospel of Mary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). See also Karen L. King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2003).
For the sociology of new religious movements, consult W. S. Bainbridge, The Sociology of Religious Movements (New York: Routledge, 1997).
Chapter 6
For a discussion of some of the issues surrounding the status of the Nag Hammadi texts, see S. Emmel, ‘Religious Tradition, Textual Transmission, and the Nag Hammadi Codices’, in J. D. Turner and A. McGuire (eds.), The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 34–43.
Index
Akhmîm 2, 87, 90
Allogenes 120
anti-Judaism 92–93, 97, 99, 101, 125
apocryphal 9
apostolic Christianity 123, 128, 130
baptism 105
Barbelo 58
Books of Jeu 59
bridal chamber 45–7
charisma 131
Clement of Alexandria 35, 56, 113
Codex Tchacos 119
Coptic Museum 27–28
Corpus Hermeticum 120
Cotelier, J.B. 64
‘Cross Gospel’ 100
Didymus the Blind 113
disciples 36–38
docetism 11, 22, 54, 90–91, 123
Epiphanius 63, 114–115
Euripides 4
Eusebius 10, 89–90
First Revelation of James 120
Gelesian Decree 74
Gnosticism 12–18, 22, 34, 41, 52, 57, 69, 104, 121, 124, 127
‘gospel’ 4, 6–9, 42, 60, 72, 82–3
Gospel according to the Hebrews 113–114
Gospel of Judas 21, 118–123
Gospel of Mary 124–130
Gospel of Nicodemus 55
Gospel of Peter 2, 10, 11, 87–101, 132, 136
Gospel of Philip 30, 35, 40, 41–50, 104, 128
Gospel of the Ebionites 113–115
Gospel of the Egyptians 30, 56–9
Gospel of the Nazoraeans 113
Gospel of the Savior 21
Gospel of Thomas 23, 30, 31–41, 63, 87, 101, 128, 133, 134
Gospel of Truth 30, 50–6
Grenfell, Bernhard P. 2, 19, 20
Herod Antipas 97
high priest 102, 103
historical Jesus 23, 49, 72, 86, 116, 133, 134
Homer 4
Hunt, Arthur S. 2, 19, 20
Infancy Gospel of Thomas 63–72, 133
Irenaeus 10, 51, 69
Jerome 114
Jesus Seminar 23–24
Jewish-Christian Gospels 111–115
Jewish Christianity 37, 110, 112, 113, 125
Joseph of Arimithea 96
Joseph (the father of Jesus) 65, 71, 79
Josephus 104
Judas 122–123
Justin Martyr 15, 53
Letter of Peter to Philip 120
Logos christology 53–4, 60, 90, 97
Maecenas Foundation 119
Mary Magdalene 40–1, 47–48, 125–130
Mary (the mother of Jesus) 62, 71, 79–84
Miracles 91
modalism 53
monasticism 36
Moses 107–108, 125
mysticism 59, 69
Nag Hammadi 11, 16, 19, 26–60, 86, 100, 134
new religious movements 130
non-canonical 9, 42, 73, 116, 136–137
Origen 63, 113
Ophites 17
Oxyrhynchus 2, 4, 18, 31, 101, 105, 134
P.Egerton 2 105–111, 132
P.Oxy. 840 101–105, 132
P.Rhy. 463 124
Paul the apostle 117–118
passion 91
Peter 89, 128, 129
piety 85
Pilate 96–97, 98–99
Plato 20
pleroma 35, 52
Protevangelium of James 12, 72–84, 133
Q 24
resurrection 98, 99
reunification 45–47
Rome 13
Serapion 10
Sethianism 16–17,
57–8
temple 101, 104
Tischendorf, C. von 64
Valentianism 14–16, 42, 45, 49–50, 51
Valentinus 10, 15–16, 51
virginity 74–5, 76, 79–80, 82