Greek Apocryphal Gospels in Digital Form

My employer, Logos Bible Software, recently put the Greek Apocryphal Gospels on pre-pub. My colleague, Rick Brannan, blogged today over at the Logos blog about that product and those gospels.

These gospel documents are not canonical (i.e. they are not copies of the gospels found in the New Testament, but different texts entirely). They are “other gospels” that provide a lot of insight into what early Christians were hearing and thinking about Jesus and the apostles. They are also useful for Greek grammatical research. Brannan breaks them down into three types:

  • Infancy Gospels. These include stories about Jesus’ youth and even earlier. The Protevangelium of James includes a much fuller story about Mary and Joseph with all sorts of details (even about Mary’s midwife) that are not canonical by any stretch, but insightful nonetheless.
  • Passion Gospels. These are gospels about the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. They have similarities with the canonical gospels, but include expansions and embellishments as well.
  • Post-resurrection Gospels. The Greek extant for the Gospel of Mary is fragmentary, but insightful; one of the available fragments has a snippet of a story where Peter turns to Mary and asks her to relate what she knows of Jesus.

Check out the post for more details!

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

The Serpent and Eve Nonsense: Where The Idea Comes From and Does Not Come From

In case readers have been following comments to my earlier posts on this biblical paleobabble issue, I decided to make things convenient.  Please note that they may not be any more decipherable, since the articles I link to below require at least a decent grasp of the Hebrew alphabet (and Syriac helps), transliteration of the same, and principles of morphology. I am posting them mainly so readers will at least have the sources and know I’m not making up my arguments.

Briefly, there are some commenters who believe that the Bible *really* teaches us that in the garden of Eden, Eve had sex with the serpent (aka, Satan or the Devil – never mind that Gen 3 does not use either of those terms) and fathered Cain. My contention is that the biblical text does not teach this nonsense. Rather, it is an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Eve narrative, projected into the text by misogynistic interpreters in the ancient Jewish community.

Here is a good scholarly article that traces the idea in early and late Jewish sources, mainly rabbinics and Syriac texts. The article also highlights the idea of a serpentine Eve (again, misogynistic interpreters wanted Eve to be the villain).

These ideas are ultimately based on two items (and then taken in different directions, depending on the interpreter: (1) the notion that Eve’s name can mean “serpent”; and (2) that the “deception” of Eve in Gen 3:13 has a sexual connotation. In regard to the first, the article linked to above refers to another article by Scott Layton. Here is that article.  It is a technical discussion of Semitic morphology that shows the Semitic “Eve” is not the same as “serpent” (and so should not be understood that way, despite the fact that certain rabbis thought that way; NOTE: Just because a rabbi thought X doesn’t mean X is true or even sensible). In regard to the second item, the graphic below. It is the search results for all forms of the lemma (root word) used in Gen 3:13. In no instance outside Gen 3:13 is there a sexual connotation to the deception — that therefore has to be invented and them superimposed on Gen 3:13.

But Mike, someone might say, what about 1 John 3:12 (“We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother”)? Being “of the evil one” here is the same metaphorical meaning as when Jesus told the Pharisees (note this comes from John’s gospel – same writer as 1 John) they were of “their father the devil” (John 8:44). So, was the serpent out screwing more women producing the Pharisees? (I can just sense the anti-Semitic “Jews are the spawn of Satan” answer for that one). Cain was “of the evil one” because he murdered his brother — he did evil. And let’s look at 1 John 3:12 in its context, shall we? If we take 1 John 3:12 as Cain being literally fathered by Satan, then *all of us* are also the spawn of Satan, since verse 8 of that same chapter says, “Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil.” Since the same book (1 John 1:10) says that no one is without sin, I guess we were all spawned by Satan (even the people making the silly literal argument, unless they are somehow divine and not human [note: no "bloodlines" are mentioned in 1 John; its anyone who sins]). It’s obviously metaphorical.

Even thought the sources above are dense and for specialists, the one thought to take away in any event is simple enough: Just because a rabbi from antiquity said XYZ about Eve doesn’t mean what he says is true or coherent or at all grounded in sound philology (a word scholars use for nuts-and-bolts analysis of the morphology, grammar, and syntax of ancient texts). Arguments for interpreting ancient texts should always be about what’s actually in the text, not wordplays you can strike, ideas you can promote through such wordplays (like the Edenic fall is the woman’s fault), etc.  While the apostle Paul says the woman was deceived (1 Tim 2:14), he places blame for humanity’s demise squarely on Adam (Romans 5; this is why Jesus is the “second Adam” – reversing the curse – not the “second Eve”). Frankly, it’s evil (not just paleobabble) to use the Bible to promote misogyny and anti-Semitic thinking.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Dan Brown and the Grail That Never Was

That’s part of the title of this 2004 scholarly article that examines Brown’s Jesus bloodline mythology.  I don’t believe I’ve posted it before (going through the archives this weekend). The author is apparently a medievalist. It’s a succinct, readable dismantling of Brown’s bogus history. Here’s the abstract:

Dan Brown’s bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, has enthralled many readers, but many others have pointed out his errors and raised objections to his dubious conjectures. Of particular interest to Arthurians is Brown’s conspiracy theory (appropriated from other sources) concerning the Grail, but a discussion of that subject also requires consideration of his presentation of Church history and of the role that art plays in the elaboration of the Grail theory.

Enjoy!

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Hoaxing Ancient Documents Isn’t New

Quite an interesting post from Prof. Larry Hurtado’s blog today. The post focuses on an out-of-print book byEdgar J. Goodspeed (Famous Biblical Hoaxes, or, Modern Apocrypha). It was originally published in 1931 (repr. 1956). Hurtado’s post sketches a litany of (in)famous hoaxed “ancient” documents covered by Goodspeed in his book. He notes:

Goodspeed was a shining star of NT scholars in the University of Chicago, and among the most important (if not the most important) American NT scholars of his time. In this book, Goodspeed discusses a number of “curious frauds that when they first appear  . . . are promptly unmasked; but a generation, or a century, later, long after their exposure has been forgotten, they are revived by somebody and make a fresh bid for acceptance” (viii).   Though ignored by scholars as unworthy of attention, such texts get peddled to the unsuspecting (or credulous) general public, and in these internet-days they can be touted around the world in a matters of weeks.  To his credit, Goodspeed took the time to research, describe, and examine critically a number of these items.  His book is no longer in print, but is worth perusing still.

Yeah – these internet days. The art of offering claptrap to a gullible public by “researchers” trying to make a fast buck has never been more evident.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Secret Mark Meeting Reports

There was recently a conference on “Secret Mark”.  The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog has provided play-by-play reports here, here, and here.

Professor Larry Hurtado has also added a few notes of his own in regard to some of what took place and was said at the event.

Every once in a while you have to throw something in amid the nonsense.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

X-Box PaleoBabble: The Book of Enoch as a Video Game

Someone sent me this link today, knowing I’ve spent a good deal of time studying 1 Enoch. The book of 1 Enoch is now the basis for an impending X-Box video game (there is a sample trailer at the link – Japanese version).  Check it out. What I saw looks cool, but I’d say a more appropriate description would be “very loosely based” on 1 Enoch. For instance, it was *not* Enoch’s mission to bring the fallen angels back to heaven. In the story he was sent by God to tell them they were toast and would never be coming back — having been asked by the offending angels to try and soften up God on their behalf.

As far as the link goes, there’s also some paleobabble to that. The blog calls 1 Enoch “heretical.” I guess he’s unaware that the Qumran sect were very theologically conservative, that 1 Enoch was known and used in Judaism outside Qumran, and that the NT imbibes on its content in various ways. It was never considered canonical in the Church (though it had its defenders in the early church, namely Origen), but that does not mean it is heretical. The book was well-respected in early Judaism and Christianity, despite not being bumped up to the level of canon.  It was only with Augustine (who knew neither Hebrew nor Greek, and so should not be considered a biblical theologian) that 1 Enoch fell into disrepute, no doubt due in part to Augustine’s own falling out with the Manicheans, who revered 1 Enoch.

I would suggest that blogger (and anyone else so interested) try to obtain the following for reading:

Studies in 1 Enoch and the New Testament: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Meeting of the New Testament Society of South Africa (Stellenbosch, 1983)

R. H. Charles’ commentary on the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Charles notes OT and NT connections all the time).

Parables of Enoch, Early Judaism, Jesus, and Christian Origins, ed. Darrell Bock and James H. Charlesworth

1 Enoch, Enochi Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christianity,” Chapter Two in The Jewish apocalyptic heritage in early Christianity, by James C. VanderKam

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Myth of the Lost Tribes of Israel and British Israelism

This is a topic that many readers will be familiar with. It circulates widely on the web. In a nutshell, it’s the notion that the ten tribes of Israel (the northern kingdom of the divided monarchy in ancient Israelite history) that were deported and scattered by the Assyrians eventually migrated in some fashion to the British Isles. The British colonists who came to America are their descendants, and so Britain / America was / is the new Israel. In case some of you have not heard of this idea, here is a summary (see the Wikipedia entry as well).

Criticisms and debunkings of the idea have been around since its genesis. I’d like to direct your attention to a recent lengthy expose on the subject. I know the author (Greg Doudna). Greg is a published expert on the Dead Sea scrolls. His religious background was in circles that promote the lost ten tribes mythology. Hence his interest and this book (the book’s title is awful, leaving the reader no clue as to the subject matter).

Here is a (sort of) summary of the book. Readers can access the book through Google Books here (I have it open to chapter 6).

Technorati Tags: , ,

Jesus and Mary Magdalene: Husband and Wife in the Gnostic Gospels?

I came across this video of a presentation I gave some years ago on this topic. I really should keep track of this stuff. Had a full beard then. The point of the presentation is to show that Gnostic gospels (the “real Bible” to conspiracists and Dan Brown fans) does not have a single line indicating Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, or that they had a romantic/sexual relationship. It’s bunk (at least if we take the Gnostics for our source).

Michael Heiser: Gnosticism (part 3) – “Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene Married?” from Guy Malone on Vimeo.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

More Media PaleoBabble on the Gabriel Stone

Sometimes I come across something that makes me wish I’d named this blog PaleoDiarrhea. I usually have that thought when the popular media dips its toe into archaeology and biblical studies (or ancient astronauts). Here’s another example brought to my attention by April DeConick over at Forbidden Gospels.1

It seems that the media is hyping the Gabriel Stone (“Apocalypse of Gabriel”) again. Now National Geographic (NG) is at the helm. The same people (ask April) who screwed up the Gospel of Judas. Now the claim is that the Gabriel Stone will destroy the heart of Christianity since it is an earlier reference to a third day resurrection.2  Let’s tip a glass of Kaopectate to NG for that one.

Guess what, NG? There’s an even earlier reference to a third day resurrection than the Gabriel Stone. Ha! Scooped you, did I?  I’ll try and write in a whisper . . . it’s . . . in . . . the Old Testament . . . yeah, over at Hosea 6:1-3 . . . April found it too . . . drat!

So, let me see if I understand your claim, NG. The fact that there is an earlier reference to a third day resurrection undermines Christian theology . . . when that same idea is in the Old Testament . . . which is the Jewish Bible . . . and Christianity came out of Judaism . . . huh?

What dopes.

It’s easy (for anyone who isn’t an NG journalist) how Hosea 6:1-3 and its third day resurrection would be applied to the messiah. In Hosea, the thrid day resurrection is corporate, speaking of national Israel. Israel in the Old Testament is at times referred to as the son of God (Exod 4:23; Hosea 11:1). The messiah has a variety of titles in the OT, one of which is “the Servant.” The Servant is one who would redeem Israel. This is where the idea of a suffering messiah comes from — Isaiah 53, the description of the “Suffering Servant.” But in that same book of Isaiah, most of the time the Servant is actually corporate Israel!  My point: the messiah (in the OLD Testament – that thing that is earlier than the Gabriel Stone and the NT) and national Israel are identified with each other. A third day resurrection of the nation could easily be applied (and was, in the NT) to the personal messiah, the son of God.

But never mind all that factual detail from the text, NG. Just go your merry way and unleash more verbal diarrhea on the public.

Cheers!

  1. April is no defender of “orthodox” Christianity; her love is Gnosticism and its literature.
  2. For a transcription of the inscription, click here; for an English translation, click here. The lines of contention are 80-81. Read it yourself; you’ll see it’s incomplete to boot.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

The Secret Gospel of Mark: Genuine or Hoax?

The Secret Gospel of Mark (also called “Secret Mark”) has been controversial for some time (click here for an overview). Aside from purporting to be another gospel, the controversy is primarily about a passage in it that has dialogue between Jesus and an unnamed disciple that is interpreted by some as having homosexual undertones.

At the conferences I attended last week, an entire session was devoted to Secret Mark. Recent work by Stephen Carlson has called the text’s authenticity into serious question. Carlson believes the discoverer, Morton Smith, forged the document. (Incredibly, Bart Ehrman is on his side – let’s give Bart points where they’re due). Others, however, think it’s genuine, at least in terms of the text. Since Secret Mark actually never says anything sexual happened between Jesus and this disciple, and the language used is not euphemistic for sexual activity, real scholars who accept Secret Mark as genuine don’t support the “archaeo-porn” crowd’s1 “interpretation” of that passage. I thought readers might be interested in a couple summaries of the Secret Mark session to get an idea where the debate is at the moment.  Here’s one and a second.

  1. I speak here of pseudo-researchers like Simcha Jacobovici, Michael Baigent, and Dan Brown who, for sake of material gain, rape ancient texts and manipulate archaeological work by titillating readers with bogus data and wacky interpretations of data.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,