25th May, 2006

JIM REIHER

There are dozens of other Gospels, all written some time after the life of Christ (usually from the 2nd and 3rd centuries). There are some more famous ones than others, and they say some things similar to the New Testament Gospels and some things different.

Dan Brown talks a lot about certain other Gospels. He gives the impression that they are pure and unaltered, and the New Testament Gospels are tampered with. He implies that the other Gospels keep Jesus as just a man, and one who married and had children. Brown’s view of the other Gospels is simplistic and selective. If there is suspicion that the New Testament Gospels have been tampered with or push an agenda, then why on earth would we suddenly give “pure” status to some other Gospels? Isn’t it fair to at least say that all Gospels are pushing an agenda? All of them are written by people with personal beliefs and views and they want to propagate them? How come some Gospels get let off the hook and the New Testament Gospels get slammed? On what criteria does Brown simplistically suggest that his preferred Gospels are the “pure” ones?

Contrary to Brown’s view, many of the other Gospels highlight a divine Jesus too! In fact some of them more so than the gospels in the New Testament. In The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus, for example, the baby in the manger speaks to his parents and tells them that he is the Son of God! (Brown does not get his fictitious experts to discuss that Gospel, interestingly.) In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the child Jesus said “You shall not go further on your way” to another child who “exasperated” Jesus and the child died on the spot. Jesus also raised a different child from the dead, created live birds from mud, and healed an adult’s foot when injured by an axe. That resulted in “the crowd [who] saw what happened worshipped the child...”.

The Gospel of Peter records clearly says that Jesus was killed on the cross, and in 12:56, has an angel at the tomb on resurrection morning say “He is risen and gone.” It also has a sentence describing Mary Magdalene, as she went to the tomb. “Early in the morning of the Lord’s day, Mary Magdalene, a women disciple of the Lord” went to the tomb. The Gospel of Peter could have made it clear that she was his wife, but alas, says nothing of the sort! These are just a sprinkling of examples from some of the many other Gospels and epistles. Brown’s book is selective in deciding to make use of some other Gospels but not certain others from the possible selection! He then calls the ones he refers to as the “unaltered” Gospels, and he extrapolates them in significantly unsubstantiated ways.

None of the other Gospels tell us that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or that they had children together. It is bizarre exaggeration and conclusion. The closest you can get to anything at all that might be used that way is the damaged text in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip 63:33-36, which reads: “As for the Wisdom who is called 'the barren', she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' The Savior 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 church history lecturer from Ridley College, Rhys Bezzant, said recently: "It is beyond logic that you could extrapolate from that the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had kids and they became kings of France. All it suggests is that they knew each other. Anything else is wishful thinking."

Decisions have to be made how to best fill in the missing parts of that passage. Brown wants us to see Jesus passionately kissing Mary (which the passage might imply). He then jumps from speculation number one, to speculation number two - they were married and had kids. Well. That might be one way of filling in the missing parts and deriving conclusions from it. But clearly it is speculation and not nearly as certain as implied in the novel. When Dan Brown quotes that fragmented passage in The Da Vinci Code, he does not even mention that there are missing words and it is a damaged text. Nor does he not entertain the idea that Gnostic people might write a Gospel that pushes their theological bandwagon. Instead, he just fills in the missing parts of the passage as: “And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth…’” And he concludes from this damaged and questionable text that Jesus and Mary were married. Bezzant made another interesting point: "One of the world's leading authorities on the Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels, was asked during a TV interview whether Jesus had married. She said: 'I'd like to think he did; but there is actually no evidence for it'.''

To say that the New Testament Gospels are fabricated or have sections that are fabricated, begs the question: on what criteria do we say something is added or made up, and what is original and true? Is it merely what we want to believe or what sounds logical to my mind in this culture and century? How can we really know if some parts of the documents have been altered or not? Surely historical tools and textual criticism are better methods! When you apply the same historical criteria and textual criticism to the Bible's Gospels, that you apply to any other ancient historical document, you find that the Gospels hold their own extremely convincingly.

Jim Reiher (BA (double major in history), BA in Theology, Dip Ed. MA in Theology (Hons)) is a full time lecturer for Tabor College Victoria, lecturing in church history and New Testament; and also has speciality interest areas in women’s ministry, creative ministry, and the New Age movement. His views are not necessarily those of other Tabor faculty members or of Tabor College.