Loading...I just (now) flew into Washington D.C., to give four lectures tomorrow (count them, four) on “The Other Gospels” at the Smithsonian. Each lecture is about an hour, followed by 15 minutes of Q & A. It’ll be a grueling day.
I do these Smithsonian things once or twice a year on average. They’re great – 160 adults who have paid good money and devoted an entire day to hearing lectures on a topic important to them. It’s a terrific audience, wide-ranging, highly intelligent, educated, and curious — real a shift from teaching 19-year old college kids. I enjoy both kinds of audience very much – but (some) more things can be assumed in this setting and, well, the humor has to change. 🙂
I normally do these Smithsonian talks when a new book has come out, and so this is to be about the new edition of The Other Gospels that just appeared. I’ve decided that my lectures will be on four different Gospels/types of Gospels, and maybe I’ll blog a bit about them. The four topics are: Infancy Gospels (both Infancy Thomas – on which below – and the Proto-Gospel of James); the Coptic Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Peter; and the Pilate Gospels (Acts of Pilate; the Report of Pilate, and the Handing Over of Pilate). Many students of early Christianity are familiar with the first three on one level or another; very few know about the Pilate Gospels.
So, in the first lecture I start off with a crowd-favorite, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, an account of the (rather mischievous) (and totally miraculous) activities of Jesus starting as a five-year old, continuing up to the time that he was engaged in conversations with teachers of the Law in the Temple as a twelve-year old (the Gospel ends with this story which is simply borrowed from Luke 2).
There are all sorts of things about this book that scholars are interested in that I won’t be going into, principally because they are things that non-scholars, frankly, are *not* all that interested in, and it’s impossible, in my view, to *make* them interested in them because, well, they issues are detailed and scholarly and not at all sexy (such as the Greek manuscript tradition of the Gospel, the question of whether the Greek manuscripts or the Syriac or the Ethiopic represent the oldest form of the text, the question of whether the Gospel was known to Irenaeus and/or Origen, and, well, lots of other things).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE MISSING!!!
“It’s a terrific audience, wide-ranging, highly intelligent, educated, and curious — real a shift from teaching 19-year old college kids.”
I take it not too may of your students use this website?!!
Some are! And they too are highly intelligent and curious. But they aren’t the same age as their parents and grandparents!
Delightful! Can’t wait to read your different interpretaion, however long it may take you to post.
But I keep wondering why, recently, ypu never mention the Gospel of Judas. Sure, it’s not true, but neither are these others. Is it just that the Gospel of Judas really doesn’t reqiure any “discussion” beyond a few sentences, while there’s much more to be said about the others?
Actually, I gave an hour long lecture on the Gospel of Judas just three weeks ago! I’m still keen on it. But when picking the *most* significant apocryphal Gospels, I don’t think it makes the very short list.
Bart.
Apologies for a question that is completely off-topic. I’ll be more than happy with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer!
Was the belief that a Messiah (including the concept of a Kingdom of God) would come an integral part of the beliefs of the Sadducees?
It’s hard to know (impossible, really, since we don’t have writings from Sadducees), but I think the answer is no.
Bart.
Assuming that’s true, and assuming that Caiaphas was a Sadducee, it’s hard to see why he would have considered Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah blasphemous, then?!
I don’t think Jesus publicly claimed this, but if he did, there was nothing blasphemous about it….
I know that; I just thought it was interesting, for it makes the accusation by Caiaphas (regarding blasphemy) even less likely to be historical if the concept of a Messiah meant nothing to him (if, indeed, he was a Sadducee).
Anyway, sorry for going off-topic, Bart.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas reminds me of the 1st book in the Harry Potter series. Poor Harry has all these powers but he can’t control them and he ends up creating all kinds of havoc accidently as a result. Anyway, this post is the first time I have heard anything of a Pilate Gospel tradition. I don’t think you mentioned these works in your Great Courses lectures. Anyway, I know you have a long list but I would love to hear more about these writings. I don’t think I have even seen them in a published form. Are they available? What do you think of them?
Thanks… All the best… SBD
Yes, you can find translations in my new book (translated and edited with my colleague Zlatko Plese), The Other Gospels.
Joseph never had to worry about the “measure twice, cut once” rule of carpentry. It’s never nice to murder a playmate, would this gospel be accusing Jesus of a sin? Was the sin excused because of his youth?
I don’t think it was a sin. It was more like what God does in numerous instances!
I would like you to share some of this regarding the other gospels and writings with us in your blog essays. I am fascinated with all of the wild and strange stories that have been told about Jesus and the origin of the stories of the Jesus Event generally.
What these documents say to me is that there was a far wider dissemination of tales about Jesus than most of us ever imagined and leads one to wonder what is actually historical.
I also want to thank you for the discussion previously regarding the miracles of Jesus and the issue of magic at that time in history. Either Jesus did miracles or he didn’t, but it seems that what he did was important enough to be reported in all the gospels. Something happened. My curiosity drives me to wonder what it was that he actually did….or if it was all hype….just made-up to promote Jesus.
Have a Great time at the Smithsonian.
Fascinating reading, I wish I could hear your lecture. The thing that strikes me most are the three people he kills. I can see why this was not included as his acts do not fit the Jesus of the Bible. In each case he is slighted and feels that death is the right punishment. This seems odd if you believe that the three are one. At a couple points Jesus gets angry in the Bible, and as you have previously pointed out it is hard to understand either the reason or the intent of that anger. As an atheist I simply accept it as an example of him as a human being, but for the faithful it requires a better answer.
Are there other examples of anger on other texts?
Yes, he gets angry even in the NT. But he obviously doesn’t kill anyone there. (Although Peter does in the book of Acts!)
“But other scholars think something else is going on in this text. I’ll explain this alternative view, which I happen to share, in the next post.”
Looking forward to it!
I’d like to see “The Simpsons” do a take on the Infancy Gospel. They would have a lot of material to work with.
“There are all sorts of things about this book that scholars are interested in that I won’t be going into, principally because they are things that non-scholars, frankly, are *not* all that interested in, and it’s impossible, in my view, to *make* them interested in them because, well, they issues are detailed and scholarly and not at all sexy (such as the Greek manuscript tradition of the Gospel, the question of whether the Greek manuscripts or the Syriac or the Ethiopic represent the oldest form of the text, the question of whether the Gospel was known to Irenaeus and/or Origen, and, well, lots of other things).”
I can’t speak for other members, but I would be interested in knowing about these things! Probably not book selling material, no, but for devoted bible geeks following blogs on the stuff? Maybe!
OK, maybe I’ll give a bit tomorrow.
I attended the Smithsonian lectures today, and they were wonderful, as usual! It was remarkable how many bits were familiar from earlier books and articles on this blog; the refresher was welcome anyway, especially with new anecdotes. Of course there was lots of interesting new stuff as well. I look forward to reading the book, attending the next lectures in April 2014, and reading that book too. Thanks for coming to DC!
Four lectures in one day is quite a load.