Loading...In my last post I mentioned Gospels that we know about because they are mentioned, or even quoted, by church fathers, but that no longer survive. A second, particularly intriguing, Gospel like this – one that I desperately wish we had, for reasons that will soon become clear — is known as “The Greater Questions of Mary” (i.e., of Mary Magdalene).
One of the “great questions” for scholars is whether such a book ever really did exist. It is mentioned only once in ancient literature, in a highly charged polemical context by Epiphanius of Salamis, a Christian heresy-hunter who was prone to exaggeration and fabrication, who was incautious at best in his attacks against heretical sects in his book the Panarion (= “Medicine Chest”; in it Epiphanius supplies the “antidotes” for the “snake-bites of heresy”).
The most notorious of the groups that Epiphanius attacks were known by a variety of names, including the “Phibionites.” According to Epiphanius — our sole source of knowledge about the group — these gnostic believers engaged in nocturnal sex rituals that involved indiscriminate sex, coitus interruptus, and the consumption of semen and menstrual blood, all in a bizarre act of Christian worship (a sacred eucharist). Really. Moreover, they allegedly possessed apostolic books that supported their outrageous rituals, including this one known as the “Greater Questions of Mary” (Panarion 26, 8).
Epiphanius claims to have had access to this, and the other, Phibionite books. But this one he actually quotes. If the quotation does indeed go back to an actual document, as opposed to Epiphanius’s fertile imagination, it is no wonder that the book never survived, as it recounts an episode in which Jesus himself engages in a sex act before a very bewildered Mary Magdalene.
For the Gnostic Phibionites, this text, and their corresponding rituals, related to their doctrinal views that humans represent divine sparks entrapped in human bodies, which need to escape. Human procreation perpetuates this state of entrapment, by providing an endless supply of bodies as prisons for the sparks of the divine. The “solution” to the problem, then, was to engage in non-procreative sex, as shown to Mary Magdalene by the Savior himself, one odd night on a mountaintop.
Here is the quotation of the text from Epiphanius. (The first sentence, obviously, is Epiphanius himself explaining what the book is).
For in the book called The Greater Questions of Mary (they have also forged one called the Lesser), they indicate that he [Jesus] gave a revelation to her [Mary].
“Taking her to the mountain he prayed and then extracted a woman from his side and began having sexual intercourse with her; then he gathered his semen in his hand, explaining that ‘This is what we must do in order to live.’ When Mary became disturbed and fell to the ground, he again raised her and said to her, ‘Why do you doubt, you of little faith?’”
Somehow I think this one never had much of a chance of getting into the New Testament…
Not being a prude. And not dismissing the idea that Jesus produced semen. And not dismissing the idea that Jesus may have had sex with Mary. This I do dismiss.
Yup, seems rather unlikely….
Two questions (one quick, one not):
1. When Orthodox Corruption… was published, did you self-identify as a Christian?
2. After reading several posts about your experience with Professor Metzger, I remain unconvinced that faith commitments don’t irrevocably alter what someone is capable of thinking and, consequently, producing scholarship-wise. I don’t doubt that *some* scholarly questions of religion are pursuable irrespective of faith, but it seems misplaced to claim that it need not matter what one believes in most or all cases. Committed Christians *must* interpret evidence in light of their faith; atheists/agnostics have no such mandate.
Imagine a hypothetical(!!) where scholars uncovered *virtually irrefutable* evidence that would upend the whole of Christian theology — e.g., that Christ was left to rot on the cross, so there couldn’t have been an empty tomb or resurrection. A secular scholar would look at the evidence and interpret it accordingly; a committed Christian would have to reconcile it with her antecedent faith. Christ *had* to have risen from the dead, so any evidence to the contrary *must* be wrong and/or interpreted as such.
Now imagine if scholars discovered the historical Jesus genuinely wanted his disciples to partake as members of a ritualistic bloody sex cult…
1. Yes. 2. I’m not sure Christians “must” interpret historical evidence one way or another. I know deeply committed Christian scholars who agree with me on the vast majority of my (even controversial) views of most everything. Some Christians of *course* have to interpret things in a certain way, *because* of their kind of Christianity. But I know plenty of Christians, for example, who don’t believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus or a virgin birth or a personal afterlife. If you say, “Well, then they aren’t Christian,” then I’d say that lots of Christians disagree with you — so that being Christian doesn’t tie one’s hands theologically or historically, necessarily.
This may be off topic, but I would like to ask about the Talpiot tomb that allegedly contains many sarcophagus of Jesus and his family. This includes Mary Magdalene, named also as a leader. I have read that you don’t believe this is Jesus’ family tomb. I know personally the scholar from Toronto University who did the statistical calculation. He told that he got much abuse for doing it . I can imagine. I personally did find the overall findings, statistical and archeological, to be convincing. But…. what do I know?
Do you have a written opinion that I can read? If not, what are your top arguments for rejecting the Talpiot tomb as Jesus’ family tomb?
Since we are at it, twice I watch the movie
Mary Magdalene, with Roony Mara and Joaquin Phoenix. I found it eerie and possibly faithful to what might have been. I would be curious if you think the film could be suitable for the movie club, which I very much enjoy.
I don’t recall ever writing anything about it. I just read the reports of experts and talked to a bunch of archaeologiests (some of the very best, imo — Eric Meyers, Jodi Magness, etc.), and none of them was convinced (uh, at all…). I’m trying to think if I know of any scholars in my acquaintaince who accepts its historicity — apart from my friend James Tabor, I can’t think of any.
Neither will it be accepted in libraries in the Republican controlled South! 😂
Oh boy…
Hmm… Were they perhaps named Phibionites because they appealed to the authority of Phoebe (φοιβη)?
Our only source for them doesn’t say so.
I wonder how they interpreted the parable of the sower.
!
An anticipatory addendum:
No, you needn’t be a Marxist to teach the history of the USSR—nor must you be a Nazi to lecture on the Third Reich.
But surely *being* a Marxist would *inevitably* color the scholarship of an historian studying the USSR? Even if her Marxism arose separately from her academic interests, being a Marxist means she *must* occupy ground within ‘the thinkable’ vis-à-vis the demise of “Actually Existing Socialism.” She cannot simultaneously ‘be a Marxist’ and believe that that is abstractable from producing quality historical scholarship on Soviet Russia.
More wild is the implication that Neo-Nazi sympathies wouldn’t necessarily warp narrativizing the German 1940s. Neo-Nazi’s aren’t ideologically-neutral on the Third Reich’s history. Academic’s aren’t ideologically neutral either—ever. All scholars possess ethico-political priors that shape not only what they write but also *how they think*—irrespective of the ability to identify what those priors are. Historians with radically different Weltanschauungen will *understand the world* in radically different ways.
Christianity has several indispensable priors—e.g., the existence of a personal God, Christ’s divinity, and the authenticity of the Passion. But to my mind, these anterior faith commitments necessarily render historical scholarship on Christianity by Christians—at least with certain topics—suspect from the start.
I know a number of Christians who do not say that Christ is literally God.
Far be it from me to tell someone self-identifying as a Christian that she isn’t one, but without a commitment to the veracity of the Nicene Creed—the defining statement of faith for the overwhelming majority of Christians*—then I’m not sure what’s left of the belief system that’s unique to Christianity.
It’d be like if some self-professed Jews were to claim they believe in the existence of Enki, Marduk, and Nabu et al., with the proviso that Yahweh remains the supreme god over whom no other gods rule. Sure, that might once have been the more predominant view, but it is now so irreconcilable with the theological commitments held by the vast majority of Church members (both laypersons and authorities) that one is forced to wonder if it even makes sense to talk about the two factions as if they’re part of the same religious community.
Perhaps I’m mistaken—I was raised Jewish, not Christian—but it seems to me that the theological significance of the issues driving the Catholic/Protestant schism pales in comparison to what’s at stake in the question of Christ’s divinity.
*The Mormons, JW’s, some Pentecostals, etc. are excepted, of course—though God knows what mainline Christians think of them.
Again, lots of Christians don’t believe everything in the Nicene creed literally — including a number of Christian pastors and priests. Christiahnity is a lot more complex than most people (especially outsiders, but lots of insiders too) realize. The big questions is: Who gets to decide what a Christian is? Who, e.g., gets to say that you have to believe everything in the Nicene Creed, or spoken ex cathedra by the Pope, or the statements of the Southern Baptist Convention, or even the Bible? I was a committed Christian for many years without believing in the literal truth of the entire Nicene Creed.
I know a number of Christians who do not say that Christ is literally God.
With all this discussion of the early non canonical gospels, I need some clarification. By reading multiple scholars, I think I am confused. As far as the canonical gospels, i had thought that the earliest copies were from the late second and early third century. By copies I mean those that are recognizable as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I thought that scholars had dated them by indirect means to the last quarter of the first century.
How are the canonical gospels dated in this manner as most scholars claim? Do they have fragments with carbon dates from first century CE? Are there references by independent sources from the first century to the canonical gospels? If they are fragmentary as is one of Paul’s letters with only four verses from one of the books of Corinthians, how do we know that that fragment would have contained the rest of what came to be he accepted version of Corinthians? I gave an example of a post apocalyptic fragment of The National Review and Pravda and some space alien scholar saying that those fragments must have represented a common source. What a blow to William Krystol!
Ah, good question. There is a very important difference between dating when a manuscript was produced and dating when the writing found *in* the manuscript was composed (I *think* that’s what you’re asking). Ancient manuscripts are *sometimes* dated by carbon 14, but rarely (since you have to destroy the specimen you date!). They are normally dated by palaeography, the analysis of ancient handwriting styles. Based on that we can usually date a manuscript to about 50 years or so of it’s productoin with reasonable, but not certain, accuracy. On those grounds our earliest Greek ms of the NT is P52, which contains several verses from John 18-19 (on both sides of the fragment, which is about hte size of a credit card). It is *usually* dated to the first half of the second century, though some are now suggesting a later date. The Gospel (i.e. the writing it contains, is dated to an earlier period, usually the later 90s CE. The grounds for dating are complex, but involve such thing as seeing if a text refers to historically dated events (which means it was written after them), and seeing when there appear to be some reference/quotation of it (which means it was written before that). On those grounds, John refers to the destruction of the temple (in 70 CE) and is quoted by Justin (in 150 CE); so it was complsed between those two dates. Once you have those relatively absolute parameters down to your satisfactoin, then you consider other factors, such as whehte rthe documents seems to be dependent on other writings that can be dated with more or less accuracy (itself a matter of dispute): e.g., did the author of John utilize the Synoptics? If so, it had to be later. And on how developed the views are in relation to other writers in one period or another. And, well, lots of other things such as anachronisms (if a cookbook refers to a microwave, you know it was not writtein in 1890).
I’m not surprised! Those crazy early Christians….
In response to the recent post of colegruber:
I have always believed that the process of investigation is the most important aspect of scholarship. Yes it is true we all have biases. That is why we need to keep the investigative process open and democratic. the basis is the scientific method:
1. hypothesis based on known or generally accepted facts;
2. gathering further facts in support of your hypothesis;
3. investigation of credibility;
4. Theory based on old and new facts gathered;
5. replication by others;
6. discussion by qualified experts;
7 debates sometimes resolved; sometimes not resolved;
9. hypothesis fact, fiction or unresolved.
The problem with too strict a belief structure in any direction is that is likely to slant one’s perspective. That is why the open process and in particular the emphasis on authority, tenure and scholarship as so aptly described in one of Dr. Ehrman’s recent podcasts is so important.
We may not ever devise a perfect method of inquiry and we are all capable of making mistakes. But if we keep working on improving the process we can get closer and closer to the truth.
I don’t know, some of those psalms get pretty spicy. Ezekiel 23 probably was not read before the congregation.
The Phibionites weren’t all adolescent boys, were they? 😉
Ha!
Professor Ehrman, what is your definition of a Christian?
I don’t insist on my definition, but when speaking about it historically I usually define a Christian as someone who believes that Christ is the way of salvation. It’s a very broad definition, but not infinitely broad.
I like what Gandhi said about Christianity. “I love your Jesus; it’s your Christians I have a problem with.”
You know whether Jesus was divine or not, does it really after all matter in the common every day life of each person? After all most of the gospel message of Jesus is focused on how we should treat one another. Jesus: love your enemies; do onto others ass you would have them do onto you; blessed are the meek, ETC. Who can fundamentally disagree with that stuff. OK, I know the sex business is a bit difficult: If you lust after a woman, you have committed adultery… Human sexuality is preprogrammed and it would be difficult to suppress it the way Jesus demands.
You know I think I’m going to write a gospel. I will call it: “The totally uninspired, but hopefully inspiring gospel according to Chimpo!” I will use Bart’s books for research and prove that it doesn’t really matter if the ritual stuff is true or not, but how we treat each other. Then Bart can critique it and dismiss it as just so much rubbish. what do you think?
I’d say that Gospels probalby odn’t mean by “lust” what you do, for one thing. 🙂 (Like “coveting” it appears to mean wanting something so badly you’re makin’ plans to make it happen)
1998: I said to a Shanghai pastor to be: after having sex with Joseph- after God the spirit …
A few days ago, a dear friend of mine who studies ancient Christian literature told me about the discovery of a fragment showing a part of the Gospel of Mark which was dated 18 years after the death of Jesus. Do you think it’s true?
No, it’s completely bogus.
Remo Cacitti, an Italian scholar, wrote in one of his books that, deep down, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who taught his disciples how to live well in the eyes of God, in view of the end times. Other scholars, especially those who are believers, portray him almost as a revolutionary. It is a bit difficult to get a precise idea of what it actually was.
surely his figure then revolutionized history. Why, in your opinion? for what he said or did or for what has been attributed to him? Was there actually something new, different, revolutionary in his message?
There are not many scholars who think of Jesus as a *political* revolutionary, but plenty think of him as advancing a revolutionary agenda. I’ll be dealing with this in my next book arguing that his ethical views were quite different from those in the Greek and Roman worlds, but that they were rooted in Judaism. What made them revolutionary was that his movement, as opposed to Judaism, ended up taking over the world. (E.g., the idea that love was not just for family and friends; and that money should be given to strangers that we don’t even know if they are in need)
Prof Ehrman,
In your opinion, why then later in the Gospels does Jesus appear to the disciples with his own body and with the signs of his passion? what is this other change due to?
I”m not sure what you’re asking? But I’ll try to answer! The later Gospels — Luke and John — appear to be emphasizing that Jesus’ actual corpse was raised in order to counter Christian claims that Jesus was raised *spiritually* instead of in the *body* — a view possibly present among Paul’s opponents in Corinth (see 1 Cor. 15) and later taken up by docetic Christians.