sign in sign up
<<
Home , Acts of Philip, Biblical apocrypha, Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of Eve, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Truth

VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY

Valdas MACKELA

JESUS CHRIST IN APOCRYPHAL : ORTHODOXY AND IN EARLY

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Theology (02 H)

Kaunas, 2012 The dissertation was written in the period from 2007 to 2011 at Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania, Kaunas

Academic Supervisor Can. prof. dr. (h. p.) Kęstutis Žemaitis (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Theology – 02 H)

Academic Consultant Mons. prof. dr. (h. p.) Arvydas Ramonas (Klaipėda University, Humanities, Theology – 02 H)

The dissertation is to be defended before the Academic Council of Theology at Vytautas Magnus University:

Chairman Prel. prof. dr. (h. p.) Vytautas Steponas Vaičiūnas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Theology–02 H)

Board Members: Rev. prof. dr. (h. p.) Andrius Narbekovas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Theology–02 H) Prof. dr. Birutė Obelenienė (Vytautas Magnus University, Social sciences, Educational Sciences–07 S) Rev. prof. habil. dr. Jerzy Pałucki (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, , Humanities, Theology–02 H) Rev. prof. dr. Kazys Meilius (Mykolas Romeris University, Social Sciences, Law–01 S)

Opponents: Rev. prof. habil. dr. Marek Chmielewski (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland, Humanities, Theology – 02 H) Doc. dr. Pranas Janauskas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History – 05 H)

The dissertation will be defended in an open session of the Scientific Council of Theology of Vytautas Magnus University in Didžioji aula (The Great Aula) at Vytautas Magnus University at 12 a.m. on 29th of March 2012. Address: Gimnazijos str. 7, LT – 44260 Kaunas, Lithuania

The summary of the dissertation was disseminated on the 29th of February, 2012. A copy of the dissertation is available at the libraries of Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas and at the National Library of Martynas Mažvydas in Vilnius.

VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS

Valdas MACKELA

JĖZUS KRISTUS APOKRIFINĖSE EVANGELIJOSE: ORTODOKSIJA IR EREZIJA ANKSTYVOJOJE KRIKŠČIONYBĖJE

Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, teologija (02 H)

Kaunas, 2012

Disertacija rengta 2007–2011 metais Vytauto Didžiojo universitete, Teologijos katedroje

Mokslinis vadovas Kan. prof. dr. (h. p.) Kęstutis Žemaitis (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, teologija – 02 H)

Mokslinis konsultantas Mons. prof. dr. (h. p.) Arvydas Ramonas (Klaipėdos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, teologija – 02 H)

Disertacija ginama Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Teologijos mokslo krypties taryboje:

Pirmininkas Prel. prof. dr. (h. p.) Vytautas Steponas Vaičiūnas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, teologija – 02 H)

Nariai: Kun. prof. dr. (h. p.) Andrius Narbekovas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, teologija – 02 H) Prof. dr. Birutė Obelenienė (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, edukologija – 07 S) Kun. prof. habil. dr. Jerzy Pałucki (Liublino Jono Pauliaus II katalikiškasis universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, teologija – 02 H) Kun. prof. dr. Kazys Meilius (Mykolo Romerio universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, teisė – 01 S)

Oponentai: Kun. prof. habil. dr. Marek Chmielewski (Liublino Jono Pauliaus II katalikiškasis universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, teologija – 02 H) Doc. dr. Pranas Janauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija – 05 H)

Disertacija bus ginama viešame Teologijos mokslo krypties tarybos posėdyje 2012 m. kovo mėn. 29 d. 12 val. Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Didžiojoje auloje. Adresas: Gimnazijos g. 7, LT-44260 Kaunas, Lietuva.

Disertacijos santrauka išsiųsta 2012 m. vasario 29 d. Disertaciją galima peržiūrėti Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto ir Lietuvos nacionalinėje M. Mažvydo bibliotekose.

INTRODUCTION

Substantiation of the Research Problem. In the first centuries of Christianity, there were many other gospels written in addition to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Those which did not become a part of the are called the apocryphal gospels. Unlike the canonical gospels, they are not considered divinely inspired. Over twenty different apocryphal gospels were found in the 19th and 20th c., although, in some cases, only fragments survived. Others have been entirely lost and are known only because of having been mentioned in the writings of the Fathers of the , who did not approve of the accounts of Christ portrayed in these gospels. Today it is usually historians who are interested in the apocryphal gospels, although they do not consider the question of whether and to what extent these gospels are divinely inspired, and also often do not consider the theological problems presented in them. They are interested primarily in the historical aspect of these gospels, and to what extent these books convey the life and teachings of the historical Jesus of . Although many apocryphal gospels are attributed to Jesus’ disciples, this is, in almost all cases, unfounded. Most apocryphal gospels were written in the 2nd and 3rd c. or later. To historians, the true value of the apocryphal gospels is not in their witness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, but the way these gospels assist in the understanding of early Christianity. The apocryphal gospels reflect the portrayal of the life and teachings of Jesus presented by different groups and individuals, conceptually differing from that of the greater part of Christianity, which is now known as “orthodox Christianity”. The vast majority of texts are linked to the heresy of “false knowledge” or – one of the most troublesome movements to the Fathers of the Church in Early Christianity. The polemics of the Fathers of the Church with a group of Christians who proclaimed the “Knowledge Falsely So-Called” in the 2nd and 3rd c. is significant because this particular debate influenced the formation of the Christian faith. In their polemic writings the Fathers of the Church emphasized the importance of the Apostolic Tradition. The discussion inspired them to select reliable Christian texts and canonise them; there was a need to formulate a “rule of the faith” and the foundations for symbols of the Christian faith were laid. The Fathers of the Church of this era (, , Tertullian and Clement of ) began using the terms “orthodoxy” and

5

“heresy” in the sense in which they are understood today. Up until now, we knew about the aforementioned discussion from only one side – that of the Fathers of the Church, but their opponents were only known from quotations and accounts found in heresiological writings. Not many texts are left from the first centuries of Christianity that are recognised as proclaiming false teaching. In spite of this, historians and theologians, relying on secondary sources and new methods, attempted to answer the question of who these opponents of the Church, later to be called Gnostics, were. Some held that they were Christians influenced by Greek philosophy and representing a radical branch of Christianity; others asserted that they were syncretic followers of pre-Christian religions, using Christian language. When in 1945, Coptic texts were found in Nag Hammadi of Upper Egypt, the opponents of the Fathers of the Church were given a chance to speak with their own voice. Since that time, scholars, relying of the texts of the , have attempted to view the ’ dialogue with Gnosticism anew, and have raised several hypotheses about the origins of and relationships between Christianity and Gnosticism, orthodoxy and heresy. Not only scholars take interest in apocryphal texts, but also people who identify themselves with the heterodox movements of early Christianity and are in search for the answers to life’s essential questions in the apocryphal gospels. As many researchers of the have noted, have a tendency to repeat themselves, however, the contemporary era is unique in that it has begun to look at the concepts of heresy and orthodoxy in a completely new light. In the dominant view of early Christianity and the historical Jesus scholarship, new credibility has been given to German scholar W. Bauer’s thesis that there was no common orthodoxy in the 2nd c. Christianity, but rather several theologies, until finally one prevalent theology associated itself with Rome and declared itself “orthodox”. Such view seems very attractive in a world where the division between truth and lie, good and evil is fading away, a world in which the most important value is tolerance and where differing opinions are honoured. Consumer society, accustomed to choosing between several options, opposes any attempt to limit this “freedom”, so therefore in the post-modern pluralistic world heresy becomes the new orthodoxy, because importance is placed not on truth knowable by reason, but solely on personal experience. The only belief that is not tolerated is the belief that there is only one truth and that that truth is knowable. This view has perhaps become one of

6

“the signs of the times” of our era, in which words of the apostle Paul in The Second Letter to the Corinthians are especially significant: “Because any chance comer has only to preach a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you have only to receive a spirit different from the one you received, or a different from the one you accepted – and you put up with that only too willingly” (2 Cor 11: 4 NJV; emphasis mine – V. M.). It is easy to understand why the apocryphal gospels are so attractive to the reader of today – they allow one to choose the image of Jesus Christ most suitable to one’s mind and create “one’s own Jesus,” without any canon, any criteria for truth or any absolute truth. In the third quest for the historical Jesus, which uses increasingly more non-canonical texts, there are many different interpretations of the historical Jesus: he is seen as a philosophising peasant cynic (J. D. Crossan), mythical figure (A. Ellegård), magician (M. Smith), counter-cultural (R. W. Funk), social reformer (Burton L. Mack), righteous Jew (D. Flusser), charismatic healer and miracle- worker (G. Vermes), radically liberal Jewish rabbi (Jacob Neusner), apocalyptic prophet (Bart D. Ehrman), marginal Jew (J. P. Meier), etc. The traditional canonical reading in such research no longer has any meaning, as the New Testament canon is considered a false convention, which should not be considered and should be avoided in any way possible. The mistrust in the New Testament gospels based on the historical-critical method, textual fragmentation, as well as criticism of sources, traditions and authors do not allow the scholar to view these texts as completely reliable. Reliability is sought by historical and cultural anthropologic analysis of the situation in the 1st c. , and by studying apocryphal gospels and other non-canonical texts. These texts directly or indirectly witness the way that the followers of Jesus Christ understood and interpreted his person, his teachings, death and resurrection. Scientific Significance of the Research and Current Situation in the Field. The value of studies of teachings and life of Jesus Christ witnessed in the apocryphal gospels is not only historical in nature. Such studies are also valuable as cultural historical artefacts of our times, because in them one can see the changing views and interests of scholars, and through them all of society. One can see how the research methodology of scientific research changes, as well as the change in the problems addressed in answer to the questions raised by the newly found apocryphal gospel texts. The image of Jesus Christ portrayed in the apocryphal gospels not only compels the

7 scholar to raise historical questions about the written sources of Christianity, but it also opens a theological discussion about orthodoxy, heresy and the essence of Christianity. The apocryphal gospels and other texts of early Christianity continue to be intensively researched. This subject has not been researched in Lithuania. Research Problem. The image of Jesus Christ portrayed in the apocryphal gospels is different from that of the canonical gospels. The division between heresy and orthodoxy, as fixed by the Fathers of the Church and the primacy of canonical Christianity, are doubted in the newest research on the historical Jesus and early Christianity, with scholars instead postulating that the first centuries of Christianity were marked by a “plurality of Christianities”, in which the person, teachings and mission of Jesus Christ were explained very differently. This paper therefore addresses the following questions about problematic issues: 1. How are the origins of orthodoxy and heresy explained in the writings of the Fathers of the Church and modern day study of early Christianity? 2. How was the New Testament canon of four gospels formed? 3. How does the image of Jesus Christ presented by the apocryphal gospels differ from that presented by the canonical gospels? 4. How are apocryphal gospel sources used in research of the historical Jesus? Research Aim: to critically consider the image of Jesus Christ portrayed by the apocryphal gospel texts from the perspective of the division between heresy and orthodoxy in early Christianity. Tasks for Research: 1. To narrate the development of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity from the perspectives of the Fathers of the Church and of modern historiography. 2. To accentuate the reasons why only four gospels were included in the New Testament canon. 3. To discuss the portrayal of Jesus Christ in different apocryphal gospels. 4. To determine in what way the study of the apocryphal gospels is related to the image of historical Jesus, in the paradigm of the third stage of search for the historical Jesus.

8

The Research Object of this work is the image (historical and theological) of Jesus Christ in the apocryphal gospels from the perspective of the division between orthodoxy and heresy, as well as from the perspective of historical Jesus and early Christianity. For the sake of this research, early Christianity is defined by certain chronological boundaries – from the birth of Jesus Christ until the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Methodological Foundation for the Research is Comprised of: 1. Apologetics. This paper aims not only to negate and discard arguments contrary to the canonical concept of Jesus Christ, but also to substantiate its historicity and credibility. 2. Hermeneutics. The understanding theory is used as a guiding principle in the analysis of faith witness in past texts and in the contemporary situation. 3. Dialogue. Theological openness to interdisciplinary research is seen as more than simply an exchange of perspectives, it is rather actual participation in the search of consensus. 4. Intertextuality. The position is held that texts are interrelated, and there can therefore be no completely disassociated, unconditional reading and understanding. 5. Identity politics. Attention is given to the question of identity, especially when discussing the formation of the concepts of “heresy” and “orthodoxy”. 6. Recontextualization. The texts of the apocryphal gospels are analysed in the contexts of New Testament texts, the polemics of the Fathers of the Church with heresy and modern research on the historical Jesus. Research Methods. This dissertation discusses the genesis of the terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy„ by using the genealogical method of textual comparison and analysis to find parallels and differences between the treatises on heresiology of the Fathers of the Church and the texts of the apocryphal gospels. The apocryphal gospel texts are analysed using the critical-historical method. is applied to the manuscripts of apocryphal gospels, identifying the time period and context of the writing, and reconstructing the text to be as close as possible to the original gospel text. The methods of linguistic and semantic (morphological and syntax) analysis are applied to individual fragments of apocryphal gospels that are especially meaningful from a theological perspective, using historical philology. This method is being used to determine the length of the text units and to ascertain its internal consistency. Genre

9 criticism is used to define literary genres, as well as their contexts of origin, specific features and development. Tradition criticism is used to ascribe texts to particular streams of tradition and ascertain its development through history. is used in analysing how the text changed before taking its final form, noting the tendencies characteristic to primary texts. The canonical approach allows us to view each text in the light of the Holy Scripture, that is, in light of the as a standard of belief for the community of the faithful. This approach pays attention to the “canonical process”, or the gradual dissemination of texts which the community of the faithful considered a normative authority and their relationship with apocryphal writings. Critical analysis of this process attempts to determine in what way ancient tradition was newly interpreted in new contexts, before the formation of a steadfast and applicable unity on which the identity of community of believers is founded that is both consistent and comprehensive. Hermeneutic procedures allow one to identify and understand this process and to view the interconnection and mutual effects between a faith community and its holy texts. The fourth part of this dissertation, when discussing the epistemic premises of apocryphal gospel research and new perspectives of the third stage of research on historical Jesus, analyses the presuppositions of the dominant view and the mutual effect of various paradigms using the hermeneutic method. In this way, this paper attempts to liberate the understanding of apocryphal texts from summarising, objectivistic and ideological perspectives and, with a perspective of believing in Jesus Christ, discusses anew the origin, nature and development of orthodoxy and heresy, in their theological, exegetic, textological, genealogical and philosophical aspects. This dissertation proposes the hypothesis that apocryphal gospel texts assist the scholar in better understanding the development of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity, however their witness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ are essentially different from the knowledge presented in the canonical New Testament gospels. Defended Claims:  The apocryphal gospels are attractive to our post-modern situation, with its characteristic erosion of truth.  The Fathers of the Church defined as heresy that, which the apostle Paul called other gospel, other Jesus and other Spirit.

10

 The formation of the New Testament canon should be understood not as a political decision directed against heterodoxy, but as a “discerning of spirits” process realised in the through the ministry of the bishops and the intercession of the .  The Protoevangelium of James is a significant, but theologically problematic portrayal of the pre-history and birth of Jesus.  The Judeo-Christian gospels are an estimable part of the heterogenic heritage of the earliest centuries of Christianity.  Agrapha are too much of a fragmentary account of the unwritten oral tradition of Jesus to authentically portray Jesus’s personality and teaching.  of Thomas marks the transition from the concept of Jesus as an ascetic and teacher of spiritual ascension to the 2nd c. heterodoxy of Jesus as the esoteric and mythical Saviour.  The is open for an interpretation both in orthodox, and in docetic way. The Gospel of Cross is an unsuccessful attempt to apply The Gospel of Peter in the interpretation of earlier canonical tradition.  The is a characteristic case of private esoteric .  The essential knowledge presented by the gnostic gospels differs from that of the canonical gospels: faith is replaced by knowledge and experience, unity is replaced by the selection of the “most beloved” apostle for the knowledge of mysteries, hope in this world and the next is replaced by isolation from social life and liberation from the body.  The reconstructed historical Jesus based on non-canonical gospels is a teacher, but not the risen Saviour Christ; faith in Him is replaced by experience.

Theoretical Novelty of Research: the theological model (of “open inner canon”) created for the discussion of non-canonical sources allows one to consider the apocryphal gospels in systematic theological discourse. Practical Significance of Research: the theoretical model (of “open inner canon”) created allows one to deal with apologetic and pastoral tasks arising in a post-modern context.

11

Overview of Scientific Sources and Research Trends. It is very important to the study of apocryphal gospels to examine newly-discovered archaeological written sources, that until recently were known only by their titles, and the detailed description of their content found in the polemic texts of the Fathers of the Church. It was therefore very difficult to form a clear and accurately presented view of the heresies of early Christianity. However, examination of new archaeological discoveries enables scholars to better understand Christian heterodoxy in late antiquity. The most important in the field are the studies of the surviving apocryphal gospels. Knowledge of Christian heterodoxy is supplemented by studies of existing remnants of ancient religious groups, still existing in enclosed marginal communities. The early opponents of heresy were primarily Christian apologists and religious philosophers. Some of them were bishops in the Catholic Church, who later came to be known as “the Fathers of the Church”. Their primary concern was the protection of the essential truths of Christianity and in their writings they sought to discard any distortions. Various arguments and methods were employed for this purpose: indication that heresy was posterior to orthodoxy, disclosure of how Christian teaching is distorted, portrayal of heresy as a return to paganism, emphasis on the negative influence of Greek philosophy, accentuation of the diversity and contradictory nature of heterodox doctrine. Heretics were accused of conspiracy and deceitfulness. Magic and the origin of heresy were associated with the activities of the evil spirit, eager to destroy the Church. The Fathers of the Church, because of their apologetic and pastoral intentions to protect the Christian community from the destructive influence of heresies, created various lists of heresies, which were repeated and expanded by later orthodox authors. Early Christian heresiologists provided us with many descriptions, but the establishing of orthodoxy not only led to extinction of heretical communities, but destroyed the vast majority of their scriptures as well. The Fathers of the Church pursued a completely different aim than historians of Christianity now. The concern of the Fathers of the Church was to rebut tendencies which were conceived as dangerous to their communities. The Fathers of the Church had no intention of portraying an accurate picture of the heresy of “knowledge falsely so- called” and other heresies (, Ebionism). Therefore the contemporary academic world considers testimonies of heresiologists critically, taking into account their polemical method and descriptions of the Fathers of the Church not as historical

12 treatises, but as theological enterprises. Taking such a perspective into account, the heresiological works of the Fathers of the Church are a very important source that discloses theological disputes in early Christianity. These works provide a number of authentic testimonies and quotes from the apocryphal gospels rejected by the Fathers of the Church. This heresiological literature was essential in the studies of heterodox teachings in early Christianity and apocryphal gospels. There was an attempt to reconstruct original texts, but quotes from the Fathers of the Church comprised only a few pages. This is a very small amount, taking into account the fact that in first centuries apocryphal gospels outnumber the canonical gospels of the New Testament by several times. The years after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi writings were marked by intensive academic activity, because the amount and complexity of material required immense efforts. There was an initial effort to find the connection between the Nag Hammadi texts and the New Testament gospels. There was an assumption that some texts, such as The may be authentic, previously unknown Jesus’s words. Other texts, such as The dialogue of the Saviour, The of James and The Gospel of Mary from the , were considered a testimony of an early . There was a fervent discussion of these texts in an attempt to assign them to any ancient heresy. Only some apocryphal gospels texts are translated into Lithuanian, which we use in this study. Anthology of Medieval philosophy (Viduramžių filosofijos chrestomatija), published in 1980, contains The Gospel of Thomas in Lithuanian, translated from French by P. Račius. This text is used with reservations using corrections according to the Coptic original and translations into other languages. Protoevangelium of James, translated by A. Dambrauskas from the was published in Catholic Calendar (Katalikų kalendorius žinynas) of 1989. This translation basically trusted and compared to the Greek original only in the most problematic parts. The same could be said about The Gospel of Peter translation by M. Adomėnas, published in 1992 in Naujasis Židinys magazine in 1991. In the same magazine, part of The known as Christ’s Descent into Hades (Kristaus nužengimas į Hadą), translated by M. Strockis, was published. The was translated into Lithuanian in 2007 from the National Graphic Society publication The Gospel of Judas in English. Another publication, The Gospel of Judas – from , which was published by the same society for academic circles,

13 appeared in 2006 and has not been translated into Lithuanian. Facsimile editions of The Gospel According to Thomas and Philip’s Gospel are published in a publication called The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Interesting materials that can be used to help determine the chronological order of the gospels can be found in Nag Hammadi Codices. Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Cartonnage of the Covers. A significant translation of this library’s texts into English is The Nag Hammadi Library in English. The Gospel of Mary was published in Die gnostischen Schriften des Koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 [The Gnostic Writings of the Coptic Berlin Papyrus 8502], a critical edition of this gospel appeared in English in the K. L. King book The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (2003). The aforementioned Gospel’s translation into Polish was recently published by W. Myszor as Ewangelia Marii Magdaleny [The Gospels of ] (2011). A significant publication of apocryphal texts is W. Schneemelcher and R. McLachlan Wilson’s two- volume New Testament : Gospels and Related Writings published in 1991 and 2003. Fragments of the writings of the Fathers of the Church were published in Lithuanian in the anthology Bažnyčios tėvai [The Fathers of the Church] (although some of them had been published in part earlier). In all other cases, uses of the writings of the Fathers of the Church are taken from their English translation, Ante- Nicene Fathers, comparing them with the original Greek and texts, published in the Migne Patrologia Latina (MPL) and the Migne Patrologia Graeca (MPG). Quotations from of Caesarea Historia Ecclesiastica have been taken from Č. Kavaliauskas’s translation, while quotations from Tertullian’s De Praescriptione Haereticorum (Prescription Against Heretics) have been taken from the A. Dambrauskas translation. The Holy Scripture is quoted from A. Rubšys and Č. Kavaliauskas’s translation, published by the Lithuanian Bishops’ Conference (2009). The Greek New Testament text is quoted from E. Nestle’s and K. Aland’s (NTG). Hebrew texts are quoted from Rudolf Kittell’s Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). Short quotations from apocryphal gospels are found in V. Ališauskas’s commentated edition of ’s Homilies on the that appeared only in 2011. Significant research on this topic is found in M. Franzmann’s Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings, in which texts from the Nag Hammadi library are viewed as a

14

“canon” of sorts and Jesus is interpreted as the gnostic Saviour. However author ignores the heterogeneity of the texts in the library. Apocryphal gospel texts are widely used in the third search for historical Jesus by such authors as J. D. Crossan, R. W. Funk, M. J. Borg, B. L. Mack. Apocryphal sources are also discussed by R. E. Brown in his fundamental studies Death of the (1994) and Birth of the Messiah (1998). The apocryphal gospels were popularised by E. Pagels’s studies The Gnostic Gospels (1979) and Adam, and the Serpent (1988). Of the particular apocryphal gospel studies, A.D. DeConick’s works on The Gospel According to Thomas and the tradition of the apostle Thomas are noteworthy; Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (1996) and Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (2005). The Gospel of Mary has been studied most by K. L. King, in her study The Gospel of Mary of Magdala (2003). Her studies conducted on the genesis of the concept of Gnosticism What is Gnosticism? (2003) and John’s Apocrypha – The Secret Revelation of John (2006) are also noteworthy. The gospels of Jesus’s childhood are not so widely researched, however of the existing publications F. Bovon’s article about the suspension of time in the Protevangelium Jacobi (The Suspension of Time in Chapter 18 of Protevangelium Jacobi (2003)) is noteworthy, as is K. P. Zebiri’s article discussing the relationship between the Quaran and the apocryphal Childhood Gospels According to Thomas, called Contemporary Muslim Understanding of the Miracles of Jesus (2000). New insights about the The Hebrew Gospel as well as doubts about the Q source theory were presented by James R. Edwards in his study The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009). In his opinion, the three used the Aramaic Gospel According to Matthew as a source, which would be supported by the vast number of semitisms in all of these texts. One can read about the recently discovered and reconstructed from minute fragments The Gospel of Judas in Lithuanian in two publications aimed at a popular audience: R. Kasser, M. Meyer and G. Wurst’s Judo evangelija [Gospel of Judas] (2007) and H. Krosney’s Pradingusi evangelija. Judo evangelijos odisėjos [The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of ] (2007). This gospel is given a much more in-depth analysis in B. D. Ehrman’s The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (2008), as well as E. Pagels ir K. L. King’s Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of

15

Christianity (2007). In researching the non-canonical Jesus, J. Jeremias’s study, Unbekannte Jesusworte [The Unknown Sayings of Jesus] (1963), is still significant. This classic was enriched and supplemented with new insights and sources by M. Meyer in The Unknown Sayings of Jesus (2005). A new trend of research is dedicated to the conflict theory between The Gospel According to John and The Gospel of Thomas. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversies by G. J. Riley (1995) where he compares the concept of resurrection in The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel According to John. E. Pagels’s Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003) and A. D. DeConick’s Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John, Thomas and Other Ancient (2001) can be assigned to this group. These new attempts to compare the canonical and apocryphal tradition are criticized by I. Dunderberg in The Beloved Disciple in Conflict?: Revisiting the and Thomas (2006). This study questions the thesis of the above mentioned authors that The Gospel According to John is written in response to The Gospel of Thomas tradition. I. Dunderberg claims that the two gospels were written in a similar time, but the authors did not know each other. He also discusses the mysterious “disciple whom Jesus loved” figure in the The Gospel According to John, by comparing it with other “beloved” disciples of Jesus in early Christian literature. The most significant work in the study of orthodoxy and heresy is, without a doubt, W. Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum [Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Earliest Christianity] (1934), which created a trajectory for researchers of early Christianity to follow. W. Bauer in this work substantiates the claim that in early Christianity orthodoxy did not come before heresy, because in the most part of the Mediterranean basin, heresy was the primary form of Christianity. This German theologian, historian of early Christianity and author of the monumental Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments [Dictionary of New Testament Writings] (1958), opposed the dominant view that at the sources of Christianity, heresies were a deviation from an already existing orthodox Church teaching. For quite some time, W. Bauer’s thesis did not receive support from the academic community and did not have greater impact on the study of historical research on early Christianity, because he relied heavily on conjecture and argumentum e silentio. These theses were held and popularised among his students by Harvard professor, H. Koester, whose works

16

Trajectories through Early Christianity (1971) and Ancient Christian Gospels (1990) allowed him to substantiate W. Bauer’s thesis with newly found apocryphal Christian texts. This thesis is sometimes called the Bauer-Ehrman thesis, because American New Testament scholar B. D. Ehrman contributed most to its popularisation. He tries to show that the canon is unfounded and unreliable in his works Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005), Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible‘s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (2011) and others. On the other hand, he also asserts that in the earliest stage of the history of Christianity, there were “other christianities”, whose orthodoxy was overpowered and marginalised as heresy in his works such as Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2003) and Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (2003). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (1999) is one of many books balancing on the margin between academics and propaganda, in which B. D. Ehrman expresses his view on Jesus using both canonical and apocryphal sources. Rebuttals of Bauer-Ehrman’s thesis have only just appeared. Attempts to reconstruct the “true Jesus” with the aid of apocryphal New Testament texts have been criticised by C. A. Evans in Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort Gospels (2006); J. Ed Komoszewski, M. J. Sawyer and D. B. Wallace in Reinventing Jesus (2006); and Lee Strobel in The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ (2009). A. Le Boulluec is recognized as an expert on the relationship between orthodoxy and heresy and his text about the concept of heresy was published in the Lithuanian collection Early Christianity: Four Studies [Ankstyvoji krikščionybė: keturi tyrinėjimai] (2004). Other important works criticising Bauer- Ehrman’s thesis are A. J. Köstenberger, M. J. Kruger and I. Howard Marshall’s The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (2010) and A. McGrath’s Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (2010). Bauer-Ehrman’s thesis is defended by G. Lüdemann, scandalously famed for his “Goodbye Letter to Jesus,” in his study Heretics: the Other Side of Early Christianity (1996). An independent study of heresy and orthodoxy in early Christianity was published by A. Marjanen, P. Luomanen of The University of Helsinki under the title of A companion to second-century Christian “heretics“(2008). Many of the aforementioned studies mainly concentrate on some

17 narrow academic problems, such as a chronology of the early Christian sources, apocryphal Christian texts, Sitz im Leben, relationship of non-canonical gospels with the canonical Gospels, attempts to reconstruct the historical Jesus, the origin of heresy and orthodoxy. This study attempts to include apocryphal gospels and the issue of non- canonical story of Jesus Christ into the usual theological discourse of Fundamental , not only looking for evidence of historicity and authenticity, but also considering questions of credibility, inspiration and salvation. “Jesus Christ” is intentionally named in the title, in order to disassociate it from a purely historical studying Jesus of Nazareth, but to expand the theological exploration of apocryphal Gospels. It should be noted that the use of apocryphal texts is almost unknown in Western theology, but is at home in the Christian East, where the some apocryphal texts are studied not only from a historical or biblical perspective but are perceived as Christian heritage that is respected, protected and appreciated. In this respect, the relationship of the easternmost branch of Christianity nazrani (also known as St. Thomas Christians who live in Kerala, India) to the apostolic tradition is noteworthy, which includes the texts discussed in our study: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Thomas, et al. The Gospel of Nicodemus and The Protoevangelium of James gospel texts are respected in most of Eastern Christian churches. These texts, as well as in the Christian West better known The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew heavily affected folk piety and Christian religious art. Such “gnostic” and “docetic” gospels as The Gospel of Thomas and The were found in the Nag Hammadi area which is very close to the place where the first Pachomian monastery was situated. There is a high probability that the library belonged to these monks. Recent studies have shown that the Gospel of Thomas would be appropriate not to consider gnostic, but rather encratic. A hypothesis (which is, however, still lacking stronger justification) that radical hostility to the world of the gospels (and other texts like ones found in the Nag Hammadi library) could lead to the withdrawal of the first Egyptian to the desert. Lost, but the reconstructed from fragments The , The Gospel of the Nazarenes, The Gospel of the in writings of the Fathers of the Church (, Origen, Clement of Alexandria) were quoted with respect and usually were identified with the lost Aramaic “original” Gospel according to Matthew. The Gospel of Peter, as evidenced by historical sources, was even read during the

18 liturgy in one of the Christian communities, but later, for the fear of possible docetic interpretations, was abandoned. A significant distinction is made by the Fathers of the Church between (a) true (b) apocryphal (hidden) and (c) false gospels. This means that the apocryphal gospels were not necessarily heretical or hostile to orthodoxy in nature, but had an esoteric nature. A group of texts that we call the apocryphal gospels represents several different types: (a) canonical-like accounts of Jesus teaching life, suffering, death and resurrection; (b) heterodox theological treatises that attribute to themselves the name “gospel”; (c) or legend type stories on certain episodes of canonical gospels. Besides these, there are also modern counterfeits of apocryphal gospels, such as The Secret , likely written by its “discoverer,” M. Smith in about 1960. Although apocryphal gospels were written at the dawn of Christianity, the creative impulse that led them to write didn’t fade in later times. It can be argued that the apocryphal tradition of Christianity has always existed in the popular legends of Jesus and of the apostles’ life stories. Such stories as the tale Three kings from the East, later than Gospel according to Matthew accounts on Massacre of the Innocents, The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into (The Dormition of the ), tales about Holy Cross, Longinus the centurion, Penitent thief Dismas, and Thecla, whole literature about Holy Grail and most of non-canonical individual may be considered “apocryphal gospels” or “apocryphal acts” of post-early Christianity age. In the middle ages, many such legends have been collected in Legenda Aurea by Jacobus de Voragine. Exceptional is the Celtic tradition of apocryphal gospels that existed through the middle ages. It has been compiled and published by M. Herbert and M. J. McNamara in Irish : Selected Texts and translations (1989). Modern era in its own way continued the tradition of apocryphal gospels – many Life of Jesus books were written during the and Romanticism, with the intention to tell a “true” story of Jesus can be considered a secular tradition of apocryphal accounts. If we do not consider time-lag, Vie de Jesus [Life of Jesus](1923) by E. Renan is not so very different from the apocryphal gospels of the early centuries, who also used power of the imagination and available knowledge to uncover unknown episodes in the life of Jesus Christ. There are fine literature portrayals of Jesus’s life, such as Kristuslegender [Christ Legends and

19

Other Stories] (1904) by S. Lagerlöf, Jesus, the (1928) by K. Gibran and Teleutaios Peirasmos [Last Temptation] (1960 ) by N. Kazantzakis. The separate genre of “modern Apocrypha” are so-called mystical visions of Jesus' life, a genre known from antiquity but which gained popularity in sentimental piety times, perhaps as a counterweight to secular historical Jesus research in the era of rationalism. One of the most famous visionaries of Jesus’s life and suffering was stigmatic Augustinian nun A. K. Emmerick, whose visions of episodes in the life of Jesus were written by C. Brentano in his three-volume work Das bittere Leiden unsers Herrn Jesu Christi [The Bitter Suffering of Our Lord Jesus Christ] (1833–1842). Excerpts from this giant “meditation” were published in Lithuanian as Sopulinga muka wieszpaties musu Jezaus Christaus (1864 i.e. 1887) as well as C. Brentano’s Kristaus kančia: pagal Dievo tarnaitės Onos Kotrynos Emmerich regėjimus [The Passion of Christ: According to the Visions of God’s Servant Anna Katherine Emmerick ] (1959). The impressiveness of these A. K. Emmerick visions of Jesus’s life is evidenced by the fact that M. Gibson, in his movie The Passion of Christ (2004) followed her account of Jesus Christ’s sufferings. Another “visionary life” of Jesus Christ by poet and writer M. Valtorta recorded in monumental Il Poema di Gesù [The Poem of the Man God] (1956). is also known in Lithuania, mainly because of the efforts of K. A. Trimakas from concise compendium Jėzaus gyvenimo iliustracijos [Iillustrations of Jesusʼ life] (1994). According to the seer, all the details of Jesus’s life had been dictated or revealed. Such “apocryphal” lives of Jesus had an ambiguous history of the Catholic Church authority assessment. M. Valtorta’s book, together with F. Kowalska’s Dzienniczek [Diary: Divine Mercy in My Soul] (1981) for some time even was placed in Index Librorum Prohibitorum (from 1959 till abolition of Index in 1965). Noteworthy that Diary: Divine Mercy in My Soul of saint Faustyna, who was canonized in 2000, in some sense is similar in form (not content!) to that of ancient Christian Apocrypha written in the form of dialogues between risen Jesus and disciples (or disciple) such The Gospel of Mary. In some sense, one could include as apocryphal gospel tradition The Book of Mormon (1827) reportedly presented by the angel Moroni to J. Smith, which tells of Jesus’s mission among the Native American peoples the same is true of the supposedly divinely revealed Urantia book (1924–1955), which also relates its own version of Jesus’s life.

20

Limits of Research. To investigate orthodox and heterodox portrayals of Jesus in early Christianity, gospels were chosen from the many apocryphal gospels, which were the most relevant for this paper’s investigative purpose. It was not apt to limit research just to one text of apocryphal gospel, because there were no previous studies of this genre as such in Lithuania. Therefore it seemed appropriate to do general research of the field. However, an exhaustive coverage of this literature also would have been impossible, so the selection of the texts followed a number of criteria. 1. The apocryphal gospels are presented in chronological order – not according to the order they are thought to have been written in, not according to the order in which they were discovered, but according to the order of the life episodes of Jesus in their content. a) The history of up to Jesus birth and the birth is accounted in Protoevangelium of James; and the The Infancy Gospel of Thomas tells us about Jesus’ childhood. The of Jesus is recorded in three different versions by the Fathers of the Church in reconstructed from quotes Judeo-Christian gospels: The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazarenes and The Gospel of Ebionites b) episodes of Jesus public ministry are narrated in two of the best-preserved of the unknown gospels – Oxyrhynchus fragment (POxy 840) and Egerton papyrus (PEg 2). Individual non- canonical Jesus sayings are found in different sources – from New Testament secondary manuscripts and the Fathers of the Church to the and Muslim mystic writers. Agrapha are presented in the order proposed by J. Jeremias starting with the most reliable and ending with the least reliable testimonies. Gospel of Thomas also consists almost entirely of brief statements of Jesus. Not having had an opportunity to analyse each logia, the main thematic units of Jesus’s teaching are distinguished c) there are two gospels with accounts of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection: The Gospel of Peter focuses on the trial of Jesus, the crucifixion and resurrection; The Gospel of Mary Magdalene represents dialogues of disciples with the risen Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Nicodemus, describing the descent of Christ into Hades, and The Gospel of Judas telling about the events of the Last Supper and Judas’s betrayal are left for later research. 2. Apocryphal gospels texts were chosen taking into account their compliance with what is considered to be the gospel genre. Texts which are allegedly gospels, but do not have any accounts of Jesus life and teaching related to early Christian tradition are left out.

21

Gospel of Philip is discussed in only a few episodes, because, although the text is called a gospel, basically it is a work of gnostic theology with strong tendency to criticize orthodox Christianity. The same can be said about The , The Wisdom of Faith (), The Gospel according to the Egyptians, The , The Book of Thomas Contender, . Left outside the boundaries of research as well are other : The Gospel of Pseudo –Matthew, The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior as these are based on previously mentioned apocryphal infancy texts. The Gospel of and the The Gospel of Gamaliel are late texts, more attributed to the legendary than to the gospel genre. The Gospel of the Living attributed to Mani is too distant from the Christian religious tradition, and should be discussed with other texts of the Manichean tradition. For obvious reasons, the study could not include entirely missing Gospels, which survived only in titles: The Gospel of Seventy, The , The Gospel of Four , The Gospel of , The Gospel of Longinus, The et al. In the case that some of them were found, the investigation could expand further. 3. The study of the apocryphal gospels and the image of Jesus Christ portrayed in them is not a goal in and of itself, but rather a tool used to highlight the formation of the division between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Gospels were therefore chosen which represent certain herterodoxical tendencies: a) Judeo-Christian (The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans and The Gospel of the Ebionites; b) encratic (The Gospel of Thomas); c) gnostic The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene; d) docetic (The Gospel of Peter); e) folk piety (The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Protevangelion of James). Late falsifications and anti-gospels, such as Toledoth Yeshu and The are left aside. 4. This study looks not only at the image of Jesus portrayed in apocryphal gospels and the heresiology of early Christianity, but also at contemporary research tendencies, and therefore texts were chosen on the basis of the amount of scholarly attention they had heretofore received. Without a doubt, the primary texts for consideration in this aspect are The Gospel of Thomas (EvT) and the newly discovered but not yet exhaustively researched The Gospel of Judas. Another work which has received a good deal of attention, especially from female scholars, is The Gospel according to Mary (EvM). One can observe an increasing interest in Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Christian texts.

22

Research of this tradition is significant not only from a historical point of view, but also in the context of modern day Jewish-Christian relations, because it shows how the Jewish and Christian identities were formed. The gospels of Jesus Christ’s childhood are important for the same reason: they allow the scholar to better understand ’s perspective on Jesus, Islam’s relationship with marginal Christian groups and the probable origin of texts in the Quran about the life of Jesus. The non-canonical sayings of Jesus in the Islamic tradition allow the Christian scholar to realise the importance of the person of Jesus in Muslim theology and more fruitfully develop interreligious dialogue. The Scope of the Dissertation. This dissertation is comprised of an introduction, four main parts, conclusions, lists of abbreviations and references, a bibliography, recommendations and a glossary of main terms. The first part of this dissertation is devoted to the development of the concepts of “orthodoxy” and “heresy” in early Christianity from the letters of the apostle Paul to the heresiological treatises of the Fathers of the Church in the 2nd c. This part of the dissertation also introduces W. Bauer’s thesis on the pluralism of early Christianity and discusses the modern critical view of the development of early Christianity. The second part of this dissertation discusses the development of early Christian writing and the formation of the New Testament canon. An analysis is carried out of the motives for the appearance of heterodox gospels and what evidence allowed the Fathers of the Church to distinguish between canonical gospels and apocryphal ones. The third part of this dissertation analyses the image of Jesus Christ and his teachings portrayed in the apocryphal gospels, as well as the theological perspective of the gospel’s authors. This part of the dissertation discusses the context in which the apocryphal gospels were written, the historical accuracy of the facts portrayed, the witness of the Fathers of the Church about the non-canonical texts, as well as the content of these texts identified by criteria for heresy, heterodoxy and orthodoxy. Theories of contemporary scholars on the origin of apocryphal texts and their relationship with canonical texts are presented. The fourth part of this dissertation attempts to answer the question as to what caused the appearance of heresies in Christianity. The Apocryphal gospel texts are analysed in the context of the third stage of research on historical Jesus. Theoretical provisions and methodological premises that are significant in the forming of the concept of the “true

23 historical Jesus” are also analysed. The most important themes accentuated in this study on apocryphal gospels are summarised. These themes allow one to distinguish between orthodox, heterodox and heretical witness about the person of Jesus Christ.

24

THE STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION

INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC SOURCES AND RESEARCH TRENDS LIMITS OF RESEARCH I. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH AND IN MODERN RESEARCH OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY 1.1. The Teaching of the Fathers of the Church on the Nature and Origin of Heresy 1.1.1. “Knowledge Falsely So-called” as the First Heresy 1.1.2. Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Church Fathers’ Rhetoric 1.1.3. On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called by Irenaeus of Lyons 1.1.4. Prescription against Heretics by Tertullian of Carthage 1.1.5. Refutation of all Heresies by 1.1.6. Clement of Alexandria on True and False Knowledge 1.1.7. The Genesis of Heresies According to the Fathers of the Church 1.1.8. The Fight Against Heresy as a Pursuit for Purity of Faith 1.1.9. The Demonizing of Opponents: Heresy as an Internal Enemy 1.2. The Bauer-Ehrman Thesis on Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity 1.2.1. W. Bauer on Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity 1.2.2. The Application and Criticism of W. Bauer's Thesis II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 2.1. General Characteristics of Hellenistic Culture, Philosophy and Religion 2.2. in the Hellenistic Era and into Greek 2.3. Eschatological Dualism and the New at the Qumran Community 2.4. The Inter-Testament Literature and Jewish Apocalypticism 2.5. The Canon of the New Testament and the Apocryphal texts 2.5.1. Characteristics of Early Christian Literature 2.5.2. Research Methods of Early Christian Writings 2.5.3. Oral Tradition and its Recording 2.5.4. The Question of Chronology of Early Christian Literature

25

2.5.5. Differentiation of Early Christian Literature 2.5.6. The Canonization of Early Christian Texts 2.5.7. The and Other Lists of Recognized Books III. JESUS CHRIST IN THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 3.1. Apocryphal Gospels on the Birth and Infancy of Jesus 3.1.1. Jesus Christ in the Protoevangelium of James 3.1.2. The Miraculous Childhood of Jesus in the Apocryphical Infancy Gospel of Thomas 3.2. Jesus Christ in Two Fragments of Unknown Gospels 3.2.1. Main Fragments of Unknown Gospels 3.2.2. Papyrus Oxyrhynchos 840 3.2.3. Egerton papyrus (POxy 840) 3.3. Jesus Christ in Judeo-Christian Gospels 3.3.1. Jewish-Christian Testimonies about Jesus Christ in the Writings of the Fathers of the Church 3.3.2. Jesus Christ in The Gospel of the Hebrews 3.3.3. Jesus Christ in The Gospel of the Nazarenes 3.3.4. Jesus Christ in The Gospel of the Ebionites 3.3.5. Testimonies of the Judeo-Christian Gospels about Jesus Christ 3.4. Agrapha – the Scattered Words of Jesus. 3.4.1. Agrapha or Non-Canonical Sayings of Jesus Christ 3.4.2. Agrapha in the New Testament, the Writings of the Fathers of the Church and Non-Christian sources 3.4.3. The Meaning of the Non-Canonical Sayings of Jesus Christ 3.5. The teaching of Jesus Christ in The Gospel of Thomas 3.5.1. Gospels from the Nag Hammadi Library 3.5.2. The Particularity of The Gospel of Thomas 3.5.3. The Teaching of Jesus Christ in The Gospel of Thomas 3.5.4. The Relationship Between The Gospel of Thomas and the Canonical Gospels 3.5.5. The Question of Heterodoxy of The Gospel of Thomas 3.6. Apocryphal Gospels about Jesus’ Death and Resurrection 3.6.1. Jesus Christ’s Death and Resurrection in The Gospel of Peter

26

3.6.2. Dialogues of the Risen Jesus Christ with His Disciples in The Gospel of Mary IV. SEARCHING FOR THE IMAGE OF THE “OTHER JESUS” IN APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 4.1. The Quest for the Historical Jesus as the Purpose for the Study of Apocryphal Gospels 4.1.1. The Historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith 4.1.2. H.S. Reimarus and the Beginning of Research on the Historical Jesus 4.1.3. A. Schweitzer and the End of the First Quest for Historical Jesus 4.1.4. The Second Quest for the Historical Jesus: An Attempt to Combine History with Faith 4.1.5. The Third Quest for the Historical Jesus: Non-Canonical Jesus 4.1.6 Jesus Christ from the Perspective of Judaism 4.1.7. Jesus Christ of the Apocryphal Gospels from a Feminist Perspective 4.2. Faith and Experience: The Split between Orthodoxy and Heresy 4.2.1 E. Pagels: The Faith of the Gospel of John and the Experience of the Gospel of Thomas 4.2.2. A. DeConick: Visio dei and divine ascent mysticism of the Gospel of Thomas 4.2.3. G. J. Riley: Not physical resurrection in the Gospel of Thomas 4.3. The Image of Jesus Christ is the Gospels and its Meaning CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS GLOSSARY APPENDICES

27

CONTENT AND CONCISE SURVEY OF THE DISSERTATION

I. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH AND IN MODERN RESEARCH OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY

1.1. The Teaching of the Fathers of the Church on the Nature and Origin of Heresy. In 1945 Ali, an Egyptian peasant near Nag Hammadi, found the 4th c. papyrus codices with more than fifty texts in some pottery. Among these texts were The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth and many others, with previously unknown sayings of Jesus, as well as a completely different interpretation of his teaching and picture of death and resurrection. In these texts Mary Magdalene was described as Jesus’ favourite disciple and spiritual leader of the other apostles. These texts, almost from their discovery, were designated as literature of the Gnostic heresy. The Fathers of the Church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries wrote monumental treatises directed against this heresy of “knowledge falsely so-called”, which, in their opinion, was the greatest danger for orthodox Christianity at that time. 1.1.1. “Knowledge Falsely So-called” as the First Heresy. The dispute with “knowledge falsely so-called” was started by early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome and Epiphanius of Salamis, most of whom lived in the Roman Empire in the first four centuries after Christ. Very often Gnosticism was considered a heretical, marginal, sectarian, esoteric, mythic, syncretic, parasitic and oriental religion. It appears as a genuine contrast to the exoteric, historical, rational and universal orthodox Christianity. However this distinction was for the most part apologetical and is not very useful for historiographical research. There is therefore a constant effort to redefine what is meant by the terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy”. 1.1.2. Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Church Fathers’ Rhetoric. In early Christianity, it was very important for the self-awareness of Jesus’ followers to define what Christian is and what is not. It was therefore necessary to emphasize what Christians share and what distinguishes them from non-Christians. Such terms as “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were, in the language of the Fathers of the Church, a way to show the differences. It was not easy, because all Christians relied on the revelation that came through Jesus Christ,

28 and the generally accepted criteria how to distinguish which interpretation is correct were in the process of formation. Ancient philosophy and medicine used αἵρεσις as a term referring to a trend or training, often used to define diversity of philosophical teachings or schools related to their founders. The Fathers of the Church treated heresy as a form of doctrinal trend, and very often it was related to the name of its initiator, whose biography and way of teaching was the way to define a particular heresy. The founder of all heresies has been considered , known from his encounter with the apostles in Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8: 9-25). 1.1.3. On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called by Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus identified those considered heretics, pointing at the differences between heretical and orthodox theology and practices. He emphasized three areas: cosmology, salvation and ethics. According to him, heretics rejected the God of the as the true God and Creator of the world. Heretics, in his opinion, rejected what in the Bible is clear - the Creator and creation goodness. They, according to Irenaeus, denied salvation without acknowledging that Jesus Christ had a physical body and denying that the faithful Christians will rise with bodies at the end of times the same way Jesus Christ was raised. Such a heresy is called Docetism. Irenaeus maintained that heretics taught that only a spiritual elite will be saved “by nature” returning to its heavenly source. According to heretical teaching, salvation comes not through faith in Jesus Christ, but through special knowledge revealed to the elect. Irenaeus views such an approach as both arrogant and wrong. 1.1.4. Prescription against Heretics by Tertullian of Carthage. Although there was already a discussion about how to interpret the Bible and the canon of the New Testament was not yet closed, Tertullian notes that every heresy omits one or another book of the Bible. Nevertheless, he does not provide his readers with a list of canonical books. Indeed, in the 2nd c., it was still actively debated which books were to be canonical books and which not. For Tertullian is not easy to say who is a heretic, and who is not, because according to him, sometimes the most loyal, intelligent and experienced people in the community take the side of heresy. Tertullian proposes certain limits for the interpretation of Scripture, because according to him, Jesus’ words “seek and you will find” (Mt 7:7; EvT 91) have a certain goal, and cannot lead to an endless quest. Once you have found something, it is time to stop looking. To search

29 further is possible only according to regula fidae of the one true Christian community. With his famous rhetorical exclamation “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? or the Academy with the Church?” Tertullian wanted to highlight what the essential difference between heresy as an endless quest and wandering and the real truth, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Against human and demonic doctrines of his opponents he raises the rule of faith, which comes from apostolic times and is rooted in the historical event of Christ. 1.1.5. Refutation of all Heresies by Hippolytus of Rome. In his famous work, Philosophumena or Refutation of all Heresies, Hippolytus sets out to explain the origin of all erroneous teachings. He wants to show that heretics composed their systems not from Scripture or Holy Tradition, but from claims of Greek wisdom, philosophical views, fictitious mysteries and pointlessly wandering astrologers’ stories. His rhetorical argument against “knowledge falsely so-called” is comparison with the Greek philosophical schools. In his view, heretical teachings are even worse than the ancient Greek philosophers’ teachings, as they use it to their own evil purposes. Hippolytus, even more than his master Irenaeus, is eager to denounce heresies and to show their godlessness. 1.1.6. Clement of Alexandria on True and False knowledge. Clement of Alexandria was the only writer in ancient Christianity who applied the term “Gnostic” to orthodox Christians. Clement is also the first to use the term “orthodoxy” as an opposition to “heresy”. Here we can see that the Alexandrian Fathers of the Church attempted not to oppose the Gnostics, as had been done by ecclesial authors before, but to respond to the challenge of “knowledge falsely so-called” in positive way and to open the way for Gnostic Christians back to the Church. But Clement’s dialogue with Gnosticism cannot be denied as polemic. Stating that the way to become a “Gnostic” or mature Christian is open to everyone, he presents the Church as a perfecting knowledge source, which flows from the Master’s Word through the apostles and elders, as the flowing channel of the universal Church. Clement, even only in the name of his lengthy work, openly enters in to polemics with the rich and influential in Alexandria, the Gnostics. Clement does not use regula fidae, the Apostolic Tradition and the Bible canonicity argument and he does not consider philosophy a source of heresies. Instead, he claims that heretics misunderstood Plato’s thought.

30

1.1.7. The Genesis of Heresies According to the Fathers of the Church. The Fathers of the Church not only attributed demonic inspiration to heresies and sought their common origin, but also accused them of being the cause of division within the Church. Heresiologists focused primarily on the teaching of heretics and thought that immoral behaviour and division are the consequence of such teaching. Considering that the unity of the community must rely on common teaching, they emphasized the Church’s hierarchy as the guarantee of orthodoxy. Failure to comply with the lawful authority of the Church was considered a separation from the community of salvation. The Fathers of the Church insisted that although divisions come from within, malicious activity is always encouraged from the outside. Some of the Fathers of the Church, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, believed that the Christian teaching is infiltrated by heresy because of the influence of pagan Greek philosophy. Therefore, they directly or indirectly encouraged their readers to protect Christian teaching from outward influence, but at the same time not to allow the community to be disturbed from the inside. The attitude of the 2nd c. the Fathers of the Church was very similar to that of one early 1st c. Christian author: “They have gone from among us, but they never really belonged to us” (1 Jn 2:19 NJB). 1.1.8. The Fight Against Heresy as a Pursuit for Purity of Faith. Effort to combat heresy in can be described as the pursuit of purity or anti-syncretism. K. L. King explains this effort as religious opposition to syncretism in order to preserve religion. Anti-syncretism is often associated with striving for authenticity, which in turn is associated with purity of intention. Therefore many orthodox Fathers of the Church in the 2nd and 3rd c. constantly sought a way to define authentic Christian teaching and the true Church. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus saw heresy as a danger arising from the pagan Greek philosophy and Hellenistic culture in general. This opinion of the Fathers of the Church let A. von Harnack in the late 19th early 20th c. define heresy (Gnosticism) as acute Hellenization of Christianity. But later studies showed the non- Christian and pre-Christian origins of “knowledge falsely so-called”, so for H. Jonas in the middle of the 20th c., Gnosticism was more the anti-worldly pessimistic religion of an alien God. The same attitude was held also by R. Bultmann in his analysis of New Testament theology – for him the Gnostic “myth” was already there. G. Sholem and many other authors in the late 20th c. insisted on the Jewish origin of , probably in

31 the milieu of wisdom and . This is true about certain tendencies, but careful analysis of New Testament and Nag Hammadi library data shows that “knowledge falsely so-called” originated in Jewish-Christian apocalypticism as another interpretation of Jesus teaching. In this interpretation, Jesus’ teaching was a “gospel” of salvation not through belief in death and resurrection, but through hidden knowledge, divine ascent and deification by vision of God. We may conclude that from our present point of view, heresy was not so much influenced by Hellenism via Greek philosophy, but more with anti-Hellenistic (and still influenced by Hellenism) apocalypticism. Heresy was a radical pursuit for spirituality and otherworldly salvation. Christian orthodoxy was born as an attempt of overthrow this extreme tendency (and others, such as judaizers) and to balance the different interpretations of Jesus Christ. 1.1.9. The Demonizing of Opponents: Heresy as an Internal Enemy. In her book The Origin of , E. Pagels focuses on what she calls the social implications of the figure of Satan: how early Christian writers used Satan’s image for their interpretation of the conflict between the various Christian groups and various enemies, primarily other , then pagans and finally heretics. She states that this apocalyptic vision is used even in secular society to interpret the history of Western culture as a moral story of the forces of good battling against evil in the world. Instead of this concept, E. Pagel proposes to search for an alternative to this dualistic perspective, because most Christians are taught to act in the belief that their enemies are evil and condemned. But E. Pagel simplifies the biblical image of Satan, which is not only a rhetorical instrument to name an enemy of God and believers, but a real spiritual enemy for the believers and servants of God. She does not discuss “Satan” as one who tempts, tests or punishes. Therefore conclusions drawn about “satanic language”, as well as its social implications, are incomplete. On the other hand, she demonstrated well how “satanic language” was (and is) used for attacking, condemning and destroying. These insights are taken into account for examination of the apocryphal gospels and rhetoric against orthodox or heterodox opponents. 1.2. The Bauer-Ehrman Thesis on Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity. Nowadays early Christianity is viewed from an entirely different perspective than that of the Fathers of the Church. The prevailing attitude is best reflected in Bauer-Ehrman’s thesis that by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., there was no single Christianity, but

32 only “christianities” - different versions of the same faith, all valid and competing with each other. The traditional form of Christianity, later called “orthodoxy”, was one of the groups mostly linked with the community of Rome, which won and defeated the other groups in the battle for power and influence during the period from 2nd c. up to 4th c. A.D. 1.2.1. W. Bauer on Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity. According to W. Bauer, “orthodoxy” as a homogeneous group did not exist in the ancient world. Nor did “heresy” as a deviation from the true teaching influenced by Judaism or pagan philosophy. Beliefs later seen as a heresy and orthodoxy were various rivalling interpretations of Christianity by different groups spread throughout the Roman Empire. But over time, one group began to dominate and claimed to be the only true faith. Having achieved victory and self-proclaimed “orthodoxy”, this group marginalized opponents as “heretics.” Then the orthodox group rewrote the history of the conflict by presenting itself as the dominant one since the time of the apostles. 1.2.2. W. Bauer's Thesis Application and Criticism. Followers of W. Bauer’s thesis. R. Bultmann not only supported W. Bauer’s theory, but applied it to his New Testament theology studies. R. Bultmann’s impact on biblical theology was so immense that even Raymond E. Brown, who was not a proponent of W. Bauer’s theory, developed an idea of separate Christian communities (of John, Paul, Peter etc.) at the very dawn of Christianity. W. Bauer’s thesis enabled Church historian A. Ehrhardt to highlight the differences between later and the early Church’s belief formulas. R. Bultmann’s student H. Koester adapted W. Bauer’s thesis to the apostolic era and included in his investigation new evidence of apocryphal gospels. Together with J. M. Robinson he proposed to completely abandon such terms as “orthodoxy” and “heresy” in early Christianity and rather to speak of “different trajectories.” E. Pagels holds that Christianity was much later to become homogeneous by suppressing its original variety. She argues that although the testimony of the “silenced voices” themselves does not confirm W. Bauer’s theory; his thesis still plays an important role in the understanding of the interaction between various Christian groups. B. D. Ehrman acknowledges that W. Bauer underestimated early orthodoxy, but he is more than anyone else credited with the popularization of W. Bauer’s thesis in dozens of his publications and public speeches. B. D. Ehrman insists that “proto-

33 orthodoxy” (his term) eliminated all the other followers of Jesus who also had the right to call themselves Christians. In addition, he specifies how this victory was achieved: by harsh polemics, denigration of opponents, forgery and falsification. Criticism of W. Bauer’s thesis. While some historians and theologians applied W. Bauer thesis, many held critical approach. W. Bauer was criticized for having too little data to make categorical conclusions, which were too often based on argument from silence. He did not consider New Testament data and anachronistically used 2nd c. evidence when speaking about an earlier i.e. 1st c. Christianity. W. Bauer overly simplified 1st c. Christianity - it was much more diverse and complex. For example, orthodoxy was expressed in many of the places where W Bauer did not see it, and he didn’t see the clear borderlines and canons already present in the earliest Christianity. H. E. W. Turner singled out stable and flexible elements that constituted the nucleus of the early Christian since beginning of Christianity, such as a realistic Eucharistic experience, belief in God as Creator and Father, faith in Jesus as the Redeemer of history, faith in Christ's divinity. Christian faith was always based on Scripture; even though there was no complete canon of the New Testament. H. E. W. Turner also refers to the stylized codes of what is believed (e.g. “You are the Messiah” (Mk 8: 29 NAB) too often occur in 1st and 2nd c. A.D. Christian texts. According to E. W. Turner in the 1st c., these elements have not yet been fixed within the framework of theology and Christians simply followed these “flexible elements”. Other arguments against W. Bauer were presented also by I. H. Marshall, B. L. Martin, J. McCue, T. A. Robinson, A. J. Hultgren, A. J. Köstenberger, M. J. Kruger, L. T. Johnson and C. A. Evans. The situation when interpreting the same data, about which part of the academic community holds one view and another opposite, could be described as a clash of paradigms (T. S. Kuhn’s term). Actually, it is not only a debate about what Christianity was, but also about what Christianity should be. What is on stake is the issue of how indispensable the New Testament canon is, whether we should always rely on Church , how we should treat apocryphal gospels, where the limits (if any) of plurality in the Church are and finally – who Jesus Christ is.

34

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

2.1. General Characteristics of Hellenistic Culture, Philosophy and Religion. According to L. T. Johnson, one of the fundamental issues about early Christian literature is the question of whether there was a Hellenization of Christianity (or Christianization of Hellenism). The Hellenistic epoch is characterized by life in the Greek polis, one official language, and religious syncretism. In the Hellenistic era, esoteric religiosity associated with secret knowledge (γνῶσις) became popular. This secret knowledge found its place in such religious and philosophical systems as hermetism. The allegedly hermetic texts, such as Poimandres, Asclepius, Emerald Tablet etc. (all these writings included into what is called the Corpus Hermeticum), were attributed to the mythical secret wisdom of the teacher Hermes Trismegistus. Hermetic texts were essentially of an occult nature, as the introduction to the mysteries of the universe. They were also closely connected with astrology, magic and alchemy. The philosophy of the age was also syncretic: one based on the East (Jewish) tradition, the other - the Greek tradition. The former developed quite rapidly and gained expression through Jewish Hellenists such as , whereas the latter had a long formation of several centuries until it reached maturity in the system of the neoplatonic philosopher, Plotinus. Mystery religions (Dionysian, Eleusinian etc.) also become very popular. What characterized the religious mood of Hellenism was a disappointment with this world and striving for salvation in a spiritual realm. This type of religiosity is found in many Christian apocryphal gospels. Sometimes what is known as “gospel” is actually a hermetic treatise where name of teacher and saviour Seth or Asclepius are synonymous with Jesus (The Gospel of the Egyptians; The Apocryphon of John). 2.2. Judaism in the Hellenistic Era and Bible Translations into Greek. The contact of Judaism with Greek culture gave birth to a painful conflict, but this contact has given rise to a Greek-Jewish culture, which sought to preserve what is best of both Greek and Jewish thought. The later Judaism of this period is characterized by very different more or less radical movements, among them - Christianity, Phariseeism, Essenism and Apocalypticism. The translation of the Hebrew Bible and Christianity as a

35 universal religion served to detach biblical religiosity from the political perspective of the Jewish nation. At the same time it was challenge of religious syncretism. 2.3. Eschatological Dualism and the at the Qumran Community. The discovery of the drew attention to the fact that 1st c. Judaism was very diverse with different theological concepts, and was comprised of many different sects and groups (Joseph Flavius describes them as “heresies,” but not in negative :heb. New Covenant) is found in the Old Testament (Jer 31) ברית חדשה sense). Term 31); later - this is especially noted - it is used as self-name by the Qumran community. The evolution of a complex of ideas led to a polysemous concept of Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη (gr. New Testament), but a central Jewish concept that God and humanity (or the human community, ) are in “covenant” or “contract” in which an individual accepts God’s law and carries out His will, while God protects and saves the individual, by providing him with His existentially salvific balance. Therefore idea of New Testament as codified set of writings is closely connected with idea of community and covenant. The eschatological dualism already present in Qumran community gave rise both for apocalyptic movement in Inter-Testament period and very much to Christianity. The idea of few elect is also very much connected with the Essenes. 2.4. The Inter-Testament Literature and Jewish Apocalypticism. Apocalyptic narratives from Maccabean times filled the void left in the Jewish mindset by the lost art of prophesy. Apocalyptic literature, especially symbols and ideas, spread until beginning of 2nd c. A.D. even in such literature of Judaism, which had a specific form of . It is often supposed that apocalyptic ideas were especially popular within radical sects such as the Qumran community. But the impact of the apocalyptic genre was much wider. The Hellenized Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic literature was the milieu where literature found in Nag Hammadi library was formed. From dozens of books in this library, nearly one-third are written in typically for this genre symbolic language. But more importantly, the apocalyptic literature and the Gnostic apocryphal gospels share the same mood of world crisis. 2.5. The Canon of the New Testament and the Apocryphal texts. The New Testament texts are called “canonical” (normative) and the Church recognizes them as inspired by God. But in academic research, questions about the development of an early

36

Christian literature, its sources, genres and redaction history have not yet been fully resolved. One of the main issues is the relationship between canonical and apocryphal texts. 2.5.1. Characteristics of Early Christian Literature. The early Christian literature brought together in the New Testament comprehends various authors and genres. There are gospels, letters, acts and apocalypse, attributed to Jesus’ apostles and their companions. There also existed other texts, which were also widely read in the various Christian groups and respected as a source of faith: apocalypses (The , The etc.), individual acts of apostles (The Acts of Paul, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, The , The , The Acts of Thomas etc.), (The to Diognetus, The , The Epistles of Clement), gospels (The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary etc.), dialogues with Jesus (The Dialogue of the Saviour, The Sophia of Jesus Christ), visions (). Some of these texts were contemporary with the ones of the New Testament, some were written much later, some of them were anonymous, but most of this literature was pseudepigraphic (this tradition was already present in early Jewish apocalyptic writings 3rd-1st c. B.C. (The , The , The Testament of Levi etc.) and became widespread in the 1st c. A.D. 2.5.2. Research Methods of Early Christian Writings. In the research of Early Christian tradition, various methods are used to identify sources, traditions and textual strata. The best known scientific method that is used for critical examination is the historical-critical methods with specific instruments of “textual criticism," “,” “source criticism,” and “redaction criticism.” These methods are supplemented with socio-, rhetorical analysis, narrative analysis and semiotic analysis of the application. Most of these methods were developed by analysing the first three New Testament Gospels, which, because of their similarity, are called the “synoptic” gospels. The most prominent theory developed via these critical methods is the “two-source hypothesis” or “Q hypothesis” which now is questioned by new investigations of Jewish-Christian apocryphal gospels. These methods were developed in the post-Enlightenment period (“textual criticism” has been in existence since the end of 19th c., while “form criticism” appeared in the 20th c.). These two methods especially useful as tools to move from Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the

37 gospels to Jesus’ teaching own authentic core. The aim of such investigation is ipsissima verba (plausible words) and ipsissima facta (plausible deeds). However, the project of quest for the historical Jesus showed the limitations of critical historical investigations. Even though these methods are used in present study as well, there is a growing awareness in studies of early Christian literature of the insufficiency of “reconstruction” enterprises. 2.5.3. Oral Tradition and its Recording. It is plausible that the first recordings about Jesus Christ, even though they mediated the “good news,” were not called gospels, but as Christian writer Justin mentions in the 2nd c., were collections of Jesus logia and “the apostolic memories.” It may be that this was the name for what we know as “gospels” and gradually these texts were entitled “gospel” (literally – good news). Alongside the New Testament gospels existed such texts in which there was not one episode of a story, but only religious precepts, philosophical reflections, collections of Jesus logia (e.g. The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth) – and still these texts were entitled “gospels.” Therefore we have to speak of the “gospel genre” in a narrow sense (only canonical texts) and in a wide sense (all early Christian texts entitled so). At the same is indispensable to keep in mind that gospel is not a biography, nor historical account, nor teaching, but first and foremost a message of salvation. 2.5.4. The Question of Chronology of Early Christian Literature. One of the key issues arising in the studies of early Christian literature it is a question of absolute and relative chronology of texts (especially the gospels) that reached us from the first centuries. The most detail examination was of the dating of the four canonical gospels, although even then there is no absolute accuracy achieved. Much more problematic is the dating of the apocryphal gospels and other non-canonical texts. Different scholars hold such different opinions that the dating differs from tens to hundreds of years (e.g. J. D. Crossan The Gospel of Thomas proposes date 50 A.D.; C. A. Evans – 180 A.D.). Therefore it is customary to speak of early, middle and late, when dating both canonical and apocryphal texts. Any given author’s position on this issue very much dependent on whether the author is pro or contra Bauer’s thesis. 2.5.5. Differentiation of Early Christian Literature. From the beginning, there were different esteemed works in different Christian communities. This is very true of the gospels. Even before establishing formal canon in 1st and 2nd c. such gospels were

38

Gospel according to Mark, Gospel according to Matthew (Aramaic and Greek versions) and Gospel according to Luke. Gospel according to John had been recognized, but not in all Christian communities, because of allegations of being Gnostic (Gnostics wrote first commentaries for The Gospel According to John). But Justin also quoted the The Gospel of Peter, Papias referred to The Gospel of the Hebrews – a text very much used and respected by the Judeo-Christian and Ebionite communities in Palestine and . Supposedly The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Philip were popular Among the Christians of Egypt. It could be claimed that before the closed canon of 4th c., an informal “canon” existed since the 1st c., based on apostolic authority, sound teaching and respect. 2.5.6. Canonization of Early Christian Texts. Christianity embraced the term for “canon” in the same way as the word “gospel” - from the surrounding pagan world. The word “canon” meant a standard rate, a rule, a model. In early Christian texts we may encounter the word meaning “rule.” Paul writes to the Galatians: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this as their rule [Τῳ κανονι τουτῳ], and to the of God” (Gal 6:16 NJB). But only after a lengthy selection process, which levelled the authentic, true and false, as well as distorted texts, the word “canon” was taken to mean Christian holy texts that were set to become a model and which was necessary to judge discipline, training and even behaviour of believers. The word is used in this sense since middle of the 4th c. A.D., but the very process of canonization (because different canons existed in different communities) goes back even further. In the 2nd c. A.D., Irenaeus contrasted the four authentic gospels with multiple and therefore false Gnostic gospels. This text of Ireneus became the foundation for the subsequent “canon of four Gospels” and for and iconography depicting apocalyptic symbols of four evangelists: angel, lion, ox and eagle. What is noteworthy, is that Ireneus closes the “four gospel canon” not with rational arguments (e.g. respect, apostolicity, catholicity) but with a “mystical” of Ezekiel's vision of the chariot (Ezek 1:1-14 and Rev 4:7). Besides the four gospels, Irenaeus also mentions the “immense number of apocryphal and false writings.” The word “apocryphal,” which he used with specific indication to esoterism, was later applied to all non-recognized Christian church books. 2.5.7. The Muratorian Fragment and Other Lists of Recognized Books. The earliest known list of reputable books is a fragment written in Rome about 200 A.D. and

39 rediscovered in 1740. According to the researcher who discovered it, it is called the Canon Muratorianus. This fragment does not have a beginning, but it is clear that the first row was a list of the four gospels. The list compiler notes that they “fit together.” This observation is significant because it shows that already at the end of the 2nd c., concordance of the gospels (primarily the synoptic Gospels and The Gospel According to John) this was a question important to the community of believers. The determinant list of accepted books is an Easter letter from 367 A.D., by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in which twenty seven books is actual canon of the New Testament. It is alleged that after Athanasius “canonized” this list, the library of apocryphal books was hidden in Nag Hammadi. Another list, identical to the Athanasian , was traditionally attributed to the prolific Gelasius (492–496 A.D.), but careful examination revealed an even later date of composition.

III. JESUS CHRIST IN THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS

Of some apocryphal gospels found in the 19th and 20th c., previously only names were known, and some of these gospels were completely unknown. From these texts, it is now possible to see living, vigorous, distinctive and sophisticated forms of an early Christian heterodoxy, which is very different from the mainstream Christianity of the same time. These documents directly revealed the voices of orthodoxy’s rivals. The authors of these texts understood the message of Jesus very differently than it has been interpreted in the Apostolic Tradition. The Upper-Egyptian sands revealed a number of alternative forms of Christianity and different forms of expression of faith. 3.1. Apocryphal Gospels of Jesus’ Birth and Infancy. Apocryphal gospels of Jesus Christ's birth and childhood differ from other gospels. They do not always narrate the events of Jesus’ public ministry and do not report Jesus dialogs with disciples after the resurrection. These gospels are attributable to the gospel genre, which is called “Infancy Gospels.” For our research, we selected two of the earliest texts from quite a large scope of literature, inspired by curiosity about Jesus’ childhood and background in the early Middle Ages. The first text is the Protoevagelium of James (protoevangelium is the name given to the text in modern times to indicate that there is a description of the events which chronologically precede those found in the canonical gospels). The text

40 mainly tells the legend of the miraculous events associated with Jesus’ mother Mary, and ends with the story of Herod the Great’s death shortly after the birth of Jesus. Another such text is The Infancy gospel of Thomas, which until the discovery of The Gospel of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi library was simply entitled The Gospel of Thomas. This text tells the story of the child Jesus’ unknown years, from about five years until the event described in The Gospel According to Luke of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem at twelve years. This text exists in several different forms and reflects different theological topics that were relevant the period of time in which it was written. 3.2. Jesus Christ in Two Fragments of Unknown Gospels. There are not only entire copies of apocryphal gospels or scattered words of Jesus in different sources (Agrapha), but we also have larger fragments from unknown (unidentified) gospels. Random and systematic exploration of archeological discoveries in Egypt since the 19th c. has revealed many papyrus fragments, many of them still unpublished, which are now in museums and libraries’ depositories. Among dozens of fragments, Christian ones are easily identified by use of nomina sacra (holy names). 3.2.1. Main Fragments of Unknown Gospels. There are many fragments of gospels found, sometimes it is possible to link them with already familiar Gospels (e.g. fragments of The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary etc. were found), but other fragments remain unidentified. The brevity of the texts sometimes does not reveal whether this is a fragment of the gospel, or part of a homily or commentary. The most famous fragments are: PMerton 51, POxy 210, POxy 1224, PVindob G2325, PBerlin 11710, PCairo 10735, PEg 2, PBerol 22220, POxy 840, (now proved as forgery The Secret gospel of Mark). 3.2.2. Papyrus Oxyrhynchos 840. It is not easy to identify this fragment, but the intense controversy with the could be attributed to the influence of Judeo- Christianity. For Jewish Christians, it was usual to oppose not Judaism in general, but only orthodox forms of Judaism, represented by the Pharisees. Christians celebrated Baptism just once and refused to practice ritual ablutions. In such manner, they opposed not only Pharisees, but Essenes as well. . Despite some similarities between Christians and the Qumran community, in the New Testament it is possible to see indirect criticism of the Qumran community. Therefore, it can be assumed that Oxyrhynchos 840

41 fragment is written in the same environment as The Gospel of Peter and The Gospel of the Hebrews. 3.2.3. Egerton papyrus (POxy 840). The Egerton papyrus, which is believed to have been written in the first quarter of the 2nd c., is interesting because it is based on a tradition that has been written based on The Gospel According to John, and it might be that the author of the fragment knew this canonical gospel. But he knew as well as The Gospel According to Luke text and used oral tradition. This fragment reflects an early time of gospel writing and helps us to better understand how Christian sacred texts were written. 3.3. Jesus Christ in Judeo-Christian Gospels. All Judeo-Christian gospels survived only in the quotations of Jerome, Epiphanius Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen. The traditional division is into The Gospel of the Nazarenes, The Gospel of the Ebionites and The Gospel of the Hebrews. Sometimes these gospels are identified with The Original (Ur-Matthew) written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). Eusebius quotes a passage of Papias, who wrote: „Matthew collected the oracles in the , and each interpreted them as best he could“ (H.E. 3.39.16). J. R. Edwards developed a theory that The Gospel of the Nazarenes, The Gospel of the Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but are essentially the same gospel. J. R. Edwards maintains, that Ur-Matthew was a source for synoptic authors (especially for Luke) and he doubts that the “two source theory” is still valid. There was no story of a virgin birth in the Judeo-Christian gospels. Jesus’ messianic ministry starts with His baptism. In The Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus calls the Holy Spirit His Mother, when He says “Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor” (Origen, In Johannem 2.12). It is noteworthy that the title of “mother” in Syrian Christian tradition existed also in much later times. In the Judeo-Christian gospels, there are also narratives of a rich young man and a sinful woman with some differences from canonical versions. The gospel(s) contain also an independent narrative that the first resurrection appearance was witnessed by James brother Jesus. This testimony in some sense corresponds to the words of Paul (1 Cor 15:7), but is in conflict with the canonical gospels. Even though the Judeo-Christians were respected by Church fathers, in these texts are some elements of heresy (e.g. the implication that Jesus could unknowingly commit a sin).

42

3.4. Agrapha – the Scattered Words of Jesus. The non-canonical sayings of Jesus, or Agrapha, are found in a number of very different sources. They can be found in the New Testament, canonical gospels manuscript tradition, early church liturgical texts and the writings of the , apologists and the first centuries of the Fathers of the Church. Some of Jesus’ words are found even in rabbinical literature, the Quran and the works of Muslim authors. One is even inscribed on gates of Fathpur Sikri mosque in India: “Isa Son of Mary said: The world is a bridge, pass over it, but build no houses on it. He who hopes for an hour may hope for eternity. The world endures but an hour. Spend it in prayer, for the rest is unseen.” 3.5. Teaching of Jesus Christ in The Gospel of Thomas. Among the Coptic texts found in Nag Hammadi library, The Gospel of Thomas has received the most attention. This gospel is very different from canonical gospels. It consists only of Jesus’ sayings. Almost every line starts with the words “Jesus said.” The text doesn't narrate Jesus’ birth, life, miracles, crucifixion and resurrection. But the gospel starts in very promising way: “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death” (EvT 1). Jesus’ words are said to be recorded by Judas Didymos Thomas. The double name of Judas Thomas is found mainly in the Syrian Church. The meaning both of Didymos is “twin”. The Gospel of Thomas, on the basis of this (תאומא) Δίδυμος) and Thomas) etymology, makes the very far-reaching conclusion that Judas Thomas is known as the twin brother of Jesus. Becoming “like Jesus” or “the twin brother of Jesus” is promise of this gospel to everyone who correctly understands words of Jesus. The way to become like Jesus is to know oneself and find the kingdom of heaven. The Gospel of Thomas understands the kingdom as both internal (“the kingdom is within you") and external (“near you”). If a believer looks to his or her interior, they will find the kingdom, but it does not exhaust the reality of the kingdom because the kingdom is the participation of all “self-knowledge”. The goal of knowing is also “becoming one.” To explain this, The Gospel of Thomas uses the word Mmonayos, borrowed from Greek, which means one, lonely and individual. Later this word began to mean “unmarried” and after this “monk” in the sense that we understand it now. But in the Christian sense, this word if used for the first time in The Gospel of Thomas. Because of this, there is debate as to whether The Gospel of Thomas has any connection with the beginning of the monastic movement in early Christianity (suspicion is incited by the fact that the

43 gospel was found near the first Pachomian cenobia). The attitude of the true disciples of Jesus is expressed in His short maxim: “Be passers-by” [etetNRparage] (EvT 42). It is possible to see in the Gospel of Thomas there is also an apophatic attitude towards Jesus (and God). When Jesus said to His disciples: “Compare me to someone and tell Me whom I am like” none of disciples is right except Thomas, who replies: “Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like” (EvT 13). To this Jesus answers that he is no longer the master, because Thomas already knows the truth. Until now, scholars mainly were interested in the questions: “what is the relationship of this apocryphal gospel with the canonical gospels and particularly with Q?” and “is The Gospel of Thomas a Gnostic gospel?” Various hypotheses were proposed, but all are disputed. Now more and more attention is devoted to the gospel’s content and historical context analysis. 3.6. Apocryphal Gospels about Jesus’ Death and Resurrection. Apocryphal gospels further developed the testimony of canonical gospels. It was not only about Jesus’ birth and childhood, but also about His death and resurrection narratives as well as. Some depict Jesus’ trial, sufferings, death and resurrection (The Gospel of Peter), some report about the risen Jesus’ dialogues with His disciples (The Gospel of Mary). 3.6.1. Jesus Christ’s Death and Resurrection in the Gospel of Peter. Eusebius mentions that the bishop of Antioch found that neighbouring community is reading gospel that has the name of Peter. At the beginning he permits them to read it, but when he finds that it is docetic, he says “although most of it agrees with the true teaching of our Redeemer, some of it deviates from this teaching” (HE 6.12.1–6). It is not absolutely clear that this referred to the gospel we have, but there is a good such probability. J. D. Crossan in his book “The Cross that Spoke: the Origins of the Passion Narrative” (1988) maintains that the core of The Gospel of Peter, which he titled The Gospel of the Cross is an original story of the resurrection. On it is based not only this apocryphal gospel, but canonical narratives on the passion and resurrection as well. Based on G. W. E. Nickelsburg’s insights about the suffering and the salvation of the righteous in intertestamental literature, J. D. Crossan concludes that The Gospel of the Cross is a typical conflict story of judicial genre, in which Jesus is wrongly condemned, but later exonerated in the face of unjust prosecution in the presence of an impartial ruler, who later confesses to him. According to him, The Gospel of Peter, as well as

44 other works of this genre, delivers community experience. The walk and talking of the cross represent the holy ones of Israel and in the The Gospel of Peter Jesus’ death is seen as Israel's suffering and resurrection as a glorification of Israel's faith: He died in their suffering; they were resurrected in his glory. However R.E. Brown in The Death of the Messiah (1993) substantiated the claim that most of the material in The Gospel of Peter is based on canonical narrative and only a small portion shows independent tradition. 3.6.2. Dialogues of Risen Jesus Christ with Disciples in The Gospel of Mary. The Gospel of Mary is contained in a 5th c. Coptic papyrus codex which was found in 1896, but published only in 1955 after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library. The text of The Gospel of Mary in the Coptic language is fragmented. Less than half the original text remains, and even the two newly-found Greek papyri with extracts from The Gospel of Mary cannot complete the missing text. The text is attributed to ccccϩccm (gr. Μαριάμμη). Usually this form of the name is used in the case of Mary Magdalene, not Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (therefore gospel is also known as The Gospel of Mary Magdalene). The gospel’s message is that everything that is corruptible and temporal has to pass and only the pure spirit remains. In The Gospel of Mary, just as in the The Gospel According to John, the situation before and after Easter is merged, but in this apocryphal gospel, the parting hour is moved to the period after the Resurrection of the Redeemer and his passage does not mean his death, but the final ascending into heaven. The title “Son of man” in the The Gospel of Mary does not have the apocalyptic features of Dan 7:13-14, but means the true essence of humanity, the human person’s true self. The Gospel of Mary reports that the Saviour loved Mary Magdalene more than any other woman. This is similar to The Gospel of Philip’s assertion that Jesus loved her more than all the other disciples (EvPil 55). Likewise, Peter believes that Mary knows more words of Jesus, which she had heard and asks her to tell the other disciples. These words can be understood not only as a discourse of the risen Saviour, but also as a private revelation of the secret that Mary received after Easter.

45

IV. SEARCHING FOR THE IMAGE OF THE “OTHER JESUS” IN APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS

A very unusual Christology of “other Jesus” is found in today’s culture, or a Christology from the outside, which is more of a positivist, reductionist speculation about Jesus Christ. Authors of this Christology often maintain not the traditional theological categories, but atheistic and agnostic positions, which they use to look at Jesus from a narrow historical, cultural or philosophical perspective. Most often, a humanistic image of Jesus Christ is created: He is promulgated as the universal man, as a radical critic of the religion and culture of his time, as the wellspring of authentic radicalism, He is spoken of as a model of liberated existence, as a teacher of moral ideals. The description of Jesus as a “righteous man” who affirms every person’s intrinsic worth, regardless of his or her material wealth or intellectual, moral, psychological and physical characteristics, in this way accredit Jesus with the paradigm of modern humanism. 4.1. The Quest for the Historical Jesus as the Purpose for the Study of Apocryphal Gospels. 4.1.1. The Historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith. If one wants to understand the difference between the Historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, one must look at the historical context in which this distinction was first created. In 1892, M. Kähler’s short booklet, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, appeared. In this work, the author stated that “the only true Jesus is the proclaimed Christ of faith, and not the Jesus of the past.” In this way, he showed the difference between the historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ, which later received a good deal of attention. M. Kähler was interested in the Christ proclaimed by the apostles, and not the historical Jesus, of which in any case very little is known, at least not with any degree of accuracy. The author did not deny the historical foundation of the Gospels, but he maintained that the interest taken in the life of Jesus by liberal thought was pointless and fruitless. To him, the “Historical Jesus” (historische Jesus) was a resident of a resident of Nazareth, such as He was presented in His biography, while the “Christ of faith” (geschichtliche Christus), was the faith in the saviour proclaimed by the Church. As mentioned by

46

J. O’Donnell, there is a difference between the words Historie and Geschichte, which can be understood by analysing the anthropological foundation for this difference. 4.1.2. H. S. Reimarus and the Beginning of Research on the Historical Jesus. Writings about the historical accuracy of the Bible began during the Enlightenment, when the supernatural nature of God’s revelation, on which the truth of the Holy Scripture was based, became the object of academic discussion. These doubts reached not only the circles of secularising academic discourse, but also the Christian understanding about the nature of Truth, the value of history and the importance of human reason. Not only the critics of the Church, but Christian intellectuals in the 18th c. as well, began to doubt the teachings of the Church after having studied and theology. According to H. S. Reimarus, Jesus did preach the coming of God’s kingdom, but to Jesus, just as to the other Jews of His time, this was a political reality or and earthly “kingdom.” Jesus thought that there would be a victorious Jewish uprising against the Roman oppressor, and Israel would be re-established. Jesus would have become the ruler of this kingdom. This was to happen in the near future, as soon as the Jewish nation rallied around Jesus and demanded their freedom. However, as soon as the Roman government found out about this revolutionary proclamation, they dealt with Him fiercely by publicly crucifying Him as a political insurrectionist. Jesus’ followers were already accustomed to a life of wandering, following Him. Wanting to continue this, they decided to start a new religion, in which Jesus was the Messiah, but not the political one that everyone had hoped for, but a spiritual Messiah, who died for the sins of all and rose from the dead. 4.1.3. A. Schweitzer and the End of the First Quest for Historical Jesus. The Enlightenment, in A. Schweitzer’s view, searched for an image of Jesus in the gospels that it could not find. Imposing its own ideals, Enlightenment philosophy saw Jesus as a religious people’s genius, a friend to the poor, full of romanticism, the personification of universal ideals and a prophet proclaiming the coming of the world’s end (which 19th c. scholars associated with the coming of God’s Kingdom). According to Schweitzer, in rejecting the gospel image of Jesus, “clothed” Jesus in the philosophical and sociological ideals of its time. 4.1.4. The Second Quest for the Historical Jesus: An Attempt to Combine History with Faith. Aside from G. Bornkammo, E. Fuchs, G. Ebeling, H. Conzelmann,

47

H. Braun and E. Schillebeeckx also participated in the second quest for the historical Jesus. All of them looked at Jesus Christ retrospectively, starting with the kerygma of the apostle Paul, to dialectically reveal the teachings of Jesus and the theology of Paul as being of the same faith perspective. They looked at Jesus as a witness of faith and searched for continuity between the person of Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith proclaimed by the Church. 4.1.5. The Third Quest for the Historical Jesus: Non-Canonical Jesus. This brings us to the third quest for the historical Jesus, which, in discussing broader historical, cultural anthropological and theological questions, is foremost characterized by its radically different view on which sources ought to be used for this project. At first place, it gives attention to apocryphal texts and the socio-cultural environment of the time period being considered. This third quest for the historical Jesus is associated with such names as M. Borg, J. D. Crossan, A. Ellegård, R. Funk, B. Mack, R. E. Brown, J. D. G. Dunn, D. Flusser, J. Jeremias, J. P. Meier, J. Neusner, P. Pokorny, E. P. Sanders, G. Vermes, B. Witherington, N. T. Wright, and B. H. Young. Turning to texts that are not found in the canon of the Holy Scriptures is perhaps a warrantable step in the research of the historical Jesus and the movement associated with Him, however it raises the theological question of how to regard the image of Jesus Christ as restored by apocryphal gospels. Another characteristic of the third quest for the historical Jesus is the view of Jesus from a Jewish perspective. The third quest for the historical Jesus, with these various approaches, can be characterised by three aspects: the use of non- canonical sources to speak about Jesus, emphasis on Jesus’ Judaism and emphasis that research on Jesus is historical, not theological. The Jesus of R. W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar was not a Jew. In his opinion, if one can distrust theologically motivated scholars as being biased, one can also equally distrust those who are categorically opposed to theology, as with any ideologically engaged science. It is no coincidence then, that the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar is not Jewish, but simply a “secular philosopher.” This is an obvious anachronism, whose purpose is to free the quest for the historical Jesus “from the Churches, seminaries and other isolated theological enclaves.” The Jesus Seminar operates not on the idea that one can look at a religious historical event from a perspective other than theology, rather it operates on secular ideology. J. D. Crossan saw the apocryphal Jesus as a philosopher from the country. In

48

J. D. Crossan’s opinion, Jesus did not speak so much of the future of Israel, the Law, the covenants, eternal life, resurrection, the last judgement or salvation, as much as he spoke of social justice. In other words, Jesus did not speak about what was most on the minds of the people of and Judea of His day. J. D. Crossan argues that Jesus did not foresee His own death on the cross, nor did he perceive Himself as the mediator of God’s grace and salvation. According to D. J. Crossan, Jesus sought only to make the Judaism of His time more open to the influence of Hellenistic culture, but in the opinion of B. Witherington, this is unlikely, as there is no evidence in the gospels that Jesus supported pluralism, relativism, naive universalism, which draws no distinction between the People of God and the rest of the world. 4.1.6. Jesus Christ from the Perspective of Judaism. In the third quest for the historical Jesus, not only non-canonical sources are important, but also the perspective which can be called viewing the Jesus’ person not from the outside of the tradition in which He lived, but from the inside. In this point of view, Jesus Christ was not only a historical person who became the universal saviour, but a member of the Jewish community, who He believed to have a special relationship with God through history. The term Jewish can be understood very diversely. Christians usually understand Judaism as the religion of their predecessors. According to orthodox Jewish law, any person whose mother was Jewish could also call themselves Jewish. This perspective is important because we do not have any remaining truly Jewish gospels, but only the fragments of The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazarenes, The Gospel of the Ebionites found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. Taking the way that today’s Jewish philosophers, theologians and historians speak of Jesus into account, one can better understand the Gospel from the Jewish perspective. Martin Buber creates a distinction between the faith of Jesus and faith in Jesus. The faith of Jesus is expressed through His , His parables about God as the Father and the kingdom of heaven, and the Lord’s Prayer, which Jesus taught His disciples. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah, as the second person of the Holy , as the only Righteous one, who suffered for us, is what divides Christians from Jews. Jews view Jesus from a human perspective. Even if a Jewish theologian, or secular historian, sees aspects of a messianic self-perception, they see this as merely one aspect of the historic Jewish faith. The divinity of Jesus is not within their sphere of study. Perhaps in attempt to alleviate

49 possible misunderstandings between the Christians and the Jews, theologian and historian P. Lapide (1922 –1997) put forth three hypotheses in his book Jesus in Two Perspectives: A Jewish-Christian Dialogue. The first was that Jesus did not claim himself to the Jews to be their messiah. The second was that the majority of the Jewish nation, to whom Jesus’ message was addressed, accepted Him enthusiastically, so it would therefore be meaningless to accuse the Jewish nation for Jesus’ death on the cross. The third and final hypothesis was that Jesus never rejected Israel, because His undivided love after His death belongs to His nation as well. The Jewish nation can therefore not be considered rejected by Jesus. The biggest problem with which Jewish historical ideologists are presented when speaking of the messianic nature of Jesus, is their unwillingness to accept the concept of new messianism, and their view of it from a theo-political perspective. From the Jewish perspective, Jesus is primarily a fellow Jew, one rabbi among many; from the Christian perspective, He is first and foremost the saviour. 4.1.7. Jesus Christ of the Apocryphal Gospels from a Feminist Perspective. Feminist theology also plays a role in the third quest for the Historical Jesus. The most noted scholar of this tendency is E. Schüssler Fiorenza – feminist and New Testament researcher. In her book, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, she portrays Jesus as a prophet, but unlike other researchers of the historical Jesus, she presents Jesus as a prophet of eschatological wisdom, speaking in the name of Sophia, that is, the concept of God which she ascribes to Jesus. Jesus is seen by her as a radical prophetic figure, which liberates women and others marginalised from the oppressive patriarchal structure of the day. Harvard University professor of Church history, K. L. King, specializes in the study of the Nag Hammadi texts, giving special attention to the concept of femininity in Gnosticism and Christianity. Her most well-known work is The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, which was published in 2003. In introducing her translation of The Gospel of Mary, K. L. King stated that the many known sayings of Jesus in this Gospel may appear strange to those accustomed to the New Testament. She maintained that the interpretation of Jesus’ words and actions as fulfilment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, were extremely important to early Christianity. In this way, Christians confessed that Christ was Lord, and they were the new Israel. At the same time, the

50 theology of The Gospel of Mary has almost no connection with Judaism, because it was formed by the context of pagan philosophy. K. L. King consistently seeks to expand W. Bauer’s thesis about the heterodoxy and divergent nature of early Christianity. 4.2. Faith and Experience: The Split Between Orthodoxy and Heresy. From the Christian perspective, faith is an all-encompassing human response to God revealed as Saviour. Faith accepts God’s knowledge, promises and laws. It is a trusting obedience to a speaking God, and at the same time, a mindful acceptance of the knowledge of salvation. The Old Testament emphasizes the aspect of trust, while the New Testament emphasizes the acceptance of the knowledge of salvation. The themes of faith, experience and knowledge are symbolically intertwined in the person of the apostle, Thomas. John the Evangelist, in his gospel, tells of an incident known as the incident of doubting Thomas, which took place on the eighth day after Easter. At first Thomas doubts the words of the other apostles that Jesus had appeared to them in his absence and says: “Unless I can see the holes that the nails made in his hands and can put my finger into the holes they made, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe.” (Jn 20:25 NJB). Some recent works on The Gospel of Thomas assert that this narration was not a coincidence, but represented the polemic between the tradition of Thomas and the tradition of John, which existed from the earliest centuries of Christianity. 4.2.1. E. Pagels: The Faith of the Gospel According to John and the Experience of the Gospel of Thomas. E. Pagels contends that the concept of Jesus as Lord and God from The Gospel of John was transferred to the synoptic gospels, which mostly talk about Jesus as the and the Messiah. As in other books, she makes here an overly broad generalisation, not taking into account the episodes in the synoptic gospels which witness to a much more complicated Christology. E. Pagels argues that the teaching of The Gospel According to John became orthodoxy at the Council of Nicea, whereas the mystical Gospel of Thomas was forgotten and lost for centuries. But what, then, is the “good news” of The Gospel of Thomas and how does it differ from that of Mark, Matthew and Luke? In the synoptic gospels, the Kingdom of God is in the future, whereas in the gospels of Thomas and John, Jesus puts forth that the Kingdom of God, in which most of His followers, including Mark, believed to await them in the future, was not only coming, but was already here, in an unmediated spiritual reality.

51

4.2.2. A. DeConick: Visio dei and divine ascent mysticism of the Gospel of Thomas. A. D. DeConick attempts to show that the polemics between visionary mysticism and the tradition of John continued into the later centuries as well. She cites from allegedly Syrian works such as The , The Gospel of the Saviour, The . This part of her research is not plausible, because it is not clear whether The Acts of John, and The Ascension of Isaiah are really from Syria. There is also some doubt as to whether the author of The Gospel According to John was familiar with The Gospel of Thomas, as the author claims. It would be more accurate to speak of a tradition that was born in Palestine around the year AD 50, was influenced by Hellenistic ideas and Encratic practice and was immortalised in writing after 140 years somewhere in Edessa. 4.2.3. G. J. Riley: Not physical resurrection in the Gospel of Thomas. G. J. Riley maintains, albeit not particularly convincingly, that the Christians of The Gospel of Thomas believed in another sort of resurrection – a purely spiritual one. This concept of resurrection was discarded by John the Evangelist, who also discarded the concept of salvific knowledge that made one the twin of the Living Jesus and the non-necessity of faith for salvation. This alludes to the words of Jesus to Thomas that he no longer needs a teacher. G. J. Riley diligently searches for instances where the tradition of John coincides with the tradition of Thomas (The Gospel of Thomas, The Book of Thomas the Contender, The Acts of Thomas). The tradition of Thomas, however, is itself not uniform and is characterised by a development over time, which can be divided into several stages. The Gospel According to John addresses these stages. Hypothetically, one could assert that the Christians of Thomas believed in a Living Jesus, who did not die on the cross, although He was crucified, or ascend into heaven immediately after His resurrection. 4.3. The Image of Jesus Christ is the Gospels and its Meaning. Reading the gospels, we can see three images of Jesus Christ: the true Jesus, the historical Jesus and the gospel Jesus. The biographical details bear witness to the true Jesus: birth and death dates, factual details about His family, what He did before the beginning of His public life and how He did it, how He looked, what He ate and drank, what sort of sense of humour He had, how he got along with the residents of Nazareth, whether He was friendly. These things are not discussed in the gospels, and therefore they cannot considered Jesus’ biography. This is important for today’s reader to realise, because

52 otherwise they are in danger of viewing the gospels as the biography of a famous person, without taking its proclivity into account. Historical Jesus is a scholarly construction based on reading beneath the surface of the gospels and rejecting all interpretations which could have been made between thirty and seventy years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The reliability for such a construction depends on what criteria are being used for such study. The idea that the gospel narratives reflected the views of the post-resurrection Christians, was the dominant view of the sceptics of the last two hundred years, who sought to question traditional . At first, it was maintained that the Christ of faith had little to do with the historical Jesus. Even today, the Jesus Seminar sets one of its goals as the liberation of Jesus from the Church’s proclamation about Him. Such a quest for the historical Jesus can, by its nature, never be completely objective, because it would be impossible to avoid all prejudices and assumptions. The main purpose of such historical research is to satisfy the curiosity of modern man.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis of this dissertation that apocryphal gospel texts assist the scholar in better understanding the development of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity although their witness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ are essentially different from the knowledge presented in the canonical New Testament gospels was validated only in part because certain apocryphal texts can be interpreted both as orthodox, and as heterodox (The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of the Nazarenes, The Protoevangelium of James), other texts (The Gospel of Thomas, non-canonical sayings or Agrapha, fragments of unknown gospels, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas) have elements of both heterodox and orthodox imagery of Jesus Christ. One text (The Gospel of Mary) is a Gnostic teaching fit with the motifs of a Christian dialogue with the Saviour. The research raised some additional questions: (1) how did the texts of the apocryphal gospels influence orthodox Christian dogmatic (The Protoevangelium of James)?; (2) what is the role of the apocryphal gospels in the origin and development of Christian ascetics and mysticism (The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary)?; (3) what is the relationship between Judeo-Christian orthodoxy and Hellenistic orthodoxy (The Gospel

53 of the Hebrews)?. However, answering these questions was beyond the scope of this study. 1. Studying the development of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity has shown that defining what is and what is not a Christian has always been an important element of Christian self-perception, and therefore this analysis attempts to accentuate Christian identity. While researching this, it became clear that terms such as “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were used in the rhetoric of the Fathers of the Church to show this distinction. Sometimes the image of “Satan” as a close rival was used for this rhetoric. Defining the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy was not an easy task, as all Christians relied on the revelation that came through Jesus Christ, but there were not yet any universally accepted criteria for distinguishing which interpretation was correct, and which was not. The term αἵρεσις is used in the philosophy and medicine of Antiquity to mean teaching or tendency, often applying this term to certain philosophical teachings or schools of thought, associated with a founder. This term, indicating variety, was applied to show where a certain teaching has strayed from apostolic tradition and the rule of the faith. The analysis of the Church fathers’ texts showed that the Fathers of the Church saw heresy as a certain set of doctrinal tendencies, which they often associated with its founder, whose biography and teaching defined in part the heresy itself. Simon Magus, known from the Acts of the Apostles, was considered the source of all heresies. Christian writers used the term “heresy” in the negative sense, which this word did not generally have in the Greek language at the time. The word “heresy” had many meanings in the Greek language. It was normally used to indicate schools of philosophy, but in Christian writings, or more specifically in The Acts of the Apostles, this word is used to indicate religious sects: for example the Sadducee sect (5: 17), the Judeans called the Christians “the Nazarene sect” (heresy) (24: 5), although this word did not have a specific negative meaning. However, with time, parallel to the selection of holy texts and the development of Christianity, the word “heresy” gradually took on a negative meaning, expressing that of a teaching which differs from the true one. 2. The in-depth investigation of the reasons for the selection of only four gospels into the New Testament canon exposed the view that the formation of the New Testament canon should be understood not as a political decision directed against heterodoxy, but as a “discerning of spirits,” process realized in the Catholic Church through the ministry

54 of the bishops and the intercession of the Holy Spirit, which classified writings as “acceptable”, “deceitful” and “doubtful.” The conditions for the “acceptability” of the four canonical gospels were not only their apostolic origin (antiquity) or these gospels widespread acceptance in local Churches (use), but also their theology, whose Christ matched that of the earliest rule of the faith (orthodoxy). Irenaeus of Lyons composed an exegesis which presented, as evidence for the finality of the four gospel canon, the four Cherubim (evangelists) who carried the throne of the Glory of the Lord (Jesus Christ) in the first chapter of Ezekiel. This exegesis witnesses that the distinction of the four gospels was understood in the context of κήρυγμα (in the original sense of the word “Gospel”). One can assert, based on the writings of the Fathers of the Church about the apocryphal gospels, that the Christology and soteriology presented in the apocryphal gospels are essentially different from the kerygma of early Christianity. It is therefore possible to speak not only of the positive inspiration of the gospels (the work of the Holy Spirit, promised and given to the Church), but also about negative inspiration (influenced by the other spirit). 3. The historical and theological image of Jesus Christ presented by the various apocryphal gospels is very diverse. It is a complicated task to see the difference between orthodox and heterodox imagery of Jesus, because a number of texts can be interpreted in several ways. A notable miraculous account of the birth of Jesus is written in The Protoevangelium of James – Jesus Christ is born as if without physical contact with his mother’s body, and therefore does not leave any marks, because he has only the appearance of a human body, and not a real body. One can see certain docetic tendencies in this. In spite of this, The Protoevangelium of James was influential to semper virgo piety to Jesus’ mother, Mary, to the liturgy and especially to iconography. This apocryphal text influenced the appearance of the feast of The Presentation of Mary to the Temple, the cult of Sts. Joachim and Anne, as well as indirectly influencing the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary. In the Christian West, this text was looked at cautiously because of its solution to the question of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.” In the Christian East, The Protoevangelium of James is considered an especially respected non-canonical text. This text should be considered a Midrash type interpretation of the canonical texts, offering valuable theological insights and helping the faithful to understand Catholic piety better. In The Infancy Gospel of Thomas one

55 can find a Christology of pre-existence, but one can also see certain connections with Gnostic tradition. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a not always successful attempt to fill the gaps in our knowledge about Jesus childhood that comes close to mythical interpretation of canonical gospels and magical understanding of miracles performed by Jesus. The child Jesus is portrayed as a first century Harry Potter. The Oxyrhynchus fragment (POxy 840) and The Egerton papyrus (PEg 2) represent Jesus as one who opposes inner religiosity and formal exterior religion and ethics. There are similarities, in this respect, to the canonical image of Jesus Christ, but therein lies a danger of explaining Jesus’ words as directed against any religious or political institution. The Judeo-Christian gospels are most similar to the synoptic gospels, but one can also track certain intrinsic differences. Such supplements as the implication that Jesus was capable of unintentionally committing a sin verbally, raises serious Christological questions. The gospels written in Aramaic presume that Q was not the earliest source of written canonical gospels and these gospels are important to understanding the dynamic of Judaism and Christianity in the 1st c. and becoming familiar with Jesus Christ and His tradition in its primary Jewish context. The study of Jesus’ Agrapha showed that attempts to interpret Jesus’ utterances in Jewish and Islam sources as equal to His sayings in Christian sources are dangerous. Such purely external ipsissima verba and the search for an authentic Jesus separated from Christology, not only turn the teachings of Jesus into a fragmented collection of sentences, but turns Jesus Himself into a wandering teacher of wisdom. The Gospel of Thomas cannot be properly understood by presupposing it to be “Gnostic” and attempting to interpret every saying of Jesus using certain mythical concepts. This does not negate the connection between The Gospel of Thomas and Gnosticism. It is possible to cautiously imply that many of the major themes of The Gospel of Thomas lead to full-blown 2nd c. Gnosticism, but actually it is much closer to the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic context. The main difference between The Gospel of Peter and the canonical gospels is that in the apocryphal gospel Jesus Christ is never identified by name, but always as the Lord. Besides, an author of The Gospel of Peter is not aware of and custom details; Pilate’s responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion is transferred to Herod and the Jewish people; for apologetic purposes, the number of resurrection witnesses is increased; in the resurrection narrative, there are exaggerated magical elements not mentioned in the

56 canonical gospels; it also presents the theological idea of the descent into , not known to New Testament authors; there are huge angelic beings that come from the tomb together with Jesus; the cross speaks. The Gospel of Mary does not portray any sort of historical information about Jesus, nor does it about Mary Magdalene, however this text witnesses the structure of post-resurrection communities and the way that the role of women was thought of in these communities. The Gospel of Mary consistently portrays Mary as the most beloved disciple in Jesus’ pre-resurrection community of disciples. The Gospel of Mary belongs to the genre of apocalyptic dialogue with the risen Jesus Christ and can be in some aspects associated with The Gospel According to John, although it presents a theology, Christology and soteriology that are openly Gnostic. 4. In determining which doctrinal elements of apocryphal gospels allow one to make a division between orthodoxy and heresy, it became clear that the first heresy arose somewhere in Syria among the Judeo-Christians, who were at the time contending with Judaism and an increasingly strong Greek Christianity. In this situation, the apocalyptic mystical Judeo-Christians developed contempt for the Jewish God, impatience for the organization and traditions of the Church and a disdain for the flesh and social life. Their religious experience, which they expressed by writing apocryphal gospels and other religious texts, was more important to them than anything else. While analysing the apocryphal gospels it became clear how groups which had separated from the normative Christianity identified themselves as a religion essentially different from Christianity, with its own concept of God, the world, humanity, salvation, cult and community life. Jesus of these early heterodox mystics was not the same Christian orthodox Messiah, Son of God, Redeemer, who self-sacrificed on the cross for the sins of men, but the Saviour who came to show the way for the elect ones to a better world. The other Jesus mentioned by the apostle Paul (2 Cor 11:4) is a prophet, sage and mystagogue. He shows the path to God and leads people God-wards. He is firstly a teacher, leader and example. Jesus’ singularity lies in His ability to understand the human situation, of which he is able to enlighten people through his teaching. The different gospel does not speak of Jesus’ glorification and his seating at the right hand of the Father; his only power is his power of teaching and his example. He is one of many teachers, but he has listened to and followed because he is the best. This “apocryphal”

57 reconstruction of Jesus is different from the image presented by the canonical gospels. It rejects many of the essential elements of Christian faith and is not unanimous, giving many different images of Jesus. This different Spirit (2 Cor 11:4) is not concerned with the historical, corporal, earthly and the concrete, but seeks secret knowledge, unusual experiences, miracles, power, liberation, knowledge. It is not a message about “a crucified Christ: to the Jews an obstacle they cannot get over, to the gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor 1: 23).

RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to the conclusions of this research, the following recommendations can be made: 1. Lithuanian Bishop’ Conference Commission for Education, to Pastoral Council of Kaunas Archdiocese: it is recommended to give Catholic educators guidelines how to treat apocryphal gospels, hold the policy that there are no hidden or forbidden texts. The apocryphal gospels, like the other abundant literature of the earliest centuries of Christianity, is the cultural heritage of Christianity, but should be evaluated using the guiding principles set forth by the science of faith, proclaimed by the Church and the witness of the New Testament. 2. To the Faculty of in Vytautas Magnus University, Centre for Religious Studies and Research in Vilnius University, to Department of Theology in Klaipėda University, to Department of Religious Education in Lihuanian university of Educational Sciences, to LCC international University in Klaipėda: it is recommended that scholars in interdisciplinary studies expand the cooperation between theology, history and philology while studying the heritage of early Christianity and substantiating the New Testament’s witness of the historicity and credibility of Jesus Christ. 3. To Archdiocese of Orthodox Church in Lithuania, to Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Church in Lithuania, to other traditional Christian denominations in Lithuania, to Bible Society of Lithuania, to other ecclesial and ecumenical institutions: it is recommended that those engaging in ecumenical dialogue between different faith communities seek

58 possibilities to expand the cooperation of the Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Churches in their familiarization with the tradition of early Christianity. 4. To the Lithuanian Society of Religious Studies, New Religions Research and Information Centre, other institutions responsible for inter-faith dialogue: it is recommended that those engaging in interreligious dialogue take into account such texts as The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Protoevangelium of James, and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, because knowledge of them allows to better understand the perspective of these religions on the person of Jesus Christ. 5. To the Catholic Evangelisation Centre, “Alpha” program coordinators, to Catholics religious and lay apostolic communities: it is recommended that those involved in evangelization should emphasize the continuity between the historical person of Jesus Christ and the salvific knowledge proclaimed by the Church. 6. To Youth pastoral centres, to youth pastoral workers: it is recommended that the image of Jesus portrayed in the apocryphal gospels be openly discussed in pastoral situations, because the ideologically engaged research of Jesus Christ tendentiously interprets the texts of Early Christianity, seeking to show the unfoundedness of the Christian faith and conflicting nature of Early Christianity. 5. To the Catholic Media: when assessing, in the mass media, scientific reconstructions of the historical Jesus or the images of Jesus Christ in literature, film and mystical visions, it is recommended that Church officials apply the relationship with alternative images of Jesus Christ in the apocryphal gospels formed in the Church’s earliest centuries. 8. To Catholic Publishers: it is recommended to publish critical editions of apocryphal gospels with proper forewords and commentaries.

59

SANTRAUKA

Tyrimo problemos pagrindimas. Pirmaisiais krikščionybės amžiais, be evangelijų pagal Matą, Morkų, Luką ir Joną, buvo parašyta daug kitų evangelijų. Tos, kurios netapo Naujojo Testamento dalimi, yra vadinamos apokrifinėmis evangelijomis. Skirtingai nuo kanoninių evangelijų, jos nėra laikomos įkvėptomis. Daugiau nei dvidešimt apokrifinių evangelijų buvo surastos devynioliktame ir dvidešimtame amžiuose, kai kurių išlikę tik fragmentai. Kitos yra prarastos ir žinomos tik iš raštų Bažnyčios tėvų, kurie nepritarė šiose evangelijose pateiktam liudijimui apie Jėzų Kristų. Todėl ir šiandien apokrifinėmis evangelijomis domisi daugiausia istorikai, bet jie nesvarsto šių evangelijų įkvėptumo, o dažnai ir jose keliamų teologinių problemų. Juos domina istorinis klausimas, kiek šiose knygose atsispindi istorinio Jėzaus iš Nazareto gyvenimas ir mokymas. Nors daugelis apokrifinių evangelijų yra priskirtos Jėzaus mokiniams, beveik visais atvejais tai neturi pagrindo. Dauguma apokrifinių evangelijų buvo parašytos antrame, trečiajame amžiuose ir vėliau. Apokrifinių evangelijų tikroji vertė istorikams yra ne ta, ką jos liudija apie Jėzų Kristų, bet kaip jos padeda suprasti ankstyvąją krikščionybę. Apokrifinės evangelijos atspindi, kaip tuo metu atskiros grupės ir asmenys siekė pateikti Jėzaus asmens ir mokymo sampratą, skirtingą nuo skelbtos didžiosios dalies krikščionių, kurią mes dabar vadiname „ortodoksine krikščionybe“. Ypač daug tekstų yra siejami su vadinamuoju „tariamuoju pažinimu“, arba gnosticizmu – ankstyvosios krikščionybės laikais tai buvo vienas iš Bažnyčios tėvams daugiausiai rūpesčių kėlusių judėjimų. Antrajame ir trečiajame amžiuje vykusi Bažnyčios tėvų polemika su grupe krikščionių, skelbusių „tariamąjį pažinimą“, yra reikšminga tuo, kad būtent ši polemika lėmė krikščioniškojo tikėjimo formavimąsi. Bažnyčios tėvų poleminiuose raštuose išryškėjo apaštalų tradicijos svarba, diskusija paskatino atrinkti patikimus krikščioniškus tekstus ir juos kanonizuoti, atsirado poreikis suformuluoti „tikėjimo taisyklę“, buvo padėti pamatai krikščioniškojo tikėjimo simboliams. Šiuo laikotarpiu rašę Bažnyčios tėvai (Justinas, Ireniejus, Tertulijonas ir Klemensas Aleksandrietis) ėmė vartoti „ortodoksijos“ ir „erezijos“ terminus ta prasme, kuria juos suprantame dabar. Tačiau iki šiol apie minėtą diskusiją žinojome tik iš vienos – Bažnyčios tėvų pusės, o jų oponentus pažinti buvo galima tik iš ereziologiniuose raštuose pasitaikančių citatų bei liudijimų. Iš pirmųjų krikščionybės amžių išliko labai

60 nedaug tekstų, pripažintų skelbiančiais klaidingą mokymą. Nepaisant to, istorikai bei teologai, remdamiesi netiesioginiais šaltiniais ir naujais metodais, mėgino atsakyti į klausimą, kas buvo Bažnyčios tėvų oponentai, vėliau pavadinti gnostikais. Vieni teigė, kad tai graikų filosofijos paveikti krikščionys, radikalios krikščioniškos atšakos atstovai; kiti tvirtino, kad tai sinkretinės ikikrikščioniškos religijos išpažinėjai, vartoję krikščionišką kalbą. Kai 1945 m. buvo rasti koptų kalba parašyti tekstai Nag Hammadžio vietovėje, aukštutiniame Egipte, Bažnyčios tėvų oponentai įgijo galimybę prabilti savo balsu. Nuo tada mokslininkai, remdamiesi Nag Hammadžio bibliotekos tekstais, mėgina iš naujo pažvelgti į Bažnyčios tėvų dialogą su gnosticizmu ir kelia įvairias hipotezes apie krikščionybės ir gnosticizmo, ortodoksijos ir erezijos santykius bei kilmę. Apokrifiniais tekstais domisi ne tik mokslininkai, bet ir paprasti žmonės besitapatinantys su ankstyvosios krikščionybės heterodoksiniais judėjimais, o apokrifinėse evangelijose ieškantys atsakymų į esminius gyvenimo klausimus. Kaip teigia daugelis krikščionybės istorijos tyrinėtojų, erezijos yra linkę kartotis, tačiau dabartinis laikmetis ypatingas dar ir tuo, kad visiškai kitaip imta žvelgti į erezijos ir ortodoksijos sampratas. Vyraujančiu požiūriu ankstyvosios krikščionybės, taip pat ir istorinio Jėzaus, tyrinėjimuose tapo priimta vokiečių mokslininko W. Bauerio tezė, kad antrojo amžiaus krikščionybėje nebuvo bendros „ortodoksijos“, bet joje egzistavo skirtingos teologijos, kol galiausiai įsigalėjo viena, siejusi save su Roma ir pasiskelbusi „ortodoksine“. Toks požiūris atrodo labai patrauklus pasaulyje, kuriame išnyksta riba tarp tiesos ir melo, gėrio ir blogio, kuriame svarbiausia dorybe tampa tolerancija ir kuriame gerbiamos skirtingos nuomonės. Vartotojiška visuomenė, linkusi rinktis iš didelės pasiūlos, priešinasi bet kokiam mėginimui suvaržyti šią „laisvę“, todėl postmoderniame pliuralizmo pasaulyje erezija tampa naująja ortodoksija, nes svarbi yra ne protu pažįstama tiesa, bet vien asmeninė patirtis. Vieninteliu netoleruojamu požiūriu yra laikoma nuostata, kad yra viena tiesa ir ją galima pažinti. Toks požiūris yra tapęs lyg „laiko dvasia“ mūsų laikmečio, kuriame ypač reikšmingai skamba apaštalo Pauliaus žodžiai Antrajame laiške korintiečiams: „Mat jei kas užklydęs ima skelbti kitą Jėzų, negu mes paskelbėme, arba jei jūs priimate kitą dvasią, kurios nebuvote priėmę, ar kitą evangeliją, kurios nebuvote gavę, tai jūs ramiausiai tatai pakenčiate“ (2 Kor 11, 4). Galima suprasti, kodėl šiandien tokios patrauklios atrodo apokrifinės evangelijos – jos leidžia rinktis priimtiniausią Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslą ir susikurti „savo Jėzų“, be jokio

61 kanono, jokio tiesos kriterijaus, jokios absoliučios tiesos. Trečiajame istorinio Jėzaus tyrinėjimo etape, kuriame vis gausiau yra remiamasi nekanoniniais šaltiniais, yra daugybė skirtingų istorinio Jėzaus interpretacijų: jis laikomas filosofuojančiu valstiečiu kiniku (Johnas D. Crossanas), mitine figūra (Alvaras Ellegårdas), magu (Mortonas Smithas), kontrkultūriniu pranašu (Robertas W. Funkas), socialiniu reformuotoju (Burtonas L. Mackas), teisiuoju žydu (Davidas Flusseris), charizminiu gydytoju ir stebukladariu (Géza Vermesas), radikaliai liberaliu žydų rabinu (Jacobas Neusneris), apokaliptiniu pranašu (Bartas D. Ehrmanas), marginaliu žydu (Johnas P. Meieris) ir t. t. Tradicinis kanoninis skaitymas tokiuose tyrinėjimuose jau nebeturi jokios reikšmės, nes Naujojo Testamento kanonas laikomas dirbtine konvencija, kurios nepaisoma ir kurią siekiama visais įmanomais būdais apeiti. Kritiniu istoriniu metodu pagrįstas nepasitikėjimas Naujojo Testamento evangelijomis, teksto fragmentavimas, šaltinių ir tradicijų bei autorystės kritika nebeleidžia žvelgti į šiuos tekstus kaip į visiškai patikimus. Patikimumo ieškoma istoriškai bei kultūrologiškai tyrinėjant situaciją pirmojo amžiaus Palestinoje, studijuojant apokrifines evangelijas ir kitus nekanoninius tekstus, tiesiogiai arba netiesiogiai liudijančius, kaip pirmieji Jėzaus Kristaus sekėjai suprato ir interpretavo jo asmenį, mokymą, mirtį ir prisikėlimą. Tyrimo problemos ištirtumas bei aktualumas. Apokrifinių evangelijų liudijamo Jėzaus Kristaus mokymo ir gyvenimo studijos turi ne tik istorinę vertę – jos reikšmingos kaip mūsų laikų kultūros istorijos faktai, nes galima matyti, kaip keičiasi mokslininkų, o per juos ir visos visuomenės, interesai ir požiūriai. Galima matyti, kaip kinta mokslinių tyrinėjimų metodologija ir kaip keičiasi keliamos problemos atsakant į klausimus, kuriuos iškėlė rasti nauji apokrifinių evangelijų tekstai. Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslas apokrifinėse evangelijose skatina kelti ne tik istorinius klausimus apie krikščionybės rašytinius šaltinius, bet ir atveria teologinę diskusiją apie ortodoksiją, ereziją ir krikščionybės esmę. Apokrifinės evangelijos ir kiti ankstyvosios krikščionybės tekstai vis dar intensyviai tyrinėjami. Lietuvoje ši tema nėra tyrinėta. Tyrimo problema. Apokrifinėse evangelijose atskleistas Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslas yra kitoks nei kanoninėse evangelijose. Teologine Bažnyčios tėvų įtvirtinta erezijos ir ortodoksijos skirtimi ir kanoninės krikščionybės pirmumu abejojama naujausiuose istorinio Jėzaus bei ankstyvosios krikščionybės tyrinėjimuose, teigiant, kad pirmaisiais amžiais buvo „krikščionybių įvairovė“, kurioje Jėzaus Kristaus asmuo, mokymas ir

62 misija buvo aiškinama labai skirtingai. Todėl darbe yra keliami šie probleminiai klausimai: 1. Kaip ortodoksijos ir erezijos kilmė aiškinama Naujajame Testamente, Bažnyčios tėvų raštuose ir šiuolaikinėse ankstyvosios krikščionybės studijose? 2. Kaip susiformavo Naujojo Testamento keturių evangelijų kanonas? 3. Kaip apokrifinių evangelijų Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslas skiriasi nuo kanoninių? 4. Kaip apokrifinių evangelijų šaltiniai yra naudojami istorinio Jėzaus tyrinėjimuose?

Tyrimo tikslas: kritiškai aptarti Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslą apokrifinių evangelijų tekstuose skirties tarp erezijos ir ortodoksijos ankstyvojoje krikščionybėje aspektu. Tyrimo tikslo įgyvendinimo etapai ir uždaviniai: 1. Atskleisti ortodoksijos ir erezijos raidą ankstyvojoje krikščionybėje Bažnyčios tėvų ir modernios istoriografijos požiūriu. 2. Išryškinti priežastis, kodėl į Naujojo Testamento kanoną buvo įtrauktos tik keturios evangelijos. 3. Aptarti Jėzaus Kristaus vaizdavimą atskirose apokrifinėse evangelijose. 4. Nustatyti, kaip apokrifinių evangelijų studijos siejasi su istorinio Jėzaus paveikslu trečiojo istorinio Jėzaus tyrinėjimo etapo paradigmoje.

Šio darbo tyrimo objektas – Jėzaus Kristaus (istorinis ir teologinis) paveikslas apokrifinėse evangelijose iš ortodoksijos bei erezijos skirties ir istorinio Jėzaus bei ankstyvosios krikščionybės perspektyvos. Ankstyvosios krikščionybės laikmetis nubrėžia tam tikras tyrimo chronologines ribas – nuo Jėzaus Kristaus gimimo iki Nikėjos Susirinkimo 325 m.

Tyrimo metodologinį pagrindą sudaro: 1. Apologetika. Siekiama ne vien paneigti ir atmesti kanoninei Jėzaus Kritaus sampratai keliamus priekaištus, bet ir pagrįsti jos istoriškumą ir tikėtinumą. 2. Hermeneutika. Supratimo teorija yra vadovaujamasi analizuojant tikėjimo liudijimą praeities tekstuose ir šiuolaikinėje situacijoje. 3. Dialogika. Teologijos atvirumas tarpdisciplininiam tyrimui yra suvokiamas daugiau, nei vien apsikeitimas požiūriais, tai tikras dalyvavimas, ieškant sutarimo.

63

4. Intertekstualumas. Laikomasi pozicijos, kad tekstai siejasi tarpusavyje, todėl nėra visiškai atsieto, objektyvaus, nesąlygoto skaitymo ir supratimo. 5. Tapatybės politika. Kreipiamas dėmesys į identiteto klausimą, ypač aptariant „erezijos“ ir „ortodoksijos“ sampratų formavimąsi. 6. Rekontekstualizacija. Apokrifinių evangelijų tekstai yra analizuojami Naujojo Testamento tekstų, Bažnyčios tėvų polemikos su erezijos bei modernaus istorinio Jėzaus tyrinėjimo kontekstuose. Tyrimo metodai. Disertacijoje aptariant „ortodoksijos“ ir „erezijos“ sąvokų genezę taikomas genealoginis lyginamosios tekstų analizės metodas ieškant paralelių ir skirtumų Bažnyčios tėvų ereziologiniuose traktatuose bei apokrifinių evangelijų tekstuose. Analizuojant apokrifinių evangelijų tekstus taikomas kritinis-istorinis metodas. Apokrifinių evangelijų rankraščiams taikoma teksto kritika identifikuojant parašymo laikmetį ir kontekstą, atkuriant kuo artimesnį originaliam apokrifinių evangelijų tekstą. Atskiriems, teologiniu požiūriu ypač reikšmingiems, apokrifinių evangelijų fragmentams taikoma lingvistinė bei semantinė (morfologinė ir sintaksinė) analizė, remiantis istorinės filologijos žiniomis. Taip nustatoma tekstinių vienetų apimtis bei patikrinamas vidinis teksto sąryšingumas. Žanro kritika apibrėžiami literatūriniai žanrai, jų pradinė aplinka, specifiniai bruožai ir raida. Tradicijos kritika leidžia priskirti tekstus tam tikrai tradicijos srovei ir patikslinti jos istorinę raidą. Redakcijos kritika naudojamasi analizuojant, kaip tekstas keitėsi prieš įgaudamas galutinį pavidalą, išskiriant pirminiam tekstui būdingas tendencijas. Kanoninė prieitis padeda kiekvieną tekstą matyti Šventojo Rašto, tai yra Biblijos kaip tikinčiųjų bendruomenės tikėjimo normos, požiūriu. Ši prieitis kreipia dėmesį į „kanoninis procesą“, arba tekstų, kuriems tikinčiųjų bendruomenė pripažino normatyvinį autoritetą, laipsnišką plėtojimąsi bei jų santykį su apokrifiniais raštais. Kritiniu šio proceso tyrimu mėginama nustatyti, kaip senosios tradicijos būdavo iš naujo interpretuojamos naujuose kontekstuose pirmiau negu ėmė sudaryti vienu metu patvarią ir pritaikomą, nuoseklią ir skirtingus duomenis vienijančią visumą, pagrindžiančią tikėjimo bendruomenės tapatybę. Hermeneutines procedūros leidžia identifikuoti ir suprasti šį procesą, suvokti bendruomenės ir jos šventųjų tekstų sąveiką. Ketvirtojoje dalyje aptariant episteminius apokrifinių evangelijų tyrinėjimo prielaidas ir naujus istorinio Jėzaus tyrinėjimo trečiojo etapo požiūrius hermeneutiniu metodu analizuojamos vyraujančio požiūrio prielaidos

64 bei skirtingų paradigmų sąveika. Taip siekiama išlaisvinti apokrifinių tekstų suvokimą iš apibendrinančio, objektyvistinio ir ideologinio požiūrio ir iš naujo teologiniu, egzegetiniu, tekstologiniu, genealoginiu bei filosofiniu aspektu aptarti ortodoksijos ir erezijos kilmę, prigimtį ir raidą iš tikėjimo Jėzumi Kristumi perspektyvos. Disertacijoje keliama prielaida, kad apokrifinių evangelijų tyrinėjimas padeda geriau suprasti ortodoksijos ir erezijos raidą ankstyvojoje krikščionybėje, tačiau jų liudijimas apie Jėzų Kristų esmingai skiriasi nuo Naujojo Testamento kanoninių evangelijų žinios. Ginamieji disertacijos teiginiai:  Apokrifinės evangelijos yra patrauklios mūsų postmoderniai situacijai, su jai būdinga tiesos erozija.  Bažnyčios tėvai erezija įvardijo tai, ką apaštalas Paulius vadino kita evangelija, kitu Jėzumi ir kita Dvasia.  Naujojo Testamento kanono sudarymas suprastinas ne kaip prieš heterodoksiją nukreiptas politinis sprendimas, bet kaip „dvasių ištyrimo“ įgyvendinimas visuotinėje Bažnyčioje per vyskupų tarnystę, Šventajai Dvasiai veikiant.  Jokūbo proevangelija yra reikšmingas, bet teologiškai problemiškas Jėzaus priešistorės ir gimimo vaizdavimas.  Judeokriščioniškos evangelijos yra gerbtinas heterogeniškas ankstyviausios krikščionybės paveldas.  Agrafai yra pernelyg fragmentiškas nerašytinės Jėzaus žodžių tradicijos liudijimas, kad perteiktų autentišką Jėzaus asmenį ir mokymą.  Evangelija pagal Tomą žymi perėjimą nuo Jėzaus, kaip asketikos ir dvasinio pakilimo mokytojo sampratos, prie ezoterinio ir mitinio Išganytojo antrojo amžiaus heterodoksijoje.  Petro evangelija yra atvira ir ortodoksiškai, ir doketiškai interpretacijai. Kalbančio kryžiaus evangelija yra nesėkmingas bandymas Petro evangeliją taikyti interpretuojant ankstesnę kanoninę tradiciją.  Evangelija pagal Mariją yra būdingas privataus ezoterinio apreiškimo atvejis.  Esminė gnostinių evangelijų žinia skiriasi nuo kanoninių evangelijų mokymo: tikėjimas pakeičiamas žinojimu bei patyrimu, bendrystė – „mylimiausio“ mokinio išrinkimu slėpiniams pažinti, viltis šiame pasaulyje ir anapus jo – atsiribojimu nuo socialinio gyvenimo ir išsilaisvinimu iš kūno.

65

 Remiantis nekanoninėmis evangelijomis istoriškai rekonstruotas Jėzus yra mokytojas, bet ne prisikėlęs išganantis Kristus, o tikėjimą keičia patyrimas.

Tyrimo teorinis naujumas: sukurtas teologinis („atviro vidinio kanono“) nekanoninių šaltinių aptarimo modelis leidžia įtraukti apokrifines evangelijas į sisteminės teologijos diskursą. Tyrimo praktinis reikšmingumas: sukurtas teorinis („atviro vidinio kanono“) modelis leidžia spręsti kylančius apologetinius ir pastoracinius uždavinius postmoderniame kontekste. Darbo struktūra. Disertaciją sudaro įvadas, keturios pagrindinės dalys, išvados, rekomendacijos, šaltinių bei literatūros sąrašai, pagrindinių sąvokų žodynas, trumpinimų sąrašas, priedai. Pirmojoje disertacijos dalis skirta „ortodoksijos“ ir „erezijos“ sampratų raidai ankstyvojoje krikščionybėje nuo apaštalo Pauliaus laiškų iki antrojo amžiaus Bažnyčios tėvų ereziologinių traktatų. Čia taip pat pristatoma W. Bauerio tezė apie pirminės krikščionybės polimorfiškumą ir aptariamas modernių laikų kritinis požiūris į ankstyvosios krikščionybės raidą. Antrojoje disertacijos dalyje aptariama ankstyvosios krikščioniškosios raštijos raida ir Naujojo Testamento kanono formavimasis. Analizuojama, kas paskatino heterodoksinių evangelijų atsiradimą, kokie motyvai Bažnyčios tėvams leido skirti kanonines evangelijas nuo apokrifinių. Trečiojoje disertacijos dalyje analizuojamas apokrifinėse evangelijose atskleidžiamas Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslas, jo mokymas, evangelijų autorių teologiniai požiūriai. Čia aptariamas apokrifinių evangelijų parašymo kontekstas, pateikiamų faktų istoriškumas, Bažnyčios tėvų liudijimas apie nekanoninius tekstus, eretiškumo, heterodoksiškumo ir ortodoksiškumo kriterijais identifikuojamas jų turinys, pristatomos šiuolaikinių tyrinėtojų teorijos apie apokrifinių tekstų kilmę bei santykį su kanoniniais raštais. Ketvirtojoje disertacijos dalyje siekiama atsakyti į klausimą, kokios priežastys paskatino erezijų atsiradimą krikščionybėje. Apokrifinių evangelijų tekstai aptariami trečiojo istorinio Jėzaus tyrinėjimo etapo kontekste, analizuojamos teorinės nuostatos ir metodologinės prielaidos, reikšmingos formuojant „tikrojo istorinio Jėzaus“ sampratą. Apibendrinamos svarbiausios apokrifinių evangelijų tyrime išryškėjusios temos, leidžiančios skirti ortodoksinį, heterodoksinį ir eretinį liudijimą apie Jėzaus Kristaus asmenį.

66

IŠVADOS

Disertacijoje iškelta prielaida, kad apokrifinių evangelijų tyrinėjimas leidžia geriau suprasti ortodoksijos ir erezijos raidą ankstyvojoje krikščionybėje, tačiau jų liudijimas apie Jėzų Kristų esmingai skiriasi nuo Naujojo Testamento kanoninių evangelijų žinios, pasitvirtino iš dalies, nes kai kurie apokrifiniai tekstai gali būti interpretuojami ir ortodoksiškai, ir heterodoksiškai (Petro evangelija, Evangelija pagal nazariečius, Jokūbo proevangelija), kiti tekstai (Evangelija pagal Tomą, nekanoninės ištarmės, nežinomų evangelijų fragmentai, Vaikystės evangelija pagal Tomą) turi ir heterodoksinio, ir ortodoksinio Jėzaus Kristaus vaizdavimo elementų. Vienas tekstas (Evangelija pagal Mariją) yra gnostinis mokymas, perteiktas krikščioniško pokalbio su Išganytoju forma. Tyrimas iškėlė papildomus klausimus: 1) kaip apokrifinių evangelijų tekstai paveikė ortodoksinės krikščionybės dogmatiką (Jokūbo proevangelija)?; 2) koks apokrifinių evangelijų vaidmuo krikščioniškos asketikos ir mistikos atsiradime ir raidoje (Evangelija pagal Tomą, Evangelija pagal Mariją)?; 3) koks yra judeokrikščioniškos ortodoksijos santykis su helėniškąja ortodoksija (Evangelija pagal hebrajus)?. Tačiau šios studijos rėmuose į šiuos klausimus nebuvo įmanoma atsakyti. 1. Tiriant ortodoksijos ir erezijos raidą ankstyvojoje krikščionybėje atskleista, kad krikščioniškajai savivokai nuo ankstyviausių laikų buvo labai svarbu apibrėžti, kas yra krikščionys ir kas ne, todėl tyrime siekta išryškinti krikščioniškąją tapatybę. Tyrimo metu paaiškėjo, kad tokie terminai, kaip „ortodoksija“ ir „erezija“, Bažnyčios tėvų retorikoje buvo būdas parodyti skirtumus. Kartais šiai retorikai pasitelktas ir „šėtono“, kaip artimo priešo, įvaizdis. Daryti perskyrą tarp erezijos ir ortodoksijos nėra paprasta, nes visi krikščionys rėmėsi apreiškimu, atėjusiu per Jėzų Kristų, o visuotinai pripažintų kriterijų atskyrimui, kuri interpretacija teisinga, kuri ne, dar nebuvo. Antikos filosofijoje ir medicinoje vartojamas αἵρεσις terminas, nurodantis tam tikrą mokymą arba tendenciją, dažnai taikant šį terminą filosofinių mokymų ar „mokyklų“, susijusių su įkūrėju, įvairovei apibūdinti, buvo pritaikytas parodyti, kur yra nukrypstama nuo apaštalų tradicijos ir tikėjimo taisyklės. Bažnyčios tėvų tekstų analizė atskleidė, kad Bažnyčios tėvai traktavo ereziją, kaip tam tikras doktrinines tendencijas, ir labai dažnai jas siedavo su pradininku, kurio biografija ir mokymas iš dalies apibūdindavo ir pačią ereziją. Visų erezijų pradininku laikytas iš Apaštalų darbų žinomas Simonas Magas. Tačiau krikščionių rašytojai vartojo terminą „erezija“ neigiama prasme, nors bendrinėje

67 graikų kalboje neturėjo šis žodis tokios konotacijos neturėjo. Žodis „erezija“ graikų kalboje turėjo labai daug reikšmių: jis taikytas filosofinėms mokykloms ir mokymams nusakyti, bet krikščionių raštuose, būtent Apaštalų darbuose, vadinamos religinės sektos (pavyzdžiui, sadukiejų sekta – 5, 17), judėjai vadino krikščionis nazariečių sekta (erezija – 24, 5), nors šis terminas neturėjo specifinės neigiamos reikšmės. Tačiau laipsniškai, drauge su šventųjų tekstų atrinkimu ir krikščioniškosios teologijos raida, žodis „erezija“ įgauna negatyvią reikšmę, reiškiančią mokymą, skirtingą nuo tikrojo. 2. Gilinantis į priežastis, lėmusias tik keturių evangelijų įtraukimą į Naujojo Testamento kanoną, buvo atskleista, kad kanono sudarymas suprastinas ne kaip prieš heterodoksiją nukreiptas politinis sprendimas, bet kaip visuotinėje Bažnyčioje per vyskupų tarnystę veikiančios Šventosios Dvasios vedamas „dvasių ištyrimo“ įgyvendinimas, skiriant „atitinkamus“, „melagingus“ ir „abejotinus“ raštus. Keturių kanoninių evangelijų „tinkamumą“ lėmė ne tik apaštalinė kilmė („parašymas senumu“) ar šių evangelijų visuotinis pripažinimas vietinėse bažnyčiose, bet ir teologija, atitinkanti ankstyviausiose tikėjimo formulėse („tikėjimo taisyklėje“) išpažintą Jėzų Kristų. Ireniejaus Lioniečio keturių evangelijų kanono uždarumo patvirtinimui pateikta Ezechielio knygos pirmojo skyriaus egzegezė apie keturis kerubus (evangelistus), nešančius Viešpaties šlovės sostą (Jėzų Kristų). Ji liudija, kad keturių evangelijų išskirtinumas buvo suvokiamas kerigmos kontekste (Evangelijos pirmine prasme). Remiantis tuo, ką Bažnyčios tėvai rašo apie apokrifines evangelijas, galima teigti, kad apokrifinių evangelijų kristologija ir soteriologija yra esmingai skirtingos nuo ankstyvosios krikščionybės kerigmos. Todėl galima kalbėti ne tik apie pozityvų evangelijų įkvėptumą (Bažnyčiai pažadėtos ir suteiktos Šventosios Dvasios veikimu), bet ir apie negatyvų (kitos dvasios nulemtą). 3. Apokrifinėse evangelijose pateiktas Jėzaus Kristaus istorinis ir teologinis paveikslas labai įvairus. Pastebėti ribą tarp ortodoksinio ir heterodoksinio Jėzaus vaizdavimo labai sudėtinga, nes daugelis tekstų gali būti interpretuojami keliais aspektais. Jokūbo proevangelijoje užrašytas pabrėžtinai stebuklingas gimimas – Jėzus Kristus gimė tarsi be fizinio kontakto su motinos kūnu, todėl nepalikdamas jokių žymių, nes jis turėjo tik kūno išvaizdą, o ne tikrą kūniškumą. Taigi galima įžvelgti tam tikras doketines tendencijas. Nepaisant to, Jokūbo proevangelija lėmė pamaldumą semper virgo Jėzaus motinai Marijai, liturgiją ir ypatingai ikonografiją. Šis apokrifinis tekstas paskatino Marijos atvedimo į Šventyklą šventės atsiradimą, šventųjų Joachimo ir Onos kultą bei

68 netiesiogiai – Marijos nekaltojo pradėjimo dogmą. Krikščioniškuose Vakaruose į šį tekstą buvo žvelgiama atsargiai dėl skirtingo Jėzaus „brolių ir seserų“ klausimo sprendimo. Krikščioniškuose Rytuose Jokūbo proevangelija yra ypač gerbiamas nekanoninis tekstas. Šis tekstas yra laikytinas midrašo tipo kanoninių tekstų interpretacija, pateikiančia vertingų teologinių įžvalgų ir padedančia geriau suprasti katalikiško maldingumo praktiką. Vaikystės evangelijoje pagal Tomą galima rasti preegzistencijos kristologiją, bet galima matyti ir tam tikras šios evangelijos sąsajas su gnostine tradicija. Vaikystės evangelija pagal Tomą ne visuomet vykusiai mėgina užpildyti žinių apie Jėzaus vaikystę spragą pavojingai priartėdama prie mitinės kanoninių evangelijų interpretacijos ir maginės Jėzaus Kristaus stebuklų sampratos. Oksirincho ir Egertono papirusai atskleidžia Jėzų priešpriešinantį vidinį dvasinį religingumą formaliai išorinei religijai ir etikai. Esama panašumų su kanoninio Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslu, bet kyla pavojus aiškinti Jėzaus žodžius kaip nukreiptus prieš bet kokią religinę ar politinę instituciją. Judeokrikščioniškos evangelijos panašiausios į sinoptines, tačiau galima įžvelgti ir esminių skirtumų. Tokie papildymai, kaip užuomina, jog Jėzus galėjo nežinodamas nusidėti žodžiu, kelia labai rimtus kristologinius klausimus. Aramėjiškai parašytos evangelijos leidžia numanyti, kad Q nebuvo ankstyviausias rašytinis kanoninių evangelijų šaltinis ir jos svarbios norint geriau suprasti judaizmo ir krikščionybės dinamiką pirmajame amžiuje, pažinti Jėzų Kristų ir jo tradiciją pirminiame žydiškame kontekste. Jėzaus agrafų tyrimas rodo, kad bandymai Jėzaus pasakymus žydiškuose ir islamiškuose šaltiniuose traktuoti taip pat rimtai, kaip ir ištarmes krikščioniškuose šaltiniuose, yra pavojingi. Tokia tik istorinė ipsissima verba ir autentiško Jėzaus paieška, atsiribojant nuo kristologijos, ne tik paverčia Jėzaus mokymą fragmentiškų sentencijų rinkiniu, bet ir patį Jėzų paverčia klajojančiu išminties mokytoju. Evangelija pagal Tomą negali būti tinkamai suprasta iš anksto ją laikant „gnostine“ ir bandant kiekvieną logiją interpretuoti pasitelkus tam tikras mitologines sampratas. Tai nepaneigia Evangelijos pagal Tomą sąsajų su gnosticizmu. Galima atsargiai teigti, kad daugelis esminių Evangelijos pagal Tomą temų kreipia išplėtotos antrojo amžiaus gnostikos link, tačiau šiai evangelijai daug artimesnis žydiškos ir krikščioniškosios apokaliptikos kontekstas. Petro evangelijoje vaizduojamą Viešpatį nuo kanoninių evangelijų Jėzaus Kristaus skiria tai, jog Jėzus niekada nėra vadinamas vardu, bet Viešpačiu, autoriui nėra žinomos žydiškų švenčių ir

69 papročių detalės, Piloto atsakomybė už Jėzaus nukryžiavimą perkeliama Erodui ir žydams, apologetiškai padidinimas Prisikėlimo liudytojų skaičius, pasakojime apie Prisikėlimą aptinkami perdėti stebukliniai elementai, minima, kanoninėms evangelijoms nežinoma, teologinė idėja apie nužengimą į pragarus, minimos milžiniškos angeliškos būtybės, kalba kryžius. Evangelija pagal Mariją nepateikia kokios nors istorinės informacijos nei apie Jėzų, nei apie Mariją Magdalietę, tačiau šis tekstas liudija apie povelykinės bendruomenės struktūrą ir apie tai, kaip buvo svarstomas moterų vaidmuo šiose bendruomenėse. Evangelija pagal Mariją vienareikšmiškai vaizduoja Mariją kaip mylimiausią mokinę ikivelykinėje Jėzaus mokinių bendruomenėje. Evangelija pagal Mariją priklauso apokaliptinių dialogų su prisikėlusiu Jėzumi Kristumi žanrui ir tam tikrais aspektais siejasi su Evangelija pagal Joną, tačiau joje pateikiama teologija, kristologija ir soteriologija yra atvirai gnostinės. 4. Nustatant, kurie apokrifinių evangelijų doktrininiai elementai leidžia daryti perskyrą tarp ortodoksijos ir erezijos išryškėjo, kad pirmoji erezija kilo kažkur Sirijoje tarp judeokrikščionių, kurie kovojo su judaizmu ir su vis stiprėjančia graikiška krikščionybe. Šioje situacijoje apokaliptiniai mistikai judeokrikščionys išsiugdė neapykantą žydų Dievui, nepakantumą Bažnyčios organizacijai ir tradicijai, panieką kūniškumui ir socialiniam gyvenimui. Už viską svarbiau jiems buvo jų religinės patirtys, kurias jie išreikšdavo rašydami apokrifines evangelijas ir kitus religinius tekstus. Analizuojant apokrifines evangelijas išryškėjo, kaip nuo normatyvinės krikščionybės atsiskyrusios grupės identifikavosi kaip esmingai nuo krikščionybės skirtinga religija su savitu Dievo, pasaulio, žmogaus, išgelbėjimo, kulto ir bendruomeninio gyvenimo samprata. Šių ankstyvųjų heterodoksalių mistikų Jėzus buvo ne ortodoksinių krikščionių Mesijas, Dievo sūnus, Atpirkėjas, paaukojęs save ant kryžiaus už žmonių kaltes, bet Išganytojas, atėjęs parodyti kelią išrinktiesiems į geresnį pasaulį. Apaštalo Pauliaus minimas kitas Jėzus (2 Kor 11, 4) – tai pranašas, išminčius ir mistagogas. Jis nurodo kelią į Dievą ir veda žmones Dievo link. Jis pirmiausia yra mokytojas, vadovas ir pavyzdys. Jėzaus išskirtinumas – jo gebėjimas suprasti žmogaus situaciją, kurią jis sugeba nušvieti savo mokymu. Kitoje evangelijoje nekalbama apie Jėzaus išaukštinimą ir jo sėdėjimą Tėvo dešinėje, vienintelė Jėzus turima galia – jo mokymo ir pavyzdžio galia. Jis vienas iš daugelio mokytojų, jo klausoma ir juo sekama tik todėl, kad jis geriausias. Tokia „apokrifinio“ Jėzaus rekonstrukcija skiriasi nuo kanoninių evangelijų paveikslo. Ji

70 atmeta daugelį esminių krikščioniškojo tikėjimo elementų ir nėra vienareikšmė, pateikiama daug skirtingų Jėzaus paveikslų. Šioje kitoje Dvasioje (2 Kor 11, 4) nesirūpinama tuo, kas istoriška, kūniška, žemiška, konkretu, bet siekiama slapto žinojimo, neįprastų patirčių, stebuklų, galios, išlaisvinimo, pažinimo. Tai nėra žinia apie „Jėzų nukryžiuotąjį, kuris žydams yra papiktinimas, pagonims – kvailystė“ (1 Kor 1, 23).

REKOMENDACIJOS

Atsižvelgiant į tyrimo išvadas siūloma: 1. Lietuvos Vyskupų Konferencijos Švietimo komisijai, Kauno Arkivyskupijos pastoracinei tarybai, parapijų pastoracinėms taryboms, Lietuvos katechetikos centrui, krikščioniškoje edukacijoje laikytis nuostatos, kas apokrifinės evangelijos nėra slepiami ar draudžiami tekstai. Apokrifinės evangelijos, kaip ir kita gausi ankstyvųjų amžių krikščioniškoji literatūra, yra krikščionybės istorinis paveldas, bet vertintinas remiantis gairėmis, kurias nurodo Bažnyčios skelbiamas tikėjimo mokslas ir Naujojo Testamento evangelijų liudijimas. 2. Katalikų teologijos fakultetui, Vilniaus universiteto Religijos studijų ir tyrimų centrui, Katalikų tikybos katedrai Klaipėdos universitete, Katalikų tikybos katedrai Lietuvos Edukologijos universitete, LCC tarptautiniam universitetui, kitiems religijos ir tarpdisciplininio mokslo institutams: tarpdisciplininėse studijose plėtoti teologijos, istorijos ir filologijos mokslų bendradarbiavimą tiriant ankstyvosios krikščionybės paveldą, pagrindžiant Naujojo Testamento liudijimo apie Jėzų Kristų istoriškumą ir tikėtinumą. 3. Lietuvos stačiatikių arkivyskupijos kurijai, Lietuvos evangelijų liuteronų bažnyčios sinodui, kt. tradicinėms krikščioniškoms religinėms bendruomenėms, Lietuvos Biblijos draugijai: plėtoti katalikų, stačiatikių ir evangelinių bažnyčių bendradarbiavimą gilinantis į ankstyviausią Bažnyčios tradiciją, apimančią ir apokrifines evangelijas. Suformuluoti bendrą poziciją, koks Jėzaus asmens vaizdavimas yra nekrikščioniškas. 4. Lietuvos religijotyrininkų draugijai, Naujųjų religijų tyrimo ir informavimo centrui, kitoms religijų dialogo siekiančioms institucijoms: religijų tyrinėjime ir krikščionių dialoge su islamo ir judaizmo religijomis atsižvelgti į tokius tekstus kaip Evangelija pagal hebrajus, Petro evangelija, Jokūbo proevangelija, Vaikystės evangelija pagal

71

Tomą, nes jų pažinimas leidžia geriau suprasti šių religijų požiūrį į Jėzaus Kristaus asmenį. 5. Jaunimo centrų, jaunimo sielovados darbuotojams: pastoracijoje atvirai diskutuoti apie apokrifinėse evangelijose atskleistą Jėzaus paveikslą, nes ideologiškai angažuotas istorinis Jėzaus Kristaus tyrinėjimas tendencingai interpretuoja ankstyvosios krikščionybės tekstus siekdamas parodyti krikščioniškojo tikėjimo nepagrįstumą ir konfliktinį ankstyvosios krikščionybės pobūdį. Būtina atsiliepti į šį iššūkį nurodant populiarioms Jėzaus Kristaus gyvenimo interpretacijoms prieštaraujančius faktus. 6. Evangelizacijos centro darbuotojams, „Alfa“ grupių koordinatoriams, vienuolių ir pasauliečių apaštalinėms krikščioniškoms bendruomenėms. Evangelizacijoje pabrėžti kanoninių Naujojo Testamento evangelijų istoriškumą ir tęstinumą tarp istorinio Jėzaus Kristaus asmens ir Bažnyčios skelbiamos išganymo žinios. Akcentuoti, kad patirtis nėra tai, kas apsprendžia tikėjimo autentiškumą, nes krikščioniško tikėjimo autentiškumą apsprendžia „tiesos kanonas“. 7. Katalikiškoms leidykloms: publikuoti kritinį apokrifinių evangelijų leidimą su tinkamais įvadais ir komentarais. 8. Katalikiškai žiniasklaidai: vertinant mokslines istorinio Jėzaus rekonstrukcijas, Jėzaus Kristaus įvaizdžius literatūroje, kine, mistiniuose apreiškimuose, taikyti Bažnyčios ankstyvaisiais amžiais suformuluotą santykį su alternatyviais Jėzaus Kristaus paveikslais apokrifinėse evangelijose.

72

MOKSLINĖS PUBLIKACIJOS DISERTACIJOS TEMA SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE DISSERTATION

1. Mackela, Valdas. Apaštalas Paulius kaip radikalus žydas Danielio Boyarino postmodernistinėje interpretacijoje // Soter: religijos mokslo žurnalas. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla. ISSN 1392-7450. 33 (2010). P. 23–51. 2. Mackela, Valdas. Sofiologinė Švč. Trejybės asmenų samprata Elisabeth A. Johnson feministinėje teologijoje // Soter: religijos mokslo žurnalas. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla. ISSN 1392-7450. 31 (2009). P. 53–72.

73

Valdas MACKELA – teologas, 1995 m. įgijo teologijos bakalauro laipsnį, 1997 m. – teologijos licenciato laipsnį, nuo 2003 m. Katalikų teologijos fakulteto Vytauto Didžiojo universitete asistentas. Dėsto fundamentinę teologiją, pneumatologiją, Šventojo Rašto įvadą, Senojo Testamento teologiją ir gamtos filosofiją. Tyrimų sritys: postmodernioji teologija, istorinio Jėzaus tyrinėjimai, tarptestamentinė literatūra, Naujojo Testamento apokrifiniai tekstai, misticizmas, ezoterinis religingumas, gnosticizmas, ankstyvoji krikščionybės istorija, naujosios religijos. El. paštas: [email protected].

Valdas MACKELA, theologian, received a Bachelor of Arts in Catholic Theology in 1995, and a Licentiate in Dogmatic Theology in 1997, and has been working as an assistant professor in the department of Catholic Theology of Vytautas Magnus University since 2003. He lectures on Fundamental Theology, Pneumatology, Introduction to Scripture, Old Testament Theology and Philosophy of Nature. His fields of research are: Postmodern Theology, Search for the Historical Jesus, Intertestamental literature, , Mysticism, Esoteric Religions, Gnosticism, History of Early Christianity, and New Religions. E-mail: [email protected].

74

Valdas MACKELA

JESUS CHRIST IN APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS: ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation

Išleido ir spausdino – Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla (S. Daukanto g. 27, LT-44249 Kaunas) Užsakymo Nr. K12-020. Tiražas 40 egz. 2012 02 23. Nemokamai.