VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY

Valdas MACKELA

JESUS CHRIST IN APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS:

ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLY
CHRISTIANITY

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, Poland,
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 New Testament 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
Church, who did not approve of the accounts of Jesus 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 Nazareth.
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 Gnosticism –
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 (Justin,
Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria) 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 Nag Hammadi library, have attempted to view the Church fathers’
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 history of
Christianity have noted, heresies 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 gospel 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 prophet (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. Palestine, 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. Textual criticism 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. Redaction criticism
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 Bible 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 Catholic Church through the ministry of the bishops and the intercession of
the Holy Spirit.
 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.
 The Gospel 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 Gospel of Peter 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 Gospel of Mary is a characteristic case of private esoteric revelation.
 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 (Docetism, 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 Gospel of Thomas may be authentic, previously unknown
Jesus’s words. Other texts, such as The dialogue of the Saviour, The Apocryphon of
James and The Gospel of Mary from the Berlin Codex, were considered a testimony of
an early Christian tradition. 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
Greek language 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 Gospel of Nicodemus known as Christ’s Descent into Hades
(Kristaus nužengimas į Hadą), translated by M. Strockis, was published. The Gospel of
Judas 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 Codex Tchacos, 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 Mary Magdalene] (2011). A significant
publication of apocryphal texts is W. Schneemelcher and R. McLachlan Wilson’s two-
volume New Testament Apocrypha: 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 Latin texts, published in
the Migne Patrologia Latina (MPL) and the Migne Patrologia Graeca (MPG).
Quotations from Eusebius 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 Novum
Testamentum Graece (NTG). Hebrew Old Testament 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 Origen’s Homilies on the
Song of Songs 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 Messiah (1994) and Birth of the Messiah (1998). The
apocryphal gospels were popularised by E. Pagels’s studies The Gnostic Gospels (1979)
and Adam, Eve 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 synoptic gospels 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 Judas Iscariot]
(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 Christian Literature (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 Gospel of John 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
Christology, 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, Acts 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 Gospel of Philip 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 hermits to the
desert. Lost, but the reconstructed from fragments The Gospel of the Hebrews,
The Gospel of the Nazarenes, The Gospel of the Ebionites in writings of the Fathers of
the Church (Jerome, 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) Midrash or legend type stories on
certain episodes of canonical gospels. Besides these, there are also modern counterfeits
of apocryphal gospels, such as The Secret Gospel of Mark, 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 Heaven (The Dormition of the Theotokos),
tales about Holy Cross, Saint Longinus the centurion, Penitent thief Dismas, Acts of
Paul and Thecla, whole literature about Holy Grail and most of non-canonical
individual acts of the apostles 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 Biblical Apocrypha: 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 Age of
Enlightenment 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 Son of Man (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
baptism 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 Quran 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 Gospel of Truth, The Wisdom of
Faith (Pistis Sophia), The Gospel according to the Egyptians, The Apocryphon of John,
The Book of Thomas Contender, Epistula Apostolorum. Left outside the boundaries of
research as well are other infancy gospels: 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 Barnabas 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 Gospel of Perfection, The Gospel of Four Heavens,
The Gospel of Encratites, The Gospel of Longinus, The Gospel of Eve 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 Secret Gospel of Mark 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 Islam’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 Hippolytus of Rome
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.
Judaism in the Hellenistic Era and Bible Translations into Greek
2.3. Eschatological Dualism and the New Covenant 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 Muratorian Fragment 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 Muhammad 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 Simon Magus, 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
Hebrew Bible 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 gnosis, probably in

31
the milieu of wisdom and apocalyptic literature. 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 Satan, 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
Jews, 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 Creeds 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 Creed, 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 Philo, 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 Septuagint 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 New Covenant at the Qumran Community.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls 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
sense). Term ‫( ברית חדשה‬heb. New Covenant) is found in the Old Testament (Jer 31:
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, people of God) 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
apocalypse. 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 apocalypses 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 Apocalypse of
Peter, The Apocalypse of Paul etc.), individual acts of apostles (The Acts of Paul, The
Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Acts of Philip, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Thomas
etc.), epistles (The Epistle to Diognetus, The Epistle of Barnabas, 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 (The Shepherd of Hermas). 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 Book of Daniel, The
Book of Enoch, 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," “form
criticism,” “source criticism,” and “redaction criticism.” These methods are
supplemented with socio-historical criticism, 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
Syria. 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 Israel 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
Christian art 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”
exegesis 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 Decretum
Gelasianum, was traditionally attributed to the prolific Pope 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 Pharisees 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
Gospel of Matthew (Ur-Matthew) written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). Eusebius quotes a
passage of Papias, who wrote: „Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language,
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 Apostolic Fathers, 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
(Δίδυμος) and Thomas (‫ )תאומא‬is “twin”. The Gospel of Thomas, on the basis of this
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 biblical studies
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, deism “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 Galilee 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 sermon on the mount, 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 Trinity, 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 son of God 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 Acts of John, The Gospel of the Saviour, The Ascension of
Isaiah. 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 Christian theology. 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 depiction
of Jesus 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 Jewish holidays 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 Hell, 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 Catholic Theology 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: valdas.mackela@gmail.com.

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, New Testament Apocrypha, Mysticism, Esoteric Religions, Gnosticism,
History of Early Christianity, and New Religions. E-mail: valdas.mackela@gmail.com.

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.