April DeConick of the Forbidden Gospels blog has posted several articles lately on her work on the Gospel of Judas including this one about the forthcoming critical edition.

John Dart, a writer for the Christian Century and author of several CA-related books (Decoding Mark, Unearthing the Lost Words of Jesus, and The Jesus of Heresy and History), posted on the publication’s “Theolog” a response to the recent NY Times article on Secret Mark (mentioned previously HERE). You can read it HERE. Thanks to Scott Brown for passing this along.

The Infancy Gospel of James is featured prominently in a new book by Frederica Mathewes-Green, The Lost Gospel of Mary: The Mother of Jesus in Three Ancient Texts from Paraclete Press. An interview with the author is available here. The title is somewhat misleading (Infancy James has never really been “lost,” and calling it the Gospel of Mary leads to confusion with the Gnostic text of the same name). The following excerpt from the interview reveals which texts Mathewes-Green examines:

The first text, the “Gospel of Mary,” shows us Mary as an adorable little girl, and then as a teenager coping with a “crisis pregnancy” that could cause her execution as a suspected adultress. This was an extremely popular work among Eastern Christians (that is, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern) in the second century. Many of the stories here made it to Europe, but the intact text did not. A 16^th-century scholar who translated it into Latin named it “the Protevangelium of James;” this is how scholars know it today, but it’s not the original title (no one title stuck, actually). In this work, Mary is steadfast under this trial, and teaches us much about courage.

The other two texts illuminate other aspects of Mary’s role. The second is a very short prayer that was found on a scrap of papyrus in Egypt in 1917, and dated 250 AD; it is the earliest prayer to Mary. It begins, “Under your compassion we take refuge…”, and it’s still in use East and West (Roman Catholics know it as “Sub Tuum Praesidium.”) This second text shows us that early Christians believed that she (like all the saints) are alive in Christ’s presence and continually in prayer, so we can call on her as a prayer partner. The third text is a beautiful and intricately complex “sung sermon”, written around 520 A.D., which explores the mystery of the Incarnation and all the ways that Mary’s role is foreshadowed in Scripture.

The Times On-line reports that the scene in which Veronica wipes the face of Jesus has been removed from the Via Dolorosa. The move is a response to the popularity of apocryphal gospels (see a previous post on the Vatican and the CA here). Here is an excerpt:

The Pope will risk upsetting many of the Roman Catholic faithful tonight after recasting a central ritual of the Easter ceremonies.

Benedict XVI has revised radically the traditional Good Friday Stations of the Cross procession that marks Christ’s progress from prison to the Crucifixion. A reference to St Veronica, who wiped Christ’s face with a veil, has been dropped and Judas and Pontius Pilate have been introduced.

The new itinerary for the route, also known as the Via Dolorosa, or Way of Sorrows, has been drawn up to give more weight to authentic Gospels, Vatican officials said.

Veronica was an apocryphal figure and the Vatican is conducting a campaign against the trend in popular literature, such as The Da Vinci Code, and among some theologians, to bring apocryphal writings into the mainstream. 

What’s next? Will Mary’s parents Anna and Joachim (first named in the Infancy Gospel of James) be written out of Catholic dogma? What about traditions of Jesus’ descent into Hell from the Gospel of Nicodemus? And the lives of the Saints which are principally drawn from the Apocryphal Acts? Perhaps the Vatican should stop before they realize how many of their cherished traditions are based on apocryphal literature.

April DeConick’s The Forbidden Gospels blog features a preview of her new book The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says.

The text occupies two pages in a 15th-century manuscript of miscellaneous texts. It has no title and in its current form appears fragmentary—i.e., the beginning and perhaps the ending are missing. The story essentially is as follows:

Joseph of Arimathea is given the body of Jesus for burial. Nicodemus hears of this and comes to Joseph and offers his assistance in the burial. The two bring a burial cloth and ointments and take the body down from the cross. Joseph tells Nicodemus that Jesus appeared to him (the following few sentences are unclear). Joseph reports that the priests of the temple commented on how strange that Jesus’ kin had not come to prepare Jesus for burial. Nicodemus goes to the temple to request Jesus’ body (next several sentences unclear). Nicodemus comes from the temple and places the body of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph. They roll the stone over the entrance and return to their homes. After three days Jesus rises. The priests and scribes say that Joseph and the disciples stole the body (the next few sentences are unclear but there is mention of “the property of James”). The priests and scribes incite a mob against Joseph and they bring Joseph to the high priests. They ask Joseph why he has stolen the body. Joseph responds that he could not take the body because of the guards posted there by Pilate. The priests and the people are furious and go to Pilate accusing Joseph.

I still have an additional half page to read and, as noted above, several sections remain obscure. Still, at this point a few things are clear. The text is not from any single gospel but does contain elements of at least John (Joseph’s and Nicodemus’ preparation of the body) and Matthew (the slander that Jesus’ disciples stole the body). Yet the text is not simply a harmony as it contains much that is new. Several well-known apocryphal texts discuss Joseph’s role in the burial of Jesus—the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, and even the Gospel of Peter—but none of these appear to be the this text.

I will post additional comments on the text as I work through it over the next several weeks. Again, feedback is welcome. One of the reasons I created Apocryphicity was so CA scholars could exchange ideas on ongoing projects. So, I encourage others to take full advantage of this resource.