mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
According to 3 Would-Be Holy Books That Got Left Out of the Bible
Book: The Infancy Gospel of James
Didn’t Make the Cut: Because prequels are never as popular as the original story (we’re looking at you, Mr. Lucas).
The Infancy Gospel of James focuses on the early life of the Virgin Mary and is the source of most extra-biblical traditions about her. Here, Mary is a miracle baby, born to aging parents and sent to live with priests. And Joseph isn’t her husband, but a widower who agrees to be her guardian after the priests decide that she’s a bit too, well, female to stay at the Temple. When Mary turns up pregnant, the priests have her and Joseph pass an honesty test by drinking blessed water that will make them sick if they lie. Most odd though, is the author’s decision to have Salome, best known for asking for the head of John the Baptist on a platter, improbably fill the roll of Holy midwife.
Book: The Gospel of the Egyptians
Didn’t Make the Cut: For being a little too ascetic.
Only parts of this Gospel survive, but these bits advocate self-denial and celibacy in order to kill ties to the body, break the cycle of birth, and theoretically return man to a sinless, androgynous state. Sounds like fun. Thankfully, early church leaders weren’t too fond of the idea either; many gospels left out of the Bible share these beliefs. Another thing apocryphal gospels share: Salome. She appears here as one of the women who finds Jesus’s tomb empty on Easter morning.
The Book: Transitus Mariae
Didn’t Make the Cut: Because reunion specials are even less popular than prequels.
Supposedly an account of the death of the Virgin Mary, the Transitus Mariae is only one of many works that tell roughly the same story. Here, the death of Mary leads to an Apostle reunion, as all 12 are transported to her deathbed from around the globe and even from beyond the grave. Jesus, too, puts in an appearance, leading a train of angels from Heaven to receive both His mother’s soul and body. Before the body can be taken up, however, the author fits in a bit of anti-Semitism, having a Jew who dares to touch Mary lose both his hands. Mercifully, the Apostles intervene (possibly remembering that they, themselves, are Jewish) and restore the man’s appendages.
Most of these apocryphal texts were left out because they contain Gnostic ideas. Gnosticism and many of the texts that espouse it have become popular as of late thanks to the Da Vinci code and the like, but I doubt that many of the folks who say they are Gnostics really have any idea what it actually means. Do they really believe that the material body is evil, and that the goal of religion should be to purify souls of their evil bodies? I honestly doubt it, since one bestselling “Gnostic” author claims she also believes Jesus had children, and the idea of Jesus having sex is anathema to real Gnosticism.
posted by Zach on 9-4-2007 at 9:47 am
I must point out that books 1 and 3 (especially 3) are considered part of the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
posted by eve's dropper on 9-4-2007 at 12:07 pm
Oh my goodness, the author of this post is really confused! I just about laughed my coffee through my nose when I read this. Just like today, not everyone with the same first name is the same person. The “Salome” being discussed in these books isn’t the same “Salome” who demanded the head of John the Baptist (Herodias’s daughter). It was a common name! The Salome mentioned here is generally accepted to be Salome the Disciple, who shows up elsewhere in the New Testment Canon (at Christ’s crucifixion at the least). There are a bunch of Marys, Jameses, and Johns in the New Testmament as well. Don’t confuse them either… Take a lookie here for the distinction on Salome:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome_%28disciple%29
2. Also, just a clarification… the Infancy Gospel of James (a.k.a. the Protoevangelium of James) wasn’t Gnostic. I don’t believe Transitus Mariae was either.
3. There are actually 2 Gnostic “Gospels of the Egyptians”. The one being discussed here is the “Greek Gospel of the Egyptians”. There is also a completely different “Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians”.
4. While the Latin Church considers the Transitus Mariae to be an apocryphal book, the basic concept of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven is taken as dogma. I’d have to research the reasons for the book’s exclusion, but it may have been that they just didn’t have complete confidence in the veracity of some aspect of the story’s details. Like I said though, the basic idea of her Assumption is still accepted.
posted by Sid Morrison on 9-5-2007 at 3:05 am