# If the Apocryphal Texts of the Bible Never Were as Such



## Jdailey1991 (Jul 26, 2016)

If modern theology were any consideration, the official stories in the Old and New testaments made up only the bare bones of the entire Bible. In recent decades, archaeologists have dug up many, many apocryphal, or hidden, stories that, if ever canonized, would completely change the cultural attitude and evolutionary history of Christianity.

These apocryphal texts include the following:



_Life of Adam and Eve_, a text describing the story of Adam and Eve in far greater detail, leading up to their expulsion from paradise right down to their deaths

_The Book of Enoch_, which described the Watchers, angels who fell to Earth to teach humanity hidden knowledge, even interbred with them, the resulting children being the Nephilim--*giants*

_Joseph and Aseneth_, a more detailed description of the relationship between the original owner of the Coat of Many Colors and the daughter of an Egyptian priest

_Yahweh and Asherah_, the idea that the Divine Male is accompanied by a Divine Female

_The Gospel of Philip_ and _The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene_, both of which picture Mary Magdalene not just as a reformed prostitute but as a major Disciple



In an alternate history, none of the listed texts are apocryphal and instead can be found in the official canon. What kinds of differences should I expect to see in the cultural attitudes and evolutionary history of Christianity?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 26, 2016)

Oh man, I did a ton of research into the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Mary for a book I was working on a few years back. Such interesting stuff! I don't have much for you in regards to ideas, but good luck on your alternate history!


----------



## Russ (Jul 27, 2016)

Jdailey1991 said:


> If modern theology were any consideration, the official stories in the Old and New testaments made up only the bare bones of the entire Bible. In recent decades, archaeologists have dug up many, many apocryphal, or hidden, stories that, if ever canonized, would completely change the cultural attitude and evolutionary history of Christianity.
> 
> These apocryphal texts include the following:
> 
> ...



You pose an interesting question but the answer is very, very complicated and would require a very close examination of the texts you reference and a very good understanding of both canon scripture and how and what theology evolves from it.

For instance you refer to MM as a reformed prostitute but this is not supported by canon scripture, nor does it form any part of modern theology.  The canon scripture depicts her as an important follower and a saved sinner, to elevate her to the level of a disciple does not seem to have significant theological implications on modern theology.  There might be a small factual discrepancy because I think the canon suggests Jesus chose 12 disciples, but that does not strike me a big theological issue either.

I think you might find more significant change from the Gnostic approach expressed in some of those texts.

The other question you face is how big the difference would be from _which_ theology.  While medieval theology would place much more emphasis on the masculine nature of god, this distinction for many denominations these days who have a much modern modern view of ideas of masculine and feminine in theology this might not make any real difference at all.

Have fun with it.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 27, 2016)

Agree with Russ here. The non-canonical books are extremely tricky in themselves. Integrating them with the accepted canon is even trickier. There were whole Church councils devoted to this very issue.

Yes, it's good fun to play around with the Apocyrpha. Just so long as one does not take it seriously, it can be fodder for fiction. Beyond that, even scholars tread warily.


----------



## Alile (Aug 10, 2016)

I once read a book where every single mention of a few chosen words were changed. It was womankind, (not mankind) for example. Think about the stories about Eve eating the apple the snake gave her, (female stupidity leading to eternal female guilt) about the witchhunts all over Europe and USA (they did burn mostly women and midwives), about the 70's liberation of the female sex and their rights... Think about how the history of the females might have been different if only the stories in the Bible had been chosen differently. Their right to chose who to marry, their right to vote, to drive taxi's... anything. Equal pay for equal work is still a joke in 2016. Okay, the gender roles, that's one thing.
Another thing is the idea about the Divine Female and the Divine Male. You might want to look at another religion, Wicca, or the well-known Goddess Movement for ideas about how the world and worship might have been different. 
You might even want to look into the theories that Mary Magdalene was in fact the wife of Jesus.
Our entire calendar might be different, because Jesus wan't born during Christmas at all.


----------



## DMThaane (Aug 11, 2016)

Alile said:


> I once read a book where every single mention of a few chosen words were changed. It was womankind, (not mankind) for example. Think about the stories about Eve eating the apple the snake gave her, (female stupidity leading to eternal female guilt) about the witchhunts all over Europe and USA (they did burn mostly women and midwives), about the 70's liberation of the female sex and their rights... Think about how the history of the females might have been different if only the stories in the Bible had been chosen differently. Their right to chose who to marry, their right to vote, to drive taxi's... anything. Equal pay for equal work is still a joke in 2016. Okay, the gender roles, that's one thing.
> Another thing is the idea about the Divine Female and the Divine Male. You might want to look at another religion, Wicca, or the well-known Goddess Movement for ideas about how the world and worship might have been different.
> You might even want to look into the theories that Mary Magdalene was in fact the wife of Jesus.
> Our entire calendar might be different, because Jesus wan't born during Christmas at all.



As loathe as I am to defend Christianity it was the dominant faith in Europe for a thousand years before the witch hunts really got going. In fact for much of the church's history it was discouraged or even deemed heresy to believe that witches were real. Which isn't to say Christianity was good for women's rights, certainly in Scandinavia women seemed to have more rights and freedoms before Christianisation, but cultural beliefs can't always be laid at the door of an old book. Rome was heavily patriarchal and deeply concerned with social roles long before Christianity came on the scene. In fact one could make the argument that a 'feminist' Bible would never have caught on with the Romans, potentially condemning Christianity to a similar fate to Zoroastrianism.

Now on the main topic, I'll say this. If all the apocrypha were included, we'd have a lot more stained glass depictions of an infant Jesus taming dragons.


----------



## Reaver (Aug 11, 2016)

While this thread seems to be going well thus far, I want to remind all participants to keep our FORUM RULES in mind. More specifically:


> Sensitive Topics
> 
> When discussing sensitive issues, all members participating in such a discussion (post originator and respondents) are required to take extra care and treat the topic with the appropriate gravity, making certain they exhibit open-mindedness, understanding, respect, & empathy for their fellow scribes.
> 
> ...




Thank you in advance for your participation and cooperation.


----------



## Russ (Aug 11, 2016)

So if you are going to go down this path, there are kind of two ways to do it.  But to know which is better I think you need to ask yourself "what am I trying to say with this story?"

You can do it the simple way, to deliver a simple message without going much into depth.  You can make a few generalizations, a few "butterfly wing" changes and then deliver your message in a nice package tied up a a neat and simple bow at the end.  You can add your work to the multitudes of ways of people saying "Christianity was bad for the female population and would it not have been nice if it was all egalitarian or even matriarchal way back when."  Which is perfectly fine, if not highly original.

Or, you can do it the hard way.  You can learn the details and real ramifications of the original canon (and what it meant when),   you can learn the details of the apocryphal texts you want to explore and what they mean and what there ramifications might be, and you need to learn the period you are writing about to see how it all fits in with the geographical and cultural period that you are setting your story in.  It would be a lot of hard work (like...a lot...it would go way beyond simply knowing that the canon has never suggested MM was a prostitite...like several levels beyond) but I think it could be very rewarding on both a personal and literal level.  If you want your work to be fair to christianity you would also need to understand how christianity impacted on the gender you are concerned about in the time you are concerned about in the place you are concerned about.

For instance this article from Science Nordic suggests that Christianity was important in women being seen as people and in chasing rape from a crime against property to a crime against a person in medieval Denmark:

The church changed the perception of rape | ScienceNordic

Now, this may run contrary to many simple ideas and worldviews that are out there, but I think the more you did the more subtleties and shades of grey you will encounter which can really bring a world and a story to life.

So you need to ask yourself a few questions. What is the story I want to tell?  What is the message I want to use this story to deliver?  How much work am I wiling to do, or do I need to do to do justice to the theme?

There is a huge continuum available to you, from idle thought experiment or simple thematic level, to some very deep and engaging stuff.


----------



## Jdailey1991 (Aug 13, 2016)

DMThaane said:


> As loathe as I am to defend Christianity it was the dominant faith in Europe for a thousand years before the witch hunts really got going. In fact for much of the church's history it was discouraged or even deemed heresy to believe that witches were real. Which isn't to say Christianity was good for women's rights, certainly in Scandinavia women seemed to have more rights and freedoms before Christianisation, but cultural beliefs can't always be laid at the door of an old book. Rome was heavily patriarchal and deeply concerned with social roles long before Christianity came on the scene. In fact one could make the argument that a 'feminist' Bible would never have caught on with the Romans, potentially condemning Christianity to a similar fate to Zoroastrianism.
> 
> Now on the main topic, I'll say this. If all the apocrypha were included, we'd have a lot more stained glass depictions of an infant Jesus taming dragons.




What happened with Zoroastrianism?





And if Jesus tamed dragons, would that butterfly the romantic cliche of a knight in shining armor slaying an evil dragon holding a damsel in distress out of culture?


----------



## DMThaane (Aug 13, 2016)

Jdailey1991 said:


> What happened with Zoroastrianism?



Zoroastrianism was the primary faith of the Persian Empires, so it was the chief faith of some of early history's biggest hitters, but it seems to have lacked a strong proselytising element so it never gained much of a foothold outside of that cultural sphere. After the epic war of mega destruction between Eastern Rome and Sassanian Persia (that almost collapsed both) the new Islamic Rashidun Caliphate expanded out and through the whole region. Small pockets of Zoroastrian believers have remained but their numbers have dwindled over the centuries, particularly during bouts of persecution. Now I believe the largest community is in India, a result of Iranian migration that seems to have started soon after the fall of the Sassanid Empire. Hardly a dead faith but a long way down from the importance it once held.

Christianity, situated in the tumultuous territories of the Middle East, sandwiched between Rome and Persia, would've been in a far more precarious position and needed to be able to spread to disparate cultures to survive. Even so, many rival interpretations and heresies didn't make it. Most people today have never even heard of Arianism (referring to the teaching of Arius and the source of a major early religious schism, nothing to do with the racist ideology).



> And if Jesus tamed dragons, would that butterfly the romantic cliche of a knight in shining armor slaying an evil dragon holding a damsel in distress out of culture?



Actually the Gospel of Pseudo-Mathew, where the story is contained, was at least partially included in a rather popular medieval collection called the Golden Legend, which includes Saint George slaying a dragon. Which actually brings up an important point. Even though the apocrypha weren't included in the official canon (a list that was greatly disputed, especially in the early days) many of them became quite popular and went on to influence popular culture (such as it was) and theology during the Middle Ages. Also much of the apocrypha was written well after the fact (Gospel of Pseudo-Mathew is believed to have been written in the early 7th century) so couldn't have influenced early church belief. Of course, the idea of Mary Magdalene as a sinner only dates to the 4th century and the earliest references of her as a prostitute are from the 7th century and Pope Gregory I, and seemed to have happened as a result of compositing several different biblical Mary's into one. So the popular culture of Christianity was always somewhat fluid and subject to reinvention.

All and all it's one hell of a butterfly to grasp with and it seems to have flapped its wings an awful lot.


----------



## psychotick (Aug 13, 2016)

Hi,

Wow - big question I'm afraid. And to answer it you probably have to go back to the Council of Nicea, 325 AD, and ask why they chose to accept certain scriptures in the first unified creed, and not others. Personally I can't answer that. But I can say that at least in part it was sort of like an editing process. You know when you editor goes back and says - "but you said this there and now you want to say something else? You're contradicting yourself." Many ofthe gnostoc gospels are in fact contradictory with one another and with the scriptures.

Case in point, the Gospel of Thomas. A rather lovely collection of sayings among other things. And number 77 is particularly relevant: Jesus said: 

_I am the light that is above them all. I am the all; the all came forth from me, and the all attained to me. Cleave a (piece of) wood; I am there. Raise up a stone, and you will find me there._ 

Beautiful saying really - but why was it left out? Because if Jesus is everywhere what need do people have for churches? At least that's what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

And then there's the whole Mary Magdelene role in things as other have mentioned. Was she a reformed prostitute? Actually there's nothing in the canonical gospels that suggest she was. (They also don't suggest she was Jesus' wife either - sorry to those who watched Tom Hanks running around damaging the Catholic church in the movie). The entire fiasco was started by Pope Gregory the Great (first) in about 591 AD, who linked her to Mary of Bethany who bathed Jesus' feet. So what does this matter? If she's not a reformed sinner then at the small end of things her position in the faith as a saint for fallen women falls over. But at the more major end, what does this say about the role of women in society? In the church? That they can be followers and even potentially disciples as much as any men? Is the world ready for a female pope?

My point here is that if you take this road you really need to do your research. Take every thread of the cannonical and gnostic gospels and see what effects they've had on the church and on wider society. Then you can begin to guess what effects they would have had had the gnostic versions been part of the bible too.

Cheers, Greg.


----------

