If you have any experience with the synoptic gospels found in the New Testament, reading the Gospel of Nicodemus will surprise you on more than one occasion. The first thing you’ll notice about this book, in relation to the synoptic gospels, is the dramatic shift in the starting point. Instead of being introduced by the story of his birth, Jesus is introduced right as he is being tried by Pilate, a Roman governor. This particular gospel focuses much less on the ministry of Jesus than the outburst of reactions it incites. In fact, the ministry of Jesus as we know it from the New Testament gospels is only seen in short accounts made by his few supporters in the court of Pilate. The supporters only touch on the miracles performed by Jesus (in most cases the miracle had been performed on the speaker himself). Each of the accounts given covers a miracle story present in the New Testament gospels; the gospel itself seems to rely on the reader’s familiarity with at least one of the synoptic gospels.
As the story progresses, the author’s focus continually remains on the outcome of Jesus’ ministry. After the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the Gospel of Nicodemus gives an extremely detailed account of his descent into Hell to retrieve the Saints who are trapped there. While covering the events that take place in hell, the author takes the opportunity to connect with and Jewish readers or listeners who might encounter his story. Many of the prophets preparing to ascend to Heaven with Jesus echo the prophecies they are credited with in the Old Testament.
The Gospel of Nicodemus ends with the arrival of the saints in Heaven. This particular gospel takes the story of Christ and his redemption of God’s people much farther than the gospels present in the New Testament. It basically picks the story up when the others left off. In the small segment where this particular book overlaps with the synoptic gospel, it is clear that much more detailed narrative is employed by the author. Names appear more frequently and seem to be more important in general. The exact amount of (supposed) years between the creation of Earth and resurrection of Jesus is even given. The writing resembles a heroic story much more than a biography, but the goal of the story still seems to be the same. The overarching theme remaining: Jesus is the sovereign Son of God, and he is on Earth to redeem his people. And, on a personal side note, it makes for a much more interesting read.
Probably the most notable reason for the Gospel of Nicodemus to be excluded from the canonized works of the bible is its supposed date of “birth”. The earliest date it can be traced back to is around the middle of the 4th century. While this is very old in my eyes, it does not quite date back as far as many of the other New Testament works. Personally, I feel like the section describing the harrowing of hell by Jesus presents a problem for many Christians. It is not mentioned in anywhere near as much detail in the New Testament as it is in this particular gospel account. I believe it could possibly be a reason for this gospel to be excluded from the canon. The gospel is purported in its text to be a report from Pontius Pilate himself; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. It is much more likely that someone wrote this account in such a way as to resemble an official document in order to bolster its reputation and validity. 
The gospel as a whole is extremely epic in nature, lacking only in length. Reading through this book, I could not help but compare it to Paradise Lost by John Milton. It certainly has an epic feel to it, especially in the section detailing the harrowing of Hell by a pre-resurrected Jesus. The court story and the crucifixion account seem very official in nature, but the rest of the work lends itself to an epic story. This style balances out the work as whole. It almost, in a sense, provides facts that are bolstered by heroic tales.
Reading through the Gospel of Nicodemus was very interesting. It is by far my favorite gospel account as of yet. Perhaps this is due to my unfamiliarity with the work, but I can’t help but think it would be my favorite even if it was canonized. My primary enjoyment came from the section of the gospel devoted to Jesus’ harrowing of hell, or his triumphant descent into Hell to bring salvation to all the righteous who have died to date, as Wikipedia puts it. This portion of the gospel raises more questions than I can't even begin to tell you about. However, I suppose it all boils down to one: How influential is the Gospel of Nicodemus’ account of the harrowing of Hell?
None of the synoptic gospels mention Christ’s descent into the bowels of the Earth. In fact, his descent is only briefly mentioned a few times throughout scripture as whole. However, the idea that Christ descended into Hell, or at least purgatory or “limbo”, is a rather fundamental idea in Christianity. Even the Apostles’ Creed, an early statement of faith in the Christian church, mentions Christ descending into Hell. While the New Testament does not go into very much detail concerning this descent, the Apostles’ Creed, including the acknowledgement of Christ going to Hell, is still used by many denominations of the Christian faith today. While the Gospel of Nicodemus is not present in any of the bibles found today, the idea of Christ’s descent into Hell is very prominent.
The account of the descent found in the Gospel of Nicodemus is extremely detailed in nature. I wondered if it could have been the original account of Christ’s descent into Hell, upon which New Testament writers based their statements. However, the reverse appears to hold more water, so to speak. The oldest manuscripts depicting the Gospel of Nicodemus do not contain the section covering the harrowing of Hell. Instead, it seems to have been added at a considerably later date. This leads me to believe it is someone’s personal imagination of the way Christ’s descent into the underworld could have gone.
The first half of the Gospel of Nicodemus is extremely dated and, for the most part, very orthodox. Nearly nothing can be found in the accounts of the trial and passion of Jesus Christ that can be considered as opposing to accounts found in the New Testament. Since the harrowing of Hell was not added until much later, it seems to be more of a commentary compounding on the ideas found in the New Testament. There is no doubt the author of this addition to the Gospel of Nicodemus would have been familiar with the works of the New Testament, too many similarities appear throughout the work to assume otherwise.
So, in retrospect, it seems that the account of Jesus’ descent into Hell that appears in the Gospel of Nicodemus is not exactly foundational, as I first expected. Instead, the exact opposite appears to be true of the story. While I still believe this work contains much to contribute to the big picture, it seems that New Testament writers only sparked a creative seed for the author.
No comments:
Post a Comment