Talk:Gospel of Philip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The correct title is Gospel of Philip, not Gospel of Phillip. For that reason, the latter was merged with the former one. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The Solution to the kissing[edit]

The solution to the 'kissing; re Jesus and The Magdalene Is thus : "He kissed her on THE SABBATH". (copyright john charles webb , jr., all rights reserved , United States of America 2010 ). Inductive reasoning , biblical study , scholar of ancient cosmologies , etc. , is how I arrived at what I believe is the solution . I am also a Templeton Prize nominee (past 8 years , annually) . Wikipedia Member since Wikipedia started , (approx) .

There is no 'source' because they do not know . Therefore , I am the source . No other method of proof is available . I will wave @ you on TV from Oslo .

^ What is this? Anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

^ It is unsigned and more than a little unbalanced. (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning Jesus[edit]

The edit: On the other hand, the text does mention Jesus several times. The individual who wrote "there is no reason to assume they have anything to do with Jesus," apparently has never even read this gospel. needs to be put in more encyclopedic terms. Quoting a passage or two where Jesus is mentioned and discussing the context would be informative. --Wetman 18:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The line: Other than the text's introduction and title, there is no reason to assume they have anything to do with Jesus, is utterly false and should be removed. I have read this gospel several times, and as a Christian, I am appalled that such a fallacy is left to mislead others. Christ is, and always will be, the center of ANY Christian document. Since I cannot seem to do anything about it, would an administrator mind deleting that terribly deceptive line? As the gospel itself states, "Ignorance is the mother of all evil," let us not engender such error. -- A. Bays, 14:13, 25 June 2005

The quotes that have been edited in make the point clearly. The text should be additionally edited to reflect a plain, accurate reading of Philip rather than "refuting" inaccuracies in other sections. In other words, edit, don't debate obvious points of fact. --Wetman 20:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


There's no discussion on this page regarding dating this gospel 03:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC) i agree that jesus might have married to mary magdalene.....actually its not a misleaded one....why it cant be....we shud use our brain that he is jus a mortal and ofcourse a very very good human being ,he taught love,patience to humans and never intend to establish a religion. he was jus against the philosophy of rabbis who were treating ppl like a slave.and last a human born in this earth cannot and never posses any kind of cannot prove me false and me either.

That's because they were married and not just dating. 43hellokitty21 (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


In "The da Vinci Code" Dan Brown (or one the characters of the book) claims that the Aramean word for "companion" (the one used in the Gospel of Philip) always means a marital companion. Since tens of millions of people have read the book, it would be a good thing if someone who actually knew Aramean could comment on this. -Samulili 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Aramaic, but what I have read on the subject confirms that "companion" is not usually a sexual term. Anyway, the Gospel of Philip was written in Coptic, so Aramaic has nothing to do with it. DanCrowter 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be errors in the translation of the passage:

"And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] more than [...] the disciples, [...] kiss her [...] on her [...]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

The original document was not complete, apparently, some words were faded, missing, or otherwise indeciperable. One source[1] indicates that it was not the disciples who questioned Jesus, but, instead other women. The translation reads:

59. The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels. (Ph 40) And the Consort of the [Christ] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth].¹ The other [women] saw his love for Mariam,² they say to him: Why do thou love [her] more than all of us? || The Savior° replied,² he says to them: Why do I not love you as (I do) her? (¹Prov 24:26, S-of-S 1:2, Ph 35 36 40; ²asyndeton; Th 61b; interlinear)

Not really a reference to Gospel of Thomas[edit]

The following was apparently inserted by someone who had never glanced at the Gospel of Thomas, which is a list of 113 (114) sayings: "In the case of the Gospel of Philip, the sayings are presented more purely than in the Gospel of Thomas, since they have no framing text, the gospel is literally one saying followed by another." --Wetman 09:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


"That passage is also interesting for its suggestion that Jesus had a sister."

Why is this particularly interesting? Matthew 13:56 says that Jesus had sisters. -- 13:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


The intro text says:

In a similar manner to the Gospel of Thomas, it is a sayings gospel, a collection of wise sayings, purportedly of Jesus.

Pardon - but my litterary gut feeling says they're pretty dissimilar - GospAcc2Thom are single sayings logia, where Jesus, and his discourse partners have a dialogue: "The disciples asked: Uiop? Then Jesus answered: hasdqwerty!" , kind of... GospAcc2Phil are very very symbolic wisdoms (never to be interpreted literally) in a text not building on dialogues, and they constitute longer sequences of some kind of "philosophical proofs". Rursus 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong Rursus! Rursus 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm most certainly RIGHT! Rursus 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your right, that information in the article is inaccurate as far as I can make out & should be removed. Fennessy 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I don't know how reliable is to quote a protestant as a reference that the book was written in the third century. The book could very well being written in the first one. Stratogustav (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On The Fence[edit]

I am on the fence on the possibility of Jesus' marriage in The Gospel of Philip. In the first lines

"As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?""

there does seem to be the possibility in these lines, however, it is difficult to tell with the missing phrases. At first thought reading the lines that followed

The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

At first I thought this could be a marriage passage illuding to a couple who help each other with different strengths when one has understanding and the other doesn't. However, I think I would compare this to the Gospel of Mary where Mary has understanding that the other disciples don't. The analogy is thus; the other disciples are all blind but Mary can see when she is in the light which is Jesus.

Still there is the emphasis of Mary being Jesus' campanion which apparently doesn't necessarily mean consort but one wonders to what purpose this is repeated. Paremata 5:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Use of "Christian Church"[edit]

While I am inexperienced at contributing to Wikipedia and therefore a little bit hesitant about jumping in and making an edit in regards to (what I consider to be) a fairly contentious wording issue, I felt that I should nevertheless express my concern with the article's claim that Philip "is not accepted as canonical by the Christian church",

Since the term "Christian Church" refers to "the whole group of people belonging to the Christian religious tradition throughout history", in order for this claim to be true, every single Christian denomination in the history of Christianity would have to have considered Philip to be heretical. Needless to say, if this were true, then how is it that we have a copy of Philip today? Clearly the original owner of the Nag Hammadi Codices felt some connection to the text, and since it was translated from Greek to Coptic and managed to work its way from one of the major hubs of Christianity all the way to a cave in the middle of Egypt, it stands to reason that there were some people who felt that the text was authoritative.

Given the likelihood that at least one of the people involved in the arduous task of copying, translating, and spreading the Gospel felt it to be sacred truth, in order for the claim that "every single member of the Christian religious tradition throughout history considers the Gospel of Philip to be non-canonical" to be true, the statement "those who believe that the Gospel of Philip is canonical are not members of the Christian religious tradition". This is of course a textbook example of circular reasoning.

With all that being said, I understand the dilemma faced by the author of the passage, since I am not quite certain what the ideal way to phrase this statement is. Perhaps instead of saying that Philip "is not accepted as canonical by the Christian church", it could say that it is not canonical according to the extent Christian church, or post-Nicene Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowblinded (talkcontribs) 05:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gospel of Philip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)