Chapter 6, continuing an analysis of Hebrews’ claim, examines the question ‘Was Jesus Perfect?’ or, perhaps better, ‘In what sense for Christians was Jesus perfect?’ It returns to separate discussions half a century ago by Eric Mascall and Karl Rahner, and eventually reaches a conclusion closer to Rahner than Mascall. This conclusion hinges on the, now more widely accepted, evidence within the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus mistakenly thought that the Parousia was imminent. The work of the Baptist George Raymond Beasley-Murray is seen as crucial here. Finally, this chapter identifies the Synoptic accounts of the Transfiguration, along with 2 Peter, as crucial to early perceptions of Jesus’ perfection.

The ignominious death of Jesus on the cross was the starting point of the history of Christians. It could have meant the end of the followers of Christ, especially because soon the body of Jesus also disappeared. However, the Christians succeeded in interpreting the events for themselves by speaking of the resurrection of Christ and cultivating the expectation of his return (parousia). Such ideas seem strange to modern observers, but they were apparently convincing for enough contemporaries that the followers of Christ survived. However, they were continually dependent on words, because relics were initially lacking and only memories could help spread faith in Jesus.

The cosmic eschatology of the Gospel of Mary is the subject of Chapter 4, and it primarily examines the opening dialogue between Jesus and the disciples. I argue that the cosmology of the Gospel of Mary is simpler and more christocentric than has been assumed by past exegetes. This gospel shares the common Christian belief that matter is the raw material of a cosmos shaped by God. Matter has been affected by passions, which in turn affect the individual causing sin and death. Jesus, here called ‘the Good’, has come to dissolve/restore the cosmos to its original constituent parts. The Gospel of Mary stands in contrast to the ‘traditional’ expectation of a future parousia as found in the synoptic gospels, and actively contradicts this expectation by stating that ‘the Son of Man is within’. The make-up and dissolution of the cosmos is interpreted by using ideas already present in John and Paul.

Although the Gospel of Mary is a dialogue gospel, the text’s narrative frame is just as integral to understanding the message of the gospel as the eschatological teachings in the dialogues. The narrative frame includes Jesus’ departure, Mary’s intervention, and the ensuing dispute among the disciples. This chapter explores possibilities for what was contained in the missing opening pages of the Gospel of Mary, firmly situating the text within the dialogue gospel genre. It then analyzes the Saviour’s farewell discourse, which encourages the disciples to be active participants in the Christian message of salvation. The section on Mary’s intervention focuses on her relationship with the male disciples and her relationship with Jesus, and argues that the Coptic manuscript heightens animosity between the disciples in contrast to the earlier Greek versions. Mary’s relationship to Jesus, on the other hand, is one of succession. The final part of the narrative frame sees the disciples split into two factions, with Mary and Levi on one side and Peter and Andrew on the other. It is unclear at the ending of the gospel whether the disciples are reconciled, and this is explored in light of other dialogue gospels such as the Pistis Sophia.