The New Testament Apocrypha section of my main site tonychartrand-burke.com has been updated–specifically, the Internet Resources section has been expanded to include more sites and features better descriptions of the sites' content. If you know of a worthy site that is not in the list, please pass the informaiton along. 

As visitors to my main web site know, my principle area of study is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT). So it was with some excitement that I heard of J.K. Elliott’s A Synopsis of Apocryphal Nativity and Infancy Narratives (New Testament Tools and Studies 34; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006). Even today, relatively little attention has been paid to IGT, so any new work on the text is appreciated. And the synopsis promised to be a helpful tool. I ordered the book immediately (despite the high price: $159 US) and eagerly awaited its delivery.

Unfortunately, the book does not meet my expectations. In brief: the selection of texts is limited, the synopsis is awkward, and the scholarship is not always up-to-date. This is not the kind of quality I expected from Elliott, who is well-known for his books The Apocryphal New Testament and Art and the Christian Apocrypha (with David Cartlidge), and frequently contributes to the SBL Apocrypha section.

The texts featured in the synopsis include the “usual suspects” – Protoevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Pseudo-Matthew, M.R. James’ Latin Infancy Gospel (Arundel 404), Birth of Mary, and Arabic Infancy Gospel. Included also are History of Joseph the Carpenter, the fragmentary Pap. Cairensis 10735, and the Irish texts Leabhar Breac and Liber Flavus  Fergusiorum. Elliott lists several other texts that could have been included—(e.g., Armenian Infancy Gospel and the Syriac Life of Mary) – but does not explain why he neglects them (p. xix). He primarily draws upon published English translations, many of them rather old—e.g., he uses older translations of the Irish material and the Arundel gospel despite the recent publication of new translations in McNamara’s volume for CCSA. To be fair, this decision may be based more on publisher’s proprietary interests than scholarly usefulness.

The synopsis is presented vertically, with each parallel printed after the next, rather than horizontally. The reason given is because “in many cases there are too many texts to have made parallel vertical columns practicable” (p. x). Nevertheless, the vertical layout reduces the synopsis’ utility. At times the Arundel and Irish texts are represented only by citations, presumably because the material is little different from the excerpts printed from the earlier texts. The stories appear in chronological order (running form the conception of Mary to Jesus at the age of 12) and include the tales from the canonical infancy narratives. On one occasion Elliott breaks from pattern to include a parallel from the Koran (Jesus animates the birds from Surah 3:49). While it is valuable for readers to observe this parallel, it makes one wonder why other parallels are not included—for example, the allusion to the same story in the Gospel of Bartholomew 2:11. Another peculiarity in the synopsis is the decision to print the three teacher stories from IGT 6, 14 and 15 one after the other, suggesting that Elliott believes them to be variants of the same story rather than tales with their own particular themes and concerns.

The synopsis is preceded with a brief discussion of the texts and select bibliographies. The IGT bibliography has some striking omissions: it neglects work on some important Syriac witnesses (Vat. syr. 159 discussed by P. Peeters in 1914, and Göttingen Syr. 10 published by W. Baars and J. Heldermann in 1993/1994), T. Rosén’s 1997 critical edition of the Slavonic  text, and my own 2001 Ph. D. dissertation on the Greek tradition (and Elliott is certainly aware of it). For his text of IGT Elliott relies on the translations he made of Tischendorf’s old and inadequate texts (Greek A, Greek B, and the prologue to the Latin version). The least Elliott could have done was to translate A. Delatte’s Greek D text, the source of Tischendorf’s Latin version. In addition, Elliott makes some erroneous remarks about the IGT material: referring to Ps. Matt. 26-42, a section added to late manuscripts of Ps. Matt. from an early Latin translation of IGT, he says “These chapters are what Tischendorf called the Pars Altera. They are found in later forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas” (p. 132 n. 1); and he states that the story of Jesus sowing a field (IGT 12) is not found in all manuscripts of the text when, in fact, it is. The synopsis fails to include also the story of Jesus Rides a Sunbeam which is found in several infancy gospel witnesses, including the Ethiopic version of IGT and some manuscripts of Ps. Matt.

Other texts in the Synopsis also rely on out-dated text-critical work: the translations of History of Joseph the Carpenter and Arabic Infancy Gospel are from 1870 and work on these texts by contributors to the Pléiade volumes appears neglected.

To its credit, Elliott’s synopsis presents the infancy stories in a nice, tidy volume and should bring attention to the little-known Irish traditions. It is unfortunate, however, that the book is not the tool that it could be and it will be some time before another attempt is made at such a project.

Why should Jesus be the subject of all the movies? Director Abel Ferrara has done for Mary what Denys Arcand did for Jesus in Jesus of Montreal in his film-within-a-film about Mary Magdalene. The Toronto Film Festival synopsis describes the film as:

"A sharply observed rejoinder to those who cynically exploit faith in God for money, power and fame, Mary finds Abel Ferrara on familiar and fruitful turf. Although unspoken and oblique in the film, the controversy around Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ has clearly irked the infamous director and the impressive cast surrounding him on this project. The result is a spare, angry work of cinema that forces us into difficult thinking about the thorny role of Christianity in mass media. It is easily Ferrara's best film since Bad Lieutenant, amplifying its complex conception of faith in exciting new ways."

Trailers for the film are available here and here.

What is interesting for our purposes is the film’s apparent use of the Gospel of Mary. According to Matt Page of the Bible Films Blog, the film’s protagonist Marie Palese (played by Juliette Binoche) is “an actress who is inspired by her role playing Mary Magdalene in a Jesus movie and so heads to Jerusalem in search of spiritual enlightenment.” Not much of this film-within-a-film is shown but Page offers this tantalizing comment:

"At best, only five scenes from the movie are included – and two of these may simply be in Marie Palese's, mind. Of the other three, two are taken solely from the non-canonical, Gospel of Mary. Thus, the only scene from the film that definitely is taken from the gospels is that of Jesus washing the disciples' feet. And the sound accompanying this clip is not even from Childress's fictional movie, but from an academic explaining how this act demonstrated Jesus's message of love."

Can anyone tell us more about the film? What scenes are taken from the Gospel of Mary?

The Catholic News Service has posted a review (with a detailed synopsis) of The Nativity Story. It is striking that, despite the many changes made here to the canonical versions of the story (including a number of references that foreshadow events in Jesus’ adult life), the author of the review still feels it is “faithful to scripture.” In his own words:

“Though the New Testament is sparse on details about Mary and Joseph, the thoughtful screenplay of Mike Rich, a practicing Christian, manages to flesh them out while remaining faithful to Scripture, beautifully suggesting the humanity beneath the halos.”

Like The Passion of the Christ, The Nativity Story appears to be an excellent example of modern Christian Apocrypha—i.e., like the ancient CA, these films take well-known traditions, add other material (other early traditions, their own inventions and interpretations) and shake. To the reviewer (and likely many viewers) the result is a version of the tale that seems appropriate (and viewers of The Passion felt the same, despite scholars’ assertions that it was more than a simple harmony of the canonical gospels).

Perhaps we can learn something from this. Maybe writers of the early CA operated like these filmmakers (naively believing they were telling the story appropriately, and not intentionally manipulating the texts as CA critics claim) and their audiences received their works in the same way as modern pious Christian filmgoers.

As I write this some of our colleagues are enjoying themselves in Washington for the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Why am I not with them? I have skipped the SBL for several years now under the pretense that I want to devote my energies to my book. Usually that means I miss SBL and continue to avoid the book but this year I am actually busy at work.

For those who cannot attend SBL but are curious about the papers being presented this year, I offer the following list:

November 18 (morning): Apostle as Conveyor of Authority

Edward Dixon, Yale Divinity School: “A Hope for Status Inversion in the Acts of Thomas”

Simon S. Lee, Harvard University: “Peter and the Transfiguration Event in 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter”

Catherine Playoust, Harvard University: “James and Peter in the Apocryphon of James”

Glenn E. Snyder, Harvard University: “Third Corinthians: An Orthodox Production of Scripture”

November 18, 2006 (afternoon): Mary Magdalene and Apostolic Authority  

Judith Hartenstein, Philipps Universität, Marburg: “Mary Magdalene the Apostle: A Re-interpretation of Literary Traditions?”

Jane D. Schaberg, University of Detroit Mercy: “Magdalene Christianity: A Collection of Fragments, or an Actual Reality in Early Communities?”

Esther A. de Boer, Theological University of Kampen, the Netherlands: “‘Surely, He Has Not Spoken to a Woman’”Responses from Elaine Pagels, Christopher Matthews, Philip Sellew, and Ann Graham Brock.

November 20, 2006: Open Session

Janet Elizabeth Spittler, University of Chicago: “Tuna Redivivus: Dried Fish Returned to life in Herodotus, the Alexander Romance and the Acts of Peter”

Nicholas Perrin, Wheaton College: “The Thomasine Community and a Case of Double Identity”

Matthew Burgess, Yale Divinity School: “‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ James ‘the Lord’s brother’ as a Source of Authority in Early Christianity”

Jeremy W. Barrier, Texas Christian University: “Tertullian and the Acts of Thecla or Paul? Readership of the Ancient Christian Novel and the Invocation of Thecline and Pauline Authority”

Mariko Yakiyama, Claremont Graduate University: “The Christian Ideal of Marriage in the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew and the Writings of Clement of Alexandria”

Also of interest:

November 19: Pseudepigrapha~The Pitfalls of Categorization: A Panel Discussion of James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?

Pierluigi Piovanelli, University of Ottawa: “In Praise of ‘The Default Position,’ or Reassessing the Christian Reception of the Jewish Pseudepigraphic Heritage

Chad Day, University of North Carolina, Charlotte: “‘The Way Forward’ or Two Steps Back? Assessing Davila’s ‘The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha’”

Magnar Kartveit, School of Mission & Theology, Misjonshogskolen i Stavanger, Norway: “The Jewish source in the Ascension of Isaiah”

John C. Reeves, University of North Carolina, Charlotte: ‘“A Demonstrably Jewish Text’? Reconsidering the Similitudes of Enoch”

And in the joint session for the Social History of Formative Christianity and Judaism Section and Archeology of Religion in the Roman World Section (November 21):

Reidar Aasgard, University of Oslo: “The First Rural Christians: Excavating the Milieu of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.”

Ans in the Synoptic Gospels Section (November 21):

Michael F. Bird, Highland Theological College: “Sectarian Gospels for Sectarian Communities?: The Non-canonical Gospels and Bauckham’s ‘Gospel for All Christians’”

Phew! I think that’s all of them. If you were able to attend any or all of these sessions and would like to offer a report, please send an e-mail to me or post a comment.

Ah, the joys and frustrations of blogging. As those of you who have been attempting to add comments to posts on Apocryphicity already know, the blog has been experiencing some technical difficulties. These problems should now be resolved.

I have been holding off on recent posts while the blog was under repair, but now I have no excuse for being so quiet. Look for new posts and updates to tonychartrand-burke.com within the next few days.

From Phil Harland's Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean Blog:

Phil S. of hyperekperisou is proposing and starting up an ongoing blog carnival on patristics (the Church Fathers) and other aspects of Christianity in the second, third, and following centuries (including the Christian Apocrypha). Go there to see his proposal, to volunteer involvement, and to make any of your suggestions.

Stephen Carlson on his blog Hypotyposeis has noted two recent printed works on the Secret Gospel of Mark. The first is a review of Carlson’s book by Bruce Chilton for the New York Sun. The second is an article from the Daily Princetonian about another book The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery, this one by Princeton music professor Peter Jeffery, supporting Carlson’s position on the text.

The Charlotte Observer interviews Bart Ehrman on his new book (released just this last week), The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed at http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/living/religion/15701139.htm.

Still sifting through the old news…

Read an article from the National Catholic Reporter called “Art Draws on Gospels the Church Rejects” at http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006c/090106/090106j.php.