The Contributions of the Christian Apocrypha to the Study of the Historical Jesus
March 6th, 2008 by 
Tony
As mentioned in my previous post, the Wedgewood Baptist Church have sent me some questions to answer regarding the Christian Apocrypha. Here is another one (and I'd be interested to see what other scholars think of the question):
Could you name two or three contributions Christian Apocrypha (CA) have made to the historical study of Jesus?
I assume that should read the “study of the historical Jesus.” If so, only a few CA texts have been used in the effort to find authentic Jesus traditions outside the canonical gospels. These are Gospel of Thomas, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Peter. The agrapha (i.e., isolated sayings, which can include the citations from the lost Jewish-Christian gospels) are also a good source, though very few of them have been considered early (mind you, that is because the investigators have ruled out some of them as authentic only because they are so different from canonical sayings; and that is a spurious argument). Of the three gospels, GT has made the greatest contribution; even conservative scholars have been forced to admit that some of its unique sayings may be authentic, though they often state that these sayings do not change the image we have of Jesus from the canonical gospels. The CA have made a contribution also in widening the available pool of evidence for the historical Jesus; once one makes the ideological leap to consider that these might have authentic Jesus traditions, then our investigations are taken to a new level. The more evidence the better, even if we end up ruling some of it out. The CA have made a huge contribution to the study of Early Christianity, but that’s another question.
|
March 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Tony,
One thing you might mention in your answer (though you may have already thought of this) is to point out that from a historian’s point of view the categorization of primary sources as “canonical Gospel” or “Christian apocrypha” is irrelevant. All ancient sources should be treated the same. The above distinction is a theological category which privileges the canonical gospels as scripture for Christians and the development of Christian theology.
On a related matter, you might want to see my recent essay which uses the Egerton Gospel for historical Jesus purposes: Webb, Robert L. “Jesus Heals a Leper: Mark 1:40-45 and Egerton Gospel 35-47.” JSHJ 4.2 (2006): 177-202.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I think, as Bob mentioned, academics should not be concerned about the orthodoxy of any text; rather, they should judge texts based on authenticity. I am intrigued as to what kind of methods are used to sift the unauthentic texts from the authentic ones. This course has been very fascinating specially because a lot of this information is being rediscovered. It is almost as we are gaining new insights into early Christianity. I am anxiously awaiting the book “How Jesus became Christian”.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Howdy,
A solid read is Alfred Nolan’s “Jesus before Christianity,” which my Grade 10 Religion lent me for fun.
Often times in these discourses people get separated into the scholar camp and the orthodox Christian camp, but I’ve always found it fascinating how the group in between (believers in Christ who understand the historical context) incorporates these discussions into their faith.
Cheers,
Joshua
March 31st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Oh, if we’re plugging Egerton essays, can I play too? :^) I’ve been riding this particular hobby horse for some years now. For instance, I think John 3:14+12:34 was originally part of Egerton, and that Egerton as a whole is the original Gospel of John - possibly even pre-Marcan.
Yeah, I love this stuff.