While we're on the topic of technology and manuscripts, take a look at this video currently making the rounds on the internet (sorry, I don't know how to embed the video in this post). It is a skit from a Norwegian TV show.

1. All non-canonical texts are Gnostic. Since when was the Gospel of Peter a Gnostic text? What about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Such identifications belong in scholarship of the nineteenth-century (when we knew less about Gnosticism) not the twenty-first century. Either the modern apologists know nothing of recent scholarship on the texts (which is likely) or they intentionally call all non-canonical texts Gnostic in order to heap scorn upon them (which is also likely)—i.e., Gnosticism is bad, all non-canonical texts are Gnostic; therefore, all non-canonical texts are bad.

2. Canonical texts are early compositions and non-canonical texts are late. The late dating of non-canonical texts is due to two factors: because Gnosticism is a late second-century phenomenon, and because the physical evidence for Gnostic texts is no earlier than the mid to late second century. These arguments tend to swirl around the dating of the Gospel of Thomas, so I will respond specifically to arguments about that text. First, even if we grant that full-blown Gnostic Christianity is a late second century phenomenon (well, mid-second century really if we include Valentinus and Marcion), it is not entirely secure that Thomas and a few other “Gnostic” texts are truly Gnostic. Thomas, for one, seems to have been Gnosticized somewhat between the time of its origins (reflected better in the Greek fragments) and the version found at Nag Hammadi. If anything, Thomas is “proto-Gnostic” which could fit into the milieu of at least the pastoral epistles and the Johannine epistles, texts that criticize groups who have Gnostic features (liberal scholars would date these two sets of texts to the late first/early second century while conservatives would date them to the mid-first century which, by their own admission, would make “proto-Gnosticism” very early indeed). As for the second argument, the physical evidence for non-canonical texts is just as good as, if not better than, canonical texts—i.e., there is very little evidence (canonical or non-canonical) that dates before the mid-second century. The conservative writers would never say that Mark is late second-century based on the earliest manuscript (P45 dated ca. 175), so why do they do that for Thomas?

3. The Non-canonical gospels are not “gospels.” The argument goes that the NT gospels are biographies whereas the non-canonical gospels are, for the most part, sayings collections or dialogues (a few exceptions are sometimes noted—e.g., Gospel of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Thomas—but are not allowed to affect the argument); therefore, the non-canonical gospels are not truly “gospels.” Yet it is not clear that “gospel” was used in antiquity to designate a genre of literature; even today the term connotes more the message of a text than its form. Also, evidence indicates that the NT gospels and at least some of the early non-canonical texts did not originally bear titles (e.g., the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is more accurately called “The Childhood of Jesus”; the Infancy Gospel of James was probably originally “The Birth of Mary”). Even if the full range of the texts were originally termed “gospels,” to identify a genre of literature by selecting four similar texts from the group is like taking knock-knock jokes and declaring all other forms of jokes not jokes at all.

4. The writers and readers of non-canonical texts were hostile to the canonical texts. The conservative writers want to make Gnostics out to be villains opposing orthodoxy and thus the non-canonical texts are said to be written in order to replace or refute the established canonical texts. But the non-canonical writers often acknowledge their debt to earlier writers and expect their readers to be knowledgeable about these texts. The CA writers have a particular interpretation of the canonical texts which they employ but rarely do they seek to refute or replace them. The conservative writers seem to have trouble thinking that anyone could possibly read Gnostic ideas into or out of canonical texts, but that is precisely what they did—e.g., docetists saw their christology reflected in Mark and John, the Treatise on the Resurrection cites Paul’s letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, etc.

5. Extant versions of non-canonical texts are identical to their autographs. To be fair, many liberal scholars are guilty of this same error. They neglect to take into consideration that non-canonical texts change considerably over time, with stories embroidered, added, and removed depending on the copyist’s sensibilities. One must be very careful, therefore, to argue for a particular writer’s viewpoints by using a form of the text based on much later manuscripts.

(more to come…) 

My introduction to the Christian Apocrypha, as for many people, came in undergraduate Bible classes. I was raised as a Catholic (albeit with a small “c”) and was surprised to learn of the existence of this literature; I felt I had been misled or intentionally misinformed by the church. This was also a time in my life when I was intensely interested in journalism and its attendant passion for intellectual freedoms. The church’s obfuscation of the CA seemed to me yet another example of censorship. As my interest in journalism waned and my interest in biblical studies waxed, I turned my attention to learning more about the CA and, eventually, to bring awareness to it.

Now a seasoned (well, lightly-seasoned) professor, I have left my initial bitterness about the church (and my faith in toto) behind. I remain interested in the literature, but only as a window into the variety of Christian thought and literary expression in antiquity. I believe the CA are essential for understanding the development and growth of Christianity, including how Christian thought has penetrated into the arts (e.g., the influence of the Apocalypse of Peter on Dante and Milton).

My approach to the CA in my research and teaching is guided by several principles:

• All Christian literature, canonical and noncanonical, are created equal—i.e., they are all expressions of Christian thought of one flavour or another. Whether the group that values the text is in the majority or the minority at any given time is irrelevant.
• All Christian literature, canonical and noncanonical, and all Christian groups, orthodox or heretical, are similarly equal. As scholars and historians we should not favor one or the other simply because we find their theology, practices, etc. attractive to us.
• All Christian literature, canonical and noncanonical, are the products of authors who felt no hesitation in altering the facts (or better: their sources) to suit their needs (be they theological, christological, social, or political). A text’s canonical status is no guarantee of historical accuracy.
• All that said, Christian texts do not have the same utility. The Synoptic Gospels and the letters of Paul remain our best sources for the Historical Jesus and the emerging Jesus movement. Simply put, they are earlier and closer in perspective to the Palestinian Jewish milieu from which the group emerged. Certain later texts may contain echoes of the interests of first century groups (e.g., Ps.-Clement and the Ebionites) but one must use these with caution when trying to reconstruct the views of their ancestors.

I suspect these principles are not particularly radical. Nevertheless, they might be a useful corrective to the portrayal of CA scholars by Christian apologetic writers. In their view we are all modern Gnostics attempting to replace canonical gospels with noncanonical texts, texts that we all believe to be earlier and better than the “Big Four.” Some even say we are influenced by the “powers of darkness.” The apologists may find such invective useful for warning naïve Christians away from the CA, but it has no place in scholarly debate.

Broadwayworld.com reports that an Off-Broadway play called The Busy World is Hushed is moving to Los Angeles. In the course of the article we discover that the play involves some intrigue over a “long-lost gospel.” From the synopsis:

With wisdom, humor and insight, The Busy World is Hushed examines the contradictions we find in our faith, our families and ourselves. Hannah, a widowed Episcopal minister, is hoping to translate a long-lost gospel when she is challenged by both her scholarly assistant and her wayward gay son. But when family secrets are revealed, only the intercession of a stranger can help Hannah find peace.

What’s next? A novel tying Leonardo Da Vinci to the Gnostic Gospels? Nah, no-one would go for that.

Scripta de Divinis is a new blog by Tim Brookins, an M. Div. student and Latin teacher from North Carolina, devoted in part to the Christian Apocrypha.

The Green Bay Press Gazette has an article reviewing recent books on the Gospel of Judas.

Novelist Jeffrey Archer is writing a book inspired by the Gospel of Judas. Read an article on it from the Times On-line. Read an AP article here.

Jim Davila at Paleojudaica excerpts a Los Angeles Times article on the gospel (you must register at the LA Times to read the entire text).

Vision reports on a lecture on The Gospel of Judas delivered by Marvin Meyer.

Apocryphicity has been on hiatus over the holidays. It's time now to catch up on a variety of material on the CA posted on the internet over the past few weeks.

For those of you who missed the CNN documentary After Jesus: The First Christians can read the transcript available on-line. See also Stephen Carlson’s critique on his blog Hypotyposeis.

A pre-Christmas article from USA Weekend inspired by the film The Nativity Story discusses the various portrayals of Joseph in canonical and non-canonical gospels. You can read Mark Goodacre’s review of the film at the SBL Forum.

Jim Davila at Paleojudaica excerpts a report linking singer Kylie Minogue and Juliette Binoche with a play called “Gnosis” which is reportedly “loosely inspired by the same apocrypha as The Da Vinci Code.”

The Times Online presents a discussion of the apocryphal texts covered in Channel 4’s Christmas Documentary “The Secret Family of Jesus.” Jim Davila discusses the article at Paleojudaica.

The US News and World Report recently published an extensive article on the CA titled: “The Gospel Truth: Why some old books are stirring up a new debate about the meaning of Jesus.” You can read it here. The article offers nothing new on the subject but it works well at balancing views held by the liberal scholars (e.g., Pagels, Robinson, and Meyer) and their conservative critics (e.g., Wright, Johnson, and Jenkins).

Did anyone in the UK catch the program The Lost Gospels aired on BBC4 December 4? I have been trying in vain to find official information on the show but have only managed to find blog entries. Read one here criticizing the show.

UPDATE: Jason Shim passed on this link with additional reviews of the show. It will be re-broadcast December 20 at 8pm.

Phil S., administrator of the hyperekperisou blog has posted his “Patristics Carnival”—essentially a summary of recent blog entries relating to Patristics. Apocryphicity is mentioned as is Jim Davilla’s excellent Paleojudaica blog.