MetaCatholic

April DeConick asks “Why do non-canonical texts make us so uneasy?” I’m not entirely sure that they do, at least as a generalization. But let me offer a few comments on the way to an answer. First, what does not make me uneasy:

• The existence of non-canonical texts does not make me uneasy. Their existence is a simple historical fact.
• The existence of diverse forms of tradition that call themselves Christian, and generate scriptures, and compete with one another, does not make me uneasy.
• That groups later judged, or were judging themselves and others “orthodox” and “unorthodox” does not make me uneasy. The process begins among those identifying as “Christian” at least as early, I think, as the Johannine letters, and continues from them on. (I don’t think Paul is quite doing this)
• The idea that the exercise of power, as well as reasoning and theological argument, is involved in the marginalizing of certain texts and groups does not make me uneasy.

Then, what does make me uneasy:

• The implicit suggestion by some that any text that once was lost, but now is found is a reliable testimony to the truth of Jesus, rather than to some later aspects of the movement(s) that grew up as a consequence of Jesus.
• The implicit suggestion by some that being “lost” automatically means being suppressed, rather than falling out of fashion, or becoming less valued.
• The implicit suggestion by some that “power” was only exercised by the so-called orthodox, the winners of history, and not by other groups.
• The implicit suggestion by some that “orthodoxy” was somehow monochrome, whereas alternative Christian groups were diverse, and that orthodoxy represents a narrowing of vision, but not a deepening.
• The implicit suggestion by some that every interpretation of the Christ event is equally valid, equally true to its historical roots, and equally authentic as a vision of human flourishing.
• The implicit suggestion by some (and in some places – step forward Mr Dan Brown – the outright argument) that catholic Christianity represents a departure from the real historical truth which is really contained in these non-canonical gospels and other literature from the second and third century..

I don’t think any of that is unreasonable, unscholarly, or obscurantist. Nor do I think that any of that amounts to study of the texts making me uneasy. It is the use of the texts by some, though by no means all (nor even a majority). that makes me – well, not so much uneasy, as just plain irritated.