Uncanonical unease, once more
April DeConick has blogged a whole series of posts now on this topic, and provided her own answers to the question with which she started off. The posts in order are:
- Why do non-canonical texts make us uneasy?
- Your responses to the question, “Why do non-canonical texts make us uneasy?” (A round up of initial comments, including mine here)
- What I don’t think about non-canonical texts (picking up on some of my points among others)
- Why I think that non-canonical texts make us uneasy (Offering here own answers to the question)
- Why non-canonical texts are useful according to Tony Chartrand-Burke (whose very helpful full post can be found here)
- Judy Redman’s Thoughts on Non-canonical Unease (whose full post can be found here)
There are also some useful comments on some of those posts. Here, I’ll confine myself to some particular observations and responses.
The question of power, which I also discussed yesterday, is present throughout this discussion. I don’t think that we are in substantial disagreement about this: we both believe it is relevant, and that the orthodox exercise of power is part of the story of text selection and transmission. We also both believe that “orthodox” and “heterodox” groups exercise power, but as April DeConick says:
If you are in a powerless position - excommunicated for instance - then your text and ideas are more likely to fall out of fashion and be considered less valuable by others than not
I think, however, that we may disagree on the emphasis we place on this. For a significant part of the period when these texts were being written, no single group had a monopoly on power. I am inclined, and this may simply be because of my own theological tradition and personal experience, to give some considerable weight to the persuasiveness of the orthodox narrative and vision, which seems to me to continue to hold in tension and paradox views which others made into an either-or.
We agree, I think, that all voices need to be taken into consideration. A good historical theory is one which accounts for all (or as much as possible ) of the data that exists. I suspect I am more likely to privilege the canonical writings, alongside other writings such as the Didache, because we can be reasonably certain that they are early. Datings may vary, but usually not by more than a decade or so. It seems to me that there is a much wider range of disagreement over most of the non-canonical writings, with only Thomas having some claim to being relatively early. I think that is a historiographical decision, others could claim it is as much a theological one.
When it comes to the listing of her reasons for why these texts make us uneasy, I have to simply say that generally, none of these things does make me uneasy, and I don’t know many people who have engaged in academic study of Christian origins who would be made uneasy either. (The “pew” is another question – but the divide between church and academy means that many of the things scholars take for granted make “ordinary” Christians uneasy. I regret that, and do what I can in my church to remedy it, but it is the state of affairs we have to live with.)
In that list there are a couple of points I specifically want to interact with:
3. Many of the non-canonical texts reflect expressions of Christianity that people today do not want to practice. Who wants salvation dependent on giving up marriage and sex? This might have been attractive in the ancient world, but not so much today.
Here I suggest the non-canonical texts partly alert us to ideas that are present (sometimes in conflict) in the canonical texts, and also in the patristic interpretations of them. And partly they alert us to some of the cultural possibilities within which the debate was taking place. In other words, unease, if such there be, is created as much by opening up what is in the canonical text and orthodox tradition, as by the non-canonical text in itself.
The second point I want to note is this one:
8. When we study the non-canonical texts (and the patristic witnesses about them), we realize that so-called “heretics” like the Ebionites were far more similar to the very first Christians than Irenaeus was. If one’s Christianity is based on understanding oneself as emulating the first Christians, this is a problem.
I think that contemporary Christianity very rarely takes account of how sometimes a “heresy” was actually a conservative movement. The Ebionites are one example, the Arians are another. Both could and did find scriptural support for their positions, and in the case of Arius at least, it was easier to find scriptural support in terms of proof-texts than it was for the orthodox. It is why, in my view, emulating the first Christians is, and always has been, a non-starter. “Heresy” is sometimes about giving yesterday’s answers to today’s questions.
That probably leads into my final observation. In her third post, April DeConick notes:
6. As for whether or not the non-canonical materials provide us with alternative ways to interpret Christ - this is a contemporary theological concern, not a historical one of mine. A person’s desire to deny the possibility of alternative interpretations seems to me to reflect his or her desire to maintain the status quo of the Christian tradition today. This is an issue of self-preservation, not history. Do the non-canonical texts provide alternative interpretations of Christ? Certainly. But whether or not a person finds those meaningful today, is a theological question controlled as much by church leaders as it is by the flock
It seems to me, however much I value historical scholarship, that it is never divorced from the concerns, reconstructions, arguments and possibilities of the present. Nor unlike some, would I collapse it into those concerns. (See my post here) Being open to the way in which one’s scholarship will be used, is itself an important question. I think it slightly disingenuous in a historically gullible, controversy and novelty seeking, media-led culture to suggest that the question of “alternative interpretations of Christ” is controlled either by church leaders, or their flock.
It is the use, not the study, of these texts, as I have said before, which causes me unease. But I don’t think that those who study them can, or should, do so, without due consideration for how they can be used, and be sure that they are being entirely clear about what they are, and are not saying. It is because of that, that I particularly welcome the clarity and helpfulness of this series of posts.