MetaCatholic

A pointer to some of the more bizarre or humourous things being posted.

• First, thanks to Iyov for calling attention to how to combine God and mathematics in High School. The rest of the curriculum frames every subject in similar terms, but on their Bible, I particularly liked ninth grade Bible “The student will focus on the application of life skills found in the Old Testament.” Sadly they didn’t say which. I’m presuming “How to kill someone with a tent peg” doesn’t actually feature.
• Joel Garver has uncovered the world of Harry Potter rock. HP fan though I be, I can’t get my head round the idea of this one.
• Darren Hewer on Why Faith? has found a wonderful publicity shot for Christopher Hitchens’ recent diatribe against God.
• James McGrath on Exploring our Matrix, has discovered the Unicorn Museum.

So smile

Over on Apocryphicity Tony Chartrand-Burke has two excellent posts listing his top ten faulty arguments in anti-apocrypha apologetics: Arguments 1-5 and Arguments 6-10. I think all his points are well made, but the one that caught my eye was his seventh:

7. Neglect of the “orthodox apocrypha.” The apologists focus their energy primarily on the gospels that are in the public eye—such as, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Judas. Rarely are the “orthodox apocrypha”—i.e., non-Gnostic apocryphal texts such as the infancy gospels, the Pilate cycle, and Marian apocrypha—discussed, but when they are they are mischaracterized as Gnostic (as if all rejected literature must have been Gnostic; see Komoszewski et al, Reinventing Jesus, p. 154). The problem with this is that all apocryphal literature thus appears to be written by Gnostics who, as noted previously, are trying to supplant canonical texts with their own bizarre takes on Jesus’ role and teachings. However, the orthodox apocrypha are so named because their views of Jesus, his family, and the apostles are not so different from the canonical texts and quite self-consciously attempt to supplement, not replace, the canonical texts. It is a shame to see this literature neglected, particularly since, unlikely the Gnostic texts, have enjoyed a long history of transmission and have influenced both eastern and western culture.

The lesson I would draw from this is slightly different. A number of those promoting apocrypha study seem sometimes to talk more than they should in terms of power. The apocryphal texts, by which they mean primarily the unorthodox ones, were suppressed as the catholic Christians gained power. In more popular thinking this then becomes the basis of conspiracy theories to suppress “real” Christianity ion favour of it catholic corruption. However, neither the more academic nor more popular theories take sufficient account of why certain orthodox books failed to gain acceptance within the emerging canon of catholic Christianity. Examples can be drawn not simply from orthodox apocrypha, but from early patristic writings.

I suggest that explaining canonical formation simply in terms of power, and competing streams of Christianity is an oversimplification of what happened, and the existence of orthodox books on the margin of the canon, as well as orthodox apocrypha, need to be taken as much into account by the historian specializing in early Christian diversity, as the unorthodox writings do by those who would simply draw a straight and uncomplicated line from Paul to Nicea.

In compiling a book list for the Synoptic problem, I wanted some books that helped the student think things through by looking at texts. The two best examples of this I know are Mark Goodacre’s Way through the Maze and the relevant sections of Sanders and Davies’ Studying the Synoptic Gospels. The problem, in book list terms, is that both of these excellent introductions argue for a version of the Farrer theory. To some extent that guides the selection of the passages they discuss, and certainly affects the way they lead the student through the problem.

I don’t know of a relatively recent book that argues the case for the Two Source Hypothesis by the same detailed examination of texts set out synoptically. So I emailed the godfather of bibiloblogs himself, thinking that if anyone was going to know which books competed with his, Mark would. But no, he doesn’t know of any either. If you do, can I ask you to leave a comment!

This leaves us with the bizarre situation that the student has a ton of available introductions to the New Testament, all of which assure them of the dominance of the Two Source Hypothesis, as a secure foundation on which they can base their study of the Synoptics, and deal with it in a paragraph or three. But when the student who wants to think it through for themselves goes looking for a book that will guide them through the evidence, the texts available tell them that the evidence does not support this secure consensus, but in fact points to a different solution.

It is, to say the least, something of an oddity, and not a very constructive one, when available guided examinations of the evidence have a solution at odds with what the student is taught by their professors is the unshakeable foundation of their studies. So where’s the textbook that will advocate it by guiding the student through detailed examination of the texts, instead of simply adhering to it as a mantra?