MetaCatholic

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.