MetaCatholic

Well, to be more precise I should say “non-scriptural is not necessarily unbiblical.” I’m prompted to that statement by a post on Michael Halcomb’s blog Pisteuomen. He takes exception to the common repetition of the tradition that Jesus was born in a cave. (The ellipses show some significant omissions, but don’t affect the argument)

Take for instance, the claim that so many commentators and preachers have made through the ages, that Jesus was born in a cave. Well, if we do our homework, we find out that this idea began about 90 years after Jesus’ death.
…
What we see happening here is simply the handing down of faulty information. … The world doubts Christians and their story enough, not having our facts straight only makes it worse. We must share our story carefully, accurately and truthfully. …  may you strive to get the story straight and not fall into the pit of placing Christmas traditions over Scriptural truths.

One of the interesting things about this story of Jesus being born in a cave is that it ignores both the canonical gospel birth narratives. The Protoevangelium of James, (18) which is one of the two earliest sources for this tradition, shows clear knowledge of both Matthew and Luke, and harmonises them extensively into a single narrative, yet nonetheless goes its own way on this point. The other early source is Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (78). Justin also seems to know Matthew and Luke, but it is not at all clear that he knows the Protoevangelium, and indeed he may be writing before its composition, since the dating of either is not certain. In fact the two versions are somewhat incompatible, and this incompatibility may suggest independence. Justin has Joseph and Mary going out to the cave after finding no room in Bethlehem; the Protoevangelium has Joseph leaving Mary at the cave and going to Bethlehem for a midwife. It is, broadly, Justin’s version that has entered the tradition, not least because it is more easily harmonised with (what became) the canonical gospels.

I had a bit of rant yesterday about Ben Witherington harmonising Matthew and Luke, and forgot to say that his sermon, despite my dislike of its argumentation, made a good and helpful point. (That’s the trouble with rants.) But, as in different ways both the Protoevangelium and Justin show, harmonising the Christmas story has been going on almost as long as there have been two (or more) different accounts. What is interesting is that these two (probably no later than mid-)second century sources may independently attest to an early tradition of Jesus’ birth in a cave. (I am unconvinced by Halcomb’s dating.) That means that as well as the alternatives proffered by Matthew (Joseph’s home) and Luke (an unspecified residence, presumably of a relative), there is a third option of a cave near the town. The harmonising tradition has often taken hold of this, and woven it in, usually imagining a cave behind the inn, that served as its stable. What should be underlined is that it must have already been a significant tradition to have survived the increasing weight and authority given to Matthew and Luke as apostolic writings.

Despite what Michael Halcomb says, one of the few things you can’t do with the canonical birth narratives is “get the facts straight.” You can only interpret the narratives. As an isolated nugget of tradition, there is nothing inherently implausible about either a home incorporating a cave, built butting against a cliff, nor indeed (if that be your preference) an inn using one as a stable. The problem comes from two factually incompatible canonical accounts, and a non-canonical tradition of a cave birth which, at least in Justin’s version, is technically compatible with either Matthew or Luke, though he makes it compatible with a harmony of both.

There are some grounds, at least, for seeing the tradition of the cave birth as a separate, and independent, early tradition alongside the canonical narratives. The fact that it can be harmonised with them as easily, even more easily, than they can be harmonised with each other no doubt is the main explanation for its long survival in non-canonical tradition. It is not of itself unbiblical, in that it does not contradict either account, nor betray any doctrinal biases which might work against the mainstream of what becomes Catholic and biblical orthodoxy. It is, however, non-biblical, in the sense of not being in the Bible, along with other traditions in the Protoevangelium of James, such as the names of Mary’s parents. That has not stopped Christians (including Anglicans) commemorating Anna and Joachim. Nor has it stopped many Christians maintaining the tradition of a manger in a cave.

Non-biblical is not the same as unbiblical. Anyone who wants to protest at the cave tradition in order to maintain the integrity of the canonical narratives, will need first to make up their mind which narrative to maintain. If you can’t have a cave, then you must also choose between shepherds versus Magi, or a journey to Bethlehem versus a flight into Egypt. Or you can expound both narratives with integrity, still delight in an overarching Christmas narrative, adore the Christ-child through a typical crib scene, and bring the whole into a creative interaction.

written by doug

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.

written by doug