Comments on: Top Ten Faulty Arguments in anti-Apocrypha Apologetics (Part 1)

By: Excluding Apocrypha: it’s not just about power » Metacatholic

Excluding Apocrypha: it’s not just about power » Metacatholic — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:04:07 +0000

[...] Over on Apocryphicity Tony 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 â€œorthodox apocrypha.â€ The apologists focus their energy primarily on the gospels that are in the public eyeâ€”such as, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Judas. Rarely are the â€œorthodox apocryphaâ€â€”i.e., non-Gnostic apocryphal texts such as the infancy gospels, the Pilate cycle, and Marian apocryphaâ€”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 Jesusâ€™ 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. [...]

By: Sophia Sadek

Sophia Sadek — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:29:27 +0000

Great posting, thanks!

I believe the rationale for categorizing Thomas as Gnostic is the introductory remark about knowing the meaning of the text. It has a distinctive Gnostic ring to it. One scholar has suggested that the true gnosticism is not so much in knowing the meaning of the verses, but in the process of seeking out that meaning.

By: TimothyPaulJones

TimothyPaulJones — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:29:47 +0000

I’m confused by this statement …

“First, even if we grant that full-blown Gnostic Christianity is a late second century phenomenon (well, mid-first century really if we include Valentinus and Marcion)”

Marcion was active in the 140s and 150s while Valentinus was in the 150s and 160s—both of these would be mid-second century, not mid-first.

Otherwise, good observations!

By: Peter Head

Peter Head — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:59:56 +0000

For me most of these are only problematic when absolutised and generalised. Try using ‘some’ for 1 and 4; and ‘many’ for 2 and 3. Then I’d (probably) have to agree with them (as you probably would too).
But if the problem is over-generalisation, is this sort of response appropriate?

By the way, P45 is not 175; more like mid-third century (Mark is cited by Irenaeus at around the same date so the point remains).

By: Bryan L

Bryan L — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:45:11 +0000

I often hear that the reason that non-canonical books fell out of use is because of power struggles in the church that caused them to be suppressed. It seems like that is a common assertion, that they were suppressed, in sort of a conspiracy theory way. What is your view?

Is it possible that they just fell out of use because the communities no longer found use in them or they were no longer able to speak to the communities in a fresh way? Or that they just liked other documents a whole lot more?

Just wondering.

Blessings,
Bryan L

By: Judy Redman

Judy Redman — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:15:58 +0000

Indeed. I am amazed at the number of people who, when I say that I am doing a doctorate on Gospel of Thomas say “Oh, yes, the Gnostic gospel”. However, when I was studying theology at a far from conservative college (seminary), the working definition we were given of Gnosticism only involved an emphasis on knowledge rather than faith. There was no mention of the very different understanding of creation or the existence of various divine and semi-divine beings that caused Michael Williams to suggest “biblical demiurgy” as a better way of naming Gnosticism.

By: April DeConick

April DeConick — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:08:24 +0000

This is a wonderful post. Very well thought through. I look forward to reading your next five. I’ll mention this on my blog too.

By: Danny Zacharias

Danny Zacharias — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:07:47 +0000

I have been reading your posts on this subject with interest even though I disagree at times. I’m wondering if, now that you are pointing out specific failings, if you could actually make reference these shortcomings. I have read a few of the books that you are critiquing and I don’t see these problems. That’s why I would appreciate the citations.