Comments on: Top Ten Faulty Arguments in Anti-Apocrypha Apologetics (Part 2) http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/ A weblog devoted to the study of the Christian Apocrypha Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:44:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: loren http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5759 loren Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:16:05 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/#comment-5759 What the councils did was obsure the truth for centuries. Now this Truth is surfacing once again for the new age. The cannon is wrong and its interpretation is also wrong. Smug Christians will see this too late I fear. The Master was persecuted and so was his Truth. That is all. What the councils did was obsure the truth for centuries. Now this Truth is surfacing once again for the new age. The cannon is wrong and its interpretation is also wrong. Smug Christians will see this too late I fear. The Master was persecuted and so was his Truth. That is all.

]]> By: Maureen http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-4023 Maureen Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:10:56 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/#comment-4023 Elaine Pagels isn't so much sympathetic to the Gnostics as sympathetic to her image and reading of them. If J. Random Member with J. Random Gnostic Views ever showed up, she'd probably be interested for a short while, and then go back to the stacks. This is true of lots of scholars in lots of fields, of course. Elaine Pagels isn’t so much sympathetic to the Gnostics as sympathetic to her image and reading of them. If J. Random Member with J. Random Gnostic Views ever showed up, she’d probably be interested for a short while, and then go back to the stacks.

This is true of lots of scholars in lots of fields, of course.

]]> By: Excluding Apocrypha: it’s not just about power » Metacatholic http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3619 Excluding Apocrypha: it’s not just about power » Metacatholic Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:04:30 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/#comment-3619 [...] 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 “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. [...] [...] 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 “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. [...]

]]> By: Judy Redman http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3608 Judy Redman Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:22:14 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/08/09/top-ten-faulty-arguments-in-anti-apocrypha-apologetic-part-2/#comment-3608 Re point 8 - I also see this happening. While I am obviously not a high-profile Gnostic scholar like Pagels et al, I certainly get people who assume that because I'm doing a PhD on Gospel of Thomas that I want Thomas included in the canon. I don't. Nor do I want to apply Thomas to my life. I am simply interested in how/what other people think/believe and this particular text is written in Coptic, which makes it even more interesting. When we were studying heresy during my ministry training, the lecturer said that the reason we were doing so was because there was at least one person in every congregation who held to every idea ever declared heresy by the church and we needed to know why the church thought they were wrong. This is what I tell people when they sound worried that I might be about to become a Gnostic. That, and that I don't think Thomas is Gnostic, anyway. I do like the notion, though, that I am "being led down this path by the powers of darkness". Thank you so much for sharing that! Re point 8 – I also see this happening. While I am obviously not a high-profile Gnostic scholar like Pagels et al, I certainly get people who assume that because I’m doing a PhD on Gospel of Thomas that I want Thomas included in the canon. I don’t. Nor do I want to apply Thomas to my life. I am simply interested in how/what other people think/believe and this particular text is written in Coptic, which makes it even more interesting.

When we were studying heresy during my ministry training, the lecturer said that the reason we were doing so was because there was at least one person in every congregation who held to every idea ever declared heresy by the church and we needed to know why the church thought they were wrong. This is what I tell people when they sound worried that I might be about to become a Gnostic. That, and that I don’t think Thomas is Gnostic, anyway. I do like the notion, though, that I am “being led down this path by the powers of darkness”. Thank you so much for sharing that!

]]>