The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT), an early apocryphal writing about Jesus’ childhood, was first published from a Greek manuscript in the seventeenth century. At the time, and for several centuries thereafter, scholars believed the text to be the “Gospel of Thomas” mentioned by a number of early Church writers and frequently associated with gnostics. With the publication of the true Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi in 1956 interest in the text waned. A few scholars published editions of various versions of the text—including Syriac, Ethiopic, Georgian, Latin, and Slavonic—but study of the Greek tradition stalled, despite indications of the existence of a number of manuscripts that could greatly improve our knowledge of the text. This edition brings together all known published and unpublished Greek manuscripts of IGT, assigns them to four separate recensions (Greek A, B, D, and S), and presents them in Greek and English translation. Attention is also paid to the versions, particularly the Slavonic and Latin traditions, which are shown to be translations of Greek A and Greek D, and therefore help to establish the original form of those recensions. The early versions (Syriac, Ethiopic, Georgian, and another Latin translation) are discussed also as they inform the text of Greek S, an important new recension which brings us much closer to IGT’s original form and should be considered the new textus receptus for study of the gospel. The edition also features a detailed overview of previous scholarship on the text, and a commentary on the gospel that seeks to situate it in its appropriate theological and socio-historical contexts. Scholars of early Christianity have been waiting centuries for a comprehensive critical edition of IGT. While more work needs to be done on some of the versions of the text, this volume fulfills much of the needs of scholarship by providing a vastly improved edition of IGT in its likely language of composition.

I was only able to attend two of the three Christian Apocrypha sessions at the SBL this year, having missed the session that focused on “Animals as Symbols and Metaphors in Apocryphal Texts.” But the sections I attended had a range of very interesting topics.

The first session (22-210, Sunday 1:00-3:30) was an open session, with papers on the Pseudo-Clementines, the figure of Joseph, and the Protevangelium of James.

Dominique Côté from the University of Ottawa presented a paper entitled “Prophecy in the Pseudo-Clementines.” His basic argument was that the Ps-C are engaged in a conflict with Neoplatonic philosophy, its conception of “the True Prophet” being set over against Greek philosophical thought. Specifically, Côté contends that the Ps-C are responding to Porphyry of Tyre, the student of Plotinus who may also have advised Diocletian during his early fourth-century persecution of Christians. Nicole Kelley of Florida State University was Côté’s respondent, and was generally persuaded by his thesis. She observed that Côté’s work was part of a recent trend in Ps-C scholarship that attempts to understand the Ps-C as late antique (3^rd-4^th c.) documents rather than seeking after a 1^st or 2^nd c. primitive core (the so-called Grundschrift or “Basic Writing”).

Reidar Aasgaard from the University of Oslo, with a copy in hand of his brand-new book The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas, gave a paper entitled “Father and Child Reunion: The Story of Joseph.” Aasgaard began first with a short overview of the portrayal of Joseph in the canonical infancy narratives and a very brief consideration of what can be known about the historical Joseph (not much). Most of the paper discussed the similarities and differences in the figure of Joseph as found in the Protevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and the little-studied History of Joseph the Carpenter, a fourth-century Egyptian composition narrated by Jesus upon the Mount of Olives at the end of Joseph’s life (at the ripe old age of 111!). The response was given by Richard Pervo, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, consisting mostly of “reinforcement” (Pervo’s word) of Aasgaard’s paper. One especially interesting point made by Pervo was that the PJ doesn’t seem to regard the canonical gospels as sacred and unalterable: it utilizes them when they suit its purpose, and departs from them when deemed necessary.

Being a specialist in infancy gospels myself, I found Aasgaard’s paper on the neglected figure of Joseph very interesting. After his presentation, I asked one question and made one suggestion for a further avenue of research. My question concerned Joseph in the canonical infancy narratives: it is remarkable that Matthew and Luke agree on his name, given that they don’t agree on much of anything else. So where did they get this information from? Apart from the infancy narratives, Joseph is only referred to in John 1:45 and 6:42. Would both Matthew and Luke have gotten his name from John? This goes against the dating that most scholars would posit for John. Reidar agreed that this was an interesting problem, but didn’t have a solution to it (so there might be an article out there for him, me, or someone else!). The suggestion I made was to consider the portrayal of Joseph found in the Latin infancy gospels of M.R. James and the closely connected Irish materials (found in CCSA 13-14). In this corpus, Joseph is, arguably, the star of the show: he has a soliloquy about his ancestral home of Bethlehem, he aggressively interrogates all visitors who come to the cave about their intentions, and he possesses the puzzling nickname “Moab.” I have believed for some time that this collection of materials needs further investigation, and it would certainly pay off for its portrayal of Joseph, if nothing else.

The final paper of the Sunday afternoon session was “Mary as Temple Sacrifice in the Protevangelium of James,” presented by Lily Vuong, a Ph.D candidate at McMaster University. Vuong observed that while scholars have frequently noted the concern of the PJ for Mary’s purity, there has been little or no consideration of Mary functioning as a Temple sacrifice. Vuong contends that the sacrificial theme is present throughout the PJ, which begins with childless Joachim’s ineligibility to offer a sacrifice. Using the theoretical insights of Jonathan Klawans and Jon Levenson, Vuong argues that the author of the PJ deemphasizes the humanness of Mary in order to shape her as a sacrificial offering, indeed as a “new biological form” (Vuong’s words). Mary thus has deep intertextual connections to both Jesus and Isaac as sacrificial offerings. Unfortunately, Vuong’s respondent, Esther de Boer, was unable to attend the SBL as she had planned (a very common and unfortunate occurrence among many scholars at this year’s meeting), but Vuong’s paper was followed by a very lively discussion.

****************

The second session I attended had fewer papers presented, but was highly rewarding nonetheless. The stated theme of this session was “Discussion of Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum and Apocalypses.” Two papers were presented, both by scholars who have been highly influential in the field of Christian apocrypha: François Bovon of Harvard University, and Enrico Norelli, Professor Bovon’s successor at the University of Geneva.

François Bovon provided a fascinating overview of how the Association pour l'étude de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne (AELAC) came into being under his leadership, and how AELAC then convinced the Belgian publisher Brepols to create a new series of the Corpus Christianorum, namely the Series Apocryphorum. Bovon noted that they had to fight quite hard to convince Brepols to publish translations in modern languages. He also related the story of how the CCSA emblem of the ill-fated flight of Simon Magus came to be. Bovon then gave a history of CCSA volumes, starting with the edition of the Acts of Andrew by J.-D. Kaestli and Éric Junod (1983); he observed how vital collaboration has proven to be in this series. He mentioned both Tony and me as some of the North American scholars who have participated in the annual meetings of AELAC; he also kindly promoted our forthcoming volumes in the CCSA (Tony’s on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and mine on the Syriac Revelation of the Magi).

Enrico Norelli, attending his first North American SBL annual meeting, presented a paper on the dating of the Apocalypse of Peter. Against the criticism of Tobias Nicklas (another scholar who regrettably was not able to attend), Norelli reiterated his support for the theory of Richard Bauckham that the text was composed during the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 CE). A response was given by Pierluigi Piovanelli of the University of Ottawa. It was a rare English presentation from Norelli; in addition to numerous articles, he prepared the CCSA edition of the Ascension of Isaiah and is also slated to write a commentary on AscIsa for the Hermeneia series.

After these papers, this final session of the Christian Apocrypha unit concluded with a “business meeting” hosted by Ann Graham Brock at her spacious Marriott suite (with free-flowing wine, as any good business meeting should be!). In addition to socialization with old friends, this provided a wonderful opportunity for younger scholars (like me) to connect with many of the most important contributors to this field.