|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The New New Testament
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Biblical Scholars are now proposing adding ten new texts to the New Testament based on discoveries since the 1950's.
The New New Testament
What are your thoughts?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The article states that this includes texts that were rejected by the early church. Given that there was a certain amount of critical consideration involved in that original process, it seems slightly odd to treat this as 'look at the interesting new stuff we found that was missed the first time'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Are the "new" bits from the apocryphal gospels? If so, they are already widely available. I remember that they caused quite a stir and lots of interest some years ago and that then somehow petered out.
I very much doubt this will ever gain any clout with respective Church/Congregation hierarchies to replace, or even complement, the New Testament. But reading the article linked to, and seeing the list of people involved in it, I must say this is a motley crew (in the nicest possible sense of the word) of biblical scholarship...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
Not that it makes any difference to them, since they see the New Testament as nothing but a collection of old texts with not authority in any matters. So if they just seek to read old texts and get the inspiring bits, ignore the rest, there is no reason why gnostic gospels and other heretic texts should be in their "canon" aswell.
Mind you that the United Church Of Christ - one of the denominations that the members of this "council" belongs to - has a few congregations were readings of the Quran and sacred texts from other religions are read alongside with the Bible in their liturgies.
Itīs not like these folks believe in anything at all... they are just playng religion. They like the sociology of it. These should not be taken as representatives of the christian faith in any meaningful way.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I'm guessing that these scholars are the same ones who have decided that the four Gospels were made up by people who had no knowledge of Christ (assuming, of course, that there ever was such a person...)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm guessing that these scholars are the same ones who have decided that the four Gospels were made up by people who had no knowledge of Christ (assuming, of course, that there ever was such a person...)
--Tom Clune
Exacty. Their intention is not to elevate the dignity of apocriphal texts. Itīs to diminish even further any importance of the canonical texts, by adding this mess to the rest. And make a fast buck aswell.
Of course the texts are all available for anyone who wants to read. But claiming they have added them to the canon means they get some headlines, money and fame... things they wouldīt get so much if they admitted they are not christians and criticized the texts from an outsider position.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Somebody needs to explain to the headline writer that you can't just unilaterally "add" anything to the canon--unless you happen to be Jesus Christ, of course. Might as well wake upone morning and decide to add something to the priodic table.
[ 30. March 2013, 18:01: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
We have a hard time getting people to read the Bible we have already, why does anyone think adding to it would do anything in particular?
With all due respect to Karen King, the purpose of Scripture for the Church is not to "understand the diversity of the New Testament world" but to lead people to encounter the risen Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Understanding noncanonical writings is a worthy task for the New Testament scholar, but I fail to see its merit in terms of proclamation of the Gospel for the Church catholic.*
*Unless of course, the new document includes the Assumption of Mary and her Blessed Conception which would be a nice rebuke to the Protestants. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
The content of the Bible was chosen by the scholars and leaders of the time, after great prayer and discussion. The texts not included did not meet their agreed criteria.
They are very interesting to read, to give an idea of the thoughts and discussion of the day, but there is no reason to see them as 'inspired' writings.
I have a hugh volume of Apocryphal and Psuedopogryphal writings and have found them interesting, but have not found them spiritually useful.
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
These sorts of "scholars" tend to paint this picture of the leaders of the early church sitting around with all of these lovely writings, all of which (from our enlightened point of view) have exactly the same justification for being accepted into the canon, and arbitrarily and/or self-servingly picking just those they want, and suppressing the others ruthlessly.
The idea that some of them might not, in fact, have been compatible with the beliefs of the first Christians -- in short, that Christianity legitimately has a belief structure which implies some things and not others -- seems never to have crossed their minds.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Actually, from what I understand it was more a case of the many varied churches comparing texts and discovering they'd all already come home with the same shopping, so to speak. Bar a few debates about a handful of less critical books like 2 Peter...
But the basic unity of texts seems to have been there all along. And after reading both the canon and tge rejects, I can see why.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Actually, from what I understand it was more a case of the many varied churches comparing texts and discovering they'd all already come home with the same shopping, so to speak.
Well this just moves everything back one step, but then the step I described takes place in multiple places rather than just one. (Which of course, from our point of view, rather reinforces the idea that the ones making the decisions got it right -- or to put it plainly, that the Holy Spirit was guiding the process.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Certainly He was. We had a crosspost going--mine was to the post above, which was good but implied human decision had much to do with it. Which it doesn't seem to have had.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The Gospel of Thomas' version of the finding of the lost sheep apparently has the shepherd saying "I love you more than the rest."
Perhaps we will eventually find the manuscript ending that goes "And that is why I'm having you for dinner." ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 30. March 2013, 20:34: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm probably revealing my insularity, but:-
1. Has anyone heard of any of the people in the list of names proposing these books?, and
2. Why would two rabbis and a yoga teacher be interested in what didn't get into the New Testament?
I would have thought there's more value and validity to be found in reading the genuine second generation books than spurious first generation ones. If the earliest Fathers, who were around at the time, concluded these works were duff, I'm content to accept their assessment.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
What's particularly bizarre to me is the incongruity between the texts themselves and the opinions of the people who promote them. The latter tend to be almost entirely on the political left and theologically very liberal.
The texts, to paint all of "Gnosticism" with a very, very broad brush...
1. Privilege the spiritual over the material world, which they see as the creation of a lesser deity or demiurge (cf. Manicheanism, etc.) This seems to conflict with any kind of humanism.
2. Strip away the social and political context of Jesus's message (see e.g., the sayings "gospels" like Thomas), leaving only decontextualized aphorisms without their political and social message of radical disobedience to authority.
3. Partly as a result of #2, see salvation as something limited to an elite who can attain the right knowledge.
"Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Bostonman writes: quote:
"Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
It's likely because they have not read the entire texts, but have read selections, or have been entranced by the very persuasive writing of Elaine Pagels. I once was in a room when two chapters of the Gospel of Thomas was read to some graduate students, and they quickly began to lose their enthusiasm.
In addition, there is a lack of a feel for the otherness of that place and period-- even if they saw the odd and inaccurate film Agora, they would be better placed to understand.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Bostonman writes: quote:
"Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
It's likely because they have not read the entire texts, but have read selections, or have been entranced by the very persuasive writing of Elaine Pagels. I once was in a room when two chapters of the Gospel of Thomas was read to some graduate students, and they quickly began to lose their enthusiasm.
I've always thought that two -- that the idea of secret knowledge available only to an initiated elite was a very odd sort of religion for secular modern liberal people to be promoting.
I think there might be some value for scholars in a book that collected all the early Christian writings, canonical and otherwise, from the first two centuries, say, with notes on the textual history of each and possible dates of writing, authors, places of origin, etc. But it wouldn't be the New Testament. It might be an interesting collection to enhance your appreciation of the New Testament and the world out of which it came. But since I do believe those who compiled the canon were guided by the Holy Spirit, I obviously wouldn't expect anyone today to be able to create a "new canon."
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suppose it is an attempt to reflect something of the varieties of beliefs and texts which existed prior to the councils. Even prior to those councils the battles were well joined over what was "apostolic" and what was not.
Personally, I'm inclined to think that the rejection of the somewhat wild fruit from the varieties of gnostic beliefs was a substantial majority view long before the councils. Rather for the reasons Bostonman gives.
Certainly Irenaeus (end 2nd century) had a good pop at some of the wild fruit (and had good pastoral as well as good doctrinal reasons for doing so.)
It is odd that this should happen again. Orthodox Christology and Trinitarian beliefs often seem very strange to modern eyes, but they are as naught compared, for example, with the truly mind-boggling complexity of gnostic cosmology; for example as described here.
No doubt they will find a market. But this is not the New New Testament. Nothing new here. I reckon the Church Fathers knew what they were doing in agreeing to the general views of most bishops that this stuff wasn't very helpful and didn't have much to do with the faith once given.
BTW if you think there is sexism in the canonical New Testament, do try on for size verse 114 of the Gospel of Thomas.
quote:
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Just lovely isn't it? Not.
Of course there is rationalisation about, both on the exact meaning of that text and its originality. I've read some of that; about as credible as gnostic cosmology. Not.
[ 30. March 2013, 23:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped. Fact is Jesus Christ was long gone before any of the books which eventually became a part of the canon.
The canon has never been closed. No one knows for sure how the canon developed. We know that Origin listed some of the books in his writings. Athanasius in 367 was the first to have a complete list, but there was no official establishment of a canon.
It is not unusual to question the canon. Luther questioned the suitability of James and Revelation.
Some time ago black church leaders wanted to add Martin Luther King's Letters from Prison.
I can see having these texts available for continued study, but there was a reason why these texts were not added in the first place.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
A preview of part of this book, which I have read, is at Google Books. I would recommend people reading more about it before assuming too much. For a start it isn't entitled "The New New Testament" but "A New New Testament". Nor are they proposing changing the New Testament or adding books to the canon. The lead author, Hal Taussig, is amongst other things a United Methodist pastor.
Although I was familiar with many of the extra-canonical writings including, it is quite interesting to read them juxtaposed with the more familiar books both for their differences and similarities.
The approach is not the Elaine Pagels view that there is this thing called Gnosticism which is wonderful as opposed to traditional Christianity.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
For a start it isn't entitled "The New New Testament" but "A New New Testament".
It's still a presumptuous and silly name for something that would more accurately be called "New Testament Rejects from the Cutting Room Floor."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
I not asking anyone to like it. I'm just asking people to criticise it based on knowledge not knee-jerk reaction.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lamb Chopped. Fact is Jesus Christ was long gone before any of the books which eventually became a part of the canon.
Long gone? And you can say this on Easter eve? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Bostonman writes: quote:
"Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
It's likely because they have not read the entire texts, but have read selections, or have been entranced by the very persuasive writing of Elaine Pagels. I once was in a room when two chapters of the Gospel of Thomas was read to some graduate students, and they quickly began to lose their enthusiasm.
I've always thought that two -- that the idea of secret knowledge available only to an initiated elite was a very odd sort of religion for secular modern liberal people to be promoting.
I think there might be some value for scholars in a book that collected all the early Christian writings, canonical and otherwise, from the first two centuries, say, with notes on the textual history of each and possible dates of writing, authors, places of origin, etc. But it wouldn't be the New Testament. It might be an interesting collection to enhance your appreciation of the New Testament and the world out of which it came. But since I do believe those who compiled the canon were guided by the Holy Spirit, I obviously wouldn't expect anyone today to be able to create a "new canon."
Very much so-- I use my ancient and dog-eared copy of Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers (once owned by the late +Robert Jefferson). Stuff such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Martyrdom of Polycarp are useful and edifying texts. Mind you, I haven't seen the book we're all writing about, so I might have been unfair on my comments.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Very much so-- I use my ancient and dog-eared copy of Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers (once owned by the late +Robert Jefferson). Stuff such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Martyrdom of Polycarp are useful and edifying texts. Mind you, I haven't seen the book we're all writing about, so I might have been unfair on my comments.
Just for the sake of clarity: the Apostolic Fathers are wonderful, illuminating, and very much orthodox. They've also never been "lost" to the Church in the way that the more-recently-found "Gnostic" texts are. They may be in this book, I'm not sure (I actually flipped through it in the book store a few days ago) but they're not the sort of thing I've been talking about as elitist/sexist/etc./etc.
One other benefit of these texts is that they expand the corpus of Hellenistic Jewish Koine Greek texts, although many of them are Coptic or are contemporary with the Church Fathers, so I'm not sure that's even something they excel at...
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
The backgrounds of the people involved is a little intriguing.
Two nuns with the exact same pedigree
A systemic theologian
A retired Methodist bishop now "bishop in residence" at a Theological Institution (My Anabaptist mind shudders)
A couple of Reform Rabbis
The UCC President
A Doctoral Candidate
An expert on yoga
Their meetings must be fun.
[ 31. March 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The issue with non-canonical material.
Quite a lot of of it makes profoundly good and helpful reading. Some of it is mostly good, but with some dodgy bits. Some of it has more dodgy bits than good bits. And some of it is just dodgy.
There is quite a lot to be said for reading it, and reading around it. It can help illuminate early church history and also some of the arguments over what was, an was not, faithful to the faith once given.
I think personally, we're better off doing that sort of thing if we have the time. Developing a decent critical faculty is better than either blanket dismissal or credulous acceptance.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Is there an argument for (some of) these books being treated the way the 39 Articles treats the Apocrypha?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think that's fine myself. Being non-canonical, they can't be used to establish any article of faith.
Which doesn't mean they are useless. All of them are useful as an insight into early Christian times and a number do provide some reinforcement for some articles of faith.
[ 31. March 2013, 14:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The table-of-contents of the book (which is available on Amazon) is very interesting. It is well padded with canonical books, as if there were a need to reprint those. Many of the noncanonicals are well known (Gospel of Thomas, Paul and Thecla, etc). It looks very much like same old shit with a new ribbon. Maybe because if you put only the previously-unpublished stuff in a book it would make 20 saddle-stapled pages? From this angle this looks like a desperate publish-or-perish attempt from a junior faculty member.
If you jump to his discussion of Gnosticism (pages 529++), he is most explicitly trying to discredit the idea that Gnosticism is heretical, and states flat out that we need the Gnostic texts because Christianity is in such disarray in the 21st century, and the old texts (thus demonstrably) just aren't doing enough. He spits out the terms "normative Christianity" and "master narrative" (the latter in scarequotes) like they were wormwood truffles in a box of choccies.
This isn't a helpful attempt to put more early Christian writings on the bookshelf. This is an attempt to rehabilitate Gnosticism by weaving select Gnostic texts in among canonicals, with over 100 pages of polemics on why they're two peas.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Why am I not surprised, mousethief. I'll have a gander for "fun".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
I would recommend people reading more about it before assuming too much. For a start it isn't entitled "The New New Testament" but "A New New Testament". Nor are they proposing changing the New Testament or adding books to the canon. The lead author, Hal Taussig, is amongst other things a United Methodist pastor.
I think you are interpreting their objective too generously. The subtitle itself states "A Bible for the 21st century." They are proposing to add to the Canon without dealing with the question of Scriptural inspiration. The Church in its canonization process, determined that the current canon is inspired by the Holy Spirit lending them an authority distinguished from other works of literature. Are they claiming that for the Gospel of Thomas and Peter?
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bostonman: "Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
Do they? I've been in left-wing theological circles for quite some time, but I've never heard any of them trumpet gnosticism. Maybe I've been in the wrong circles?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The New Testament scriptures are not the New Testament. The New Testament scriptures are simply the scriptures which tell us about the New Testament collected together into a library of books.
The New Testament itself is a covenantal agreement between God and humanity. We have scriptures which tell us about that covenant and how we understand that covenant to have been inaugurated by Jesus Christ.
This so-called New New Testament does not constitute a revision of the New Covenant and cannot, therefore, legitimately be called New in any meaningful sense.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
I would recommend people reading more about it before assuming too much. For a start it isn't entitled "The New New Testament" but "A New New Testament". Nor are they proposing changing the New Testament or adding books to the canon. The lead author, Hal Taussig, is amongst other things a United Methodist pastor.
I think you are interpreting their objective too generously. The subtitle itself states "A Bible for the 21st century." They are proposing to add to the Canon without dealing with the question of Scriptural inspiration. The Church in its canonization process, determined that the current canon is inspired by the Holy Spirit lending them an authority distinguished from other works of literature. Are they claiming that for the Gospel of Thomas and Peter?
No. In case you havenīt noticed, itīs not like mailine protestantism in America believes in divine inspiration even for the canonical books of the Bible. They think itīs just a collection of texts. So there is no problem to add a few more if they wish. I will not be surprised if in a few years, readings of the Quran or Buddhist texts are inserted in some denominationsī lectionaries. In fact, I think itīs even a great thing if some denominations start using a different book then the traditional Bible in their liturgy. That would make their departure from Christianity even clearer, in case there was still any doubts.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
The content of the Bible was chosen by the scholars and leaders of the time, after great prayer and discussion. The texts not included did not meet their agreed criteria.
Not to mention the process that preceded the councils - churches actually using the texts (lest anyone think it was just an arbitrary, top-down decision by a few men who didn't know as much about the sources as we do now).
To my mind, this is the result of the kind of logic that wants to throw out all tradition and get back (as if you can) to the "early Church," whatever that means. If you see the early Church as heterodox (which it kinda was, if you look at it sociologically), getting back to it and bypassing tradition takes you precisely to this point. But collecting into one volume all these texts that the Church as a whole never uniformly used and eventually officially decided, through consensus, to leave out of its canon doesn't give a real picture of what the Church was like at any time in history.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I've just finished looking at the review copy linked earlier. I seem to detect a synthesis of Jesus Seminar with the Elaine Pagels gnostic tendency. Just trying to identify influences here you understand.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
No. In case you havenīt noticed, itīs not like mailine protestantism in America believes in divine inspiration even for the canonical books of the Bible.
Avoiding delving into the possible personal motives behind the utterance of this statement, and based solely on its content, this statement -- as they say across the Atlantic -- is bollocks.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The table-of-contents of the book (which is available on Amazon) is very interesting..Many of the noncanonicals are well known (Gospel of Thomas, Paul and Thecla, etc)...Gnostic.
Are there any interesting absences?
I'd have thought some of things like the Didache,Clement of Rome and Ignatious would be strong contenders for a historical book. Shepherd of Hermas as nearly cannon.
If themed on Jesus then Paul ought to go and the infancy gospels come in (which would be an interesting book for academia, but not a useful canon)
If not, then that makes it even more likely that there's a Gnostic agenda.
[after finding the amazon review]
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Truth
The Odes of Solomon I-IV
The Prayer of Thanksgiving.
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Letter of Peter to Philip
The Secret Revelation of John
It does seem a limited set. But I admit I'm out of my depth.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bostonman: "Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
Do they? I've been in left-wing theological circles for quite some time, but I've never heard any of them trumpet gnosticism. Maybe I've been in the wrong circles?
That's my mistake. It's not that "so many on the left trumpet it," but that "nearly all of those who trumpet it are on the left." Many on the left (I'm in this group) either a) have no idea about the Gnostic materials, or b) agree with the orthodox consensus. But I haven't heard of anyone on the right who's a particular fan of Gnosticism.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bostonman: "Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
Do they? I've been in left-wing theological circles for quite some time, but I've never heard any of them trumpet gnosticism. Maybe I've been in the wrong circles?
That's my mistake. It's not that "so many on the left trumpet it," but that "nearly all of those who trumpet it are on the left." Many on the left (I'm in this group) either a) have no idea about the Gnostic materials, or b) agree with the orthodox consensus. But I haven't heard of anyone on the right who's a particular fan of Gnosticism.
Maybe not the gnostic texts, but the idea that their group has secret knowledge than no-one else comprehends? That only they have seen THE TRUTH revealed in scripture? Hell yes. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of the ultra-conservative protestants.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Jay-Emm makes an excellent point about the selection of extra-canonical documents.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bostonman: It's not that "so many on the left trumpet it," but that "nearly all of those who trumpet it are on the left."
Again, that's not what I'm seeing. In fact, I rather see some big fundamental disagreements between Gnosticism and left-wing politics, on almost every topic you can think of: environmentalism, social justice... While both schools of thought agree that we live in an imperfect world, Gnosticism seems to seek to escape it, rather than to try to do something about it.
My church group is rather progressive, and we do read non-Biblical texts often next to the Bible (from philosophy, poetry... and also sometimes from the non-canonical Gospels). However, this doesn't imply that we agree with the tenets of Gnosticism.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bostonman: "Gnosticism" has always struck me as an elitist, dualistic, quietist movement. So strange that so many people on the left trumpet it.
Do they? I've been in left-wing theological circles for quite some time, but I've never heard any of them trumpet gnosticism. Maybe I've been in the wrong circles?
That's my mistake. It's not that "so many on the left trumpet it," but that "nearly all of those who trumpet it are on the left." Many on the left (I'm in this group) either a) have no idea about the Gnostic materials, or b) agree with the orthodox consensus. But I haven't heard of anyone on the right who's a particular fan of Gnosticism.
Maybe not the gnostic texts, but the idea that their group has secret knowledge than no-one else comprehends? That only they have seen THE TRUTH revealed in scripture? Hell yes. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of the ultra-conservative protestants.
On the other hand, ultra-conservative Protestants tend to be more democratic (or populist) in the sense that they believe anyone with 'the truth' has the right to set up their own church. Mainstream denominations are elitist in that they are less understanding towards lay movements that disregard ecclesiastical authority and respectable qualifications in theology.
[ 31. March 2013, 23:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bostonman: It's not that "so many on the left trumpet it," but that "nearly all of those who trumpet it are on the left."
Again, that's not what I'm seeing. In fact, I rather see some big fundamental disagreements between Gnosticism and left-wing politics, on almost every topic you can think of: environmentalism, social justice... While both schools of thought agree that we live in an imperfect world, Gnosticism seems to seek to escape it, rather than to try to do something about it.
My church group is rather progressive, and we do read non-Biblical texts often next to the Bible (from philosophy, poetry... and also sometimes from the non-canonical Gospels). However, this doesn't imply that we agree with the tenets of Gnosticism.
I strongly agree with you. That's why I'm puzzled by the phenomenon of progressive Christians (Elaine Pagels's name has been thrown around on this thread, for example) suggesting that the various Gnostic texts could be a corrective to more socially/politically conservative forms of Christianity. I see many people (and I'm sure this criticism does not apply to Pagels herself) attracted to the mystique and perceived anti-authoritarianism of the Gnostic texts who actually disagree with Gnostic theology.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bostonman: I see many people (and I'm sure this criticism does not apply to Pagels herself) attracted to the mystique and perceived anti-authoritarianism of the Gnostic texts who actually disagree with Gnostic theology.
Ah I agree, but I don't see why this would puzzle you? Can't progressive Christians like some aspects of Gnosticism, but reject others?
For example, if you mean by 'mystique' the idea that we can experience God in ways that aren't dictated by ratio or logic, then I have a certain inclination to that as well. But I definitely reject the Gnostical ideas of the demiurg, the power of secret knowledge, etc.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
On the other hand, ultra-conservative Protestants tend to be more democratic (or populist) in the sense that they believe anyone with 'the truth' has the right to set up their own church. Mainstream denominations are elitist in that they are less understanding towards lay movements that disregard ecclesiastical authority and respectable qualifications in theology.
I would say that they are setting up their own ecclesiastic authority and generally have little tolerance for those deviating from it. They hardly appear populist to me.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
