Ship of Fools: Suppressed Gospels

Thread: Suppressed Gospels Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000002

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

I doubt that there's anything very much both favourable and sensible that can be said about the fantastic paranoid hokum of The Da Vinci Code.

The closest thing I can think of is that the church has to some extent deserved it. It has partly deserved the attack on its own story by its attempts - largely successful - to suppress and destroy the writings of its enemies.

We really know very little about most of the alternative versions of Christianity that competed in the early years - apart from the one which became the Imperial State Church. The Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, etc. are shadowy movements. The reason is that the church did such a good job of getting hold of all their paperwork and bonfiring it.

This is frustrating for those of us who are interested in finding out what went on in the early centuries of Christianity. But it's a godsend for over-imaginative religious conspiracy nuts, because it allows them to create an entirely fictional counter-history driven by non-existent religious movements, on the basis that they were hushed up by the Church, and if there is no evidence that just shows how desperately the CHurch tried to hush it up, and if the Church denies it what more proof do you need?

Anyone who destroys information deserves whatever ludicrous bollards people make up to replace it, and can hardly complain if it turns out to be a story they don't approve of.

±±±±±±±±±

Haven't read it , never will either.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

AFAIC, the folks who hurridly put a few scrolls in a few jars and buried them in the sand were revolutionaries, even if they were only trying to save themselves from real trouble way back then.

Meanwhile, conspiracy theory seems to have a life of its own. [Paranoid]

Grassy knolldom is not confined to the spiritual/religious world, but let's face it, there's a lot of real juicy stuff in mere idea of humankind's relationship with God--no wonder people feel compelled to look between the lines of the annals of such and try to crank up their own Enigma™ machine.

sabine

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

I remember the TV programmes about Rennes-le-Chateau and read HBHG and thought them reasonably entertaining and interesting, if far-fetched. I thoroughly enjoyed Eco’s “Foucault’s Pendulum” which I’ve read several times. I read the synopsis of DVC and somehow felt it unnecessary to read the work itself.

But people love to feel privy to “classified” information don’t they and while theologians and church historians can easily spot, date and name the old heresies, however heavily disguised, that still pop up regularly, most people don’t recognize them hence the ease with which these kinds of conspiracy theories gain currency. I agree with Steve Tom that the church largely deserves it; to say things along the lines of “we do not intend to dignify this misrepresentation with further comment” is another shot in the foot and an invitation to the sceptic and the cynic to assume there is, indeed, something to hide.

I would love to see some reputable theologians engaging with this issue (and many others on the more extreme fringes of Christianity) as vocally as those who garner the sensationalist headlines.

For myself, I find the implications of what is revealed in “official” scripture quite mind-blowing anyway.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Well, the gnostic "Gospel of Judas" is about to be released in translation by National Geographic, if that makes you happy, SteveTom.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
I would love to see some reputable theologians engaging with this issue (and many others on the more extreme fringes of Christianity) as vocally as those who garner the sensationalist headlines.

Bart Erhmann, who is the James A Gray professor and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill has devoted much scholarly interest in the authenticity of early manuscripts.

He's done a pretty thorough examination of the authenticity of the Secret Gospel of Mark, and has provisionally concluded that it's a forgery.

He also contends that many early writings may be forgeries, including those incorporated into the canon.

Bibliography:

Lost Scriptures: Books that did not make it into the New Testament

Truth and Fiction inf the Da Vinci Code

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never knew.

FF

Posted by narnie83 (# 11009) on :

Anyone read 'The Wild Girl' by Michele Roberts? It's one of those 'Mary Magdalene: In Her Own Words' kind of novels, in which it's put forward that Peter suppressed Jesus' feminine gospel for a masculine one, and history was re-written. Based on a horrible gender-binary essentialism and with really spurious social/cultural history. But pretty readable.

Oh, and the terrible film 'Stigmata' with one of the Arquettes and Gabriel Byrne was all 'suppressed gospel-y' too. Jesus wrote soemthing alone the lines of 'the kingdom of God is in you.' I spent the whole film going 'but that's no different from what it says in the actual gospels you idiots...'

[ 02. April 2006, 00:29: Message edited by: narnie83 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
[Bart Erhmann] also contends that many early writings may be forgeries, including those incorporated into the canon.

"What is a forgery?", in this context, is an interesting question. If you mean "written by someone other than the 'named' author" or "cobbled together by some redactor from several other works", then the charge against the Christian canon of Scripture is on solid ground. If by forgery he means "deliberately fabricated to teach something other than orthodox Christian faith", then that may be true of some of the documents from that time but can't be said of the canon. (though, "deliberately cobbled together to teach the orthodox Christian faith" falls under my previous sentance).

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"What is a forgery?", in this context, is an interesting question. If you mean "written by someone other than the 'named' author" or "cobbled together by some redactor from several other works", then the charge against the Christian canon of Scripture is on solid ground.

I know that the gospel of Mark does not name the author in the text. I have quickly looked at the other three gospels, and I did not see the authors named in the texts. However Luke's authorship can be deduced from the "we" passages in Acts.

The fact that the authorship of one or more gospels may be false attributed does not make them forgeries.

Moo

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

From Ehrmann's book "Lost Christianities: The Battle for scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew"

quote:
Other books, however, are widely regarded as forged. The authour of 2 Peter explicitly claims to be Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus, who beheld the transfiguration (1:16-18). But critical scholars are virtually unanimous that it was not written by him. So too, the pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: They claim to be written by Paul, but appear to have been written long after his death" (footnote directs reader to a full discussion of authenticity of these in Ehrmann's The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writings.)

How could forgeries have made it into the New Testament? Possibly it is better to reverse the question: Why shouldn't forgeries have made it into the New Testament? Who was collecting the books? When did they do so? And how would they have known that a book that claims to be written by Peter was actually written by Peter or that a book that was written by Paul was actually written by Paul? So far as we know, none of these letters was included in a canon of sacred texts until deacdes after they were written, and the New Testament canon as a whole still had not reached final form for another two centuries after that. How would someone hundreds of years later know who had written these books?

To my way of thinking, if the authority of the scripture rests solely on the ground of the authenticity of its authorship, it's on shaky ground. Too shaky to have any real authority at all for me, personally.

The authority of the scripture, I think, lies in what Christians believe is the source of the scripture. If it is not God-breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit, the it doesn't matter who wrote it, it would have no authority at all.

So the question of forgery, to me, doesn't even enter into the argument about whether or not the Scripture is authoritative. The contents speak for themselves, and it's clear to me where they originate from.

Hope this helps.

FF

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
To my way of thinking, if the authority of the scripture rests solely on the ground of the authenticity of its authorship, it's on shaky ground. Too shaky to have any real authority at all for me, personally.

Nor for me. Though there do seem to be a large number of people for whom any hint of 'forgery' brings the whole concept of Scripture being authoritative crashing down. And, it sometimes seems as though it's those who wish to attack the faith who seem to hold that opinion most strongly. I guess that the "every word is direct from God via the human authors traditionally ascribed to the books and perfect in every way" straw man is a lot easier to attack than the much more nuanced position the vast majority of Christians hold.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi Alan,

Yes I think a "nuanced position" is a good way to describe many people's relationship to the scripture.

I think it's partly because faith transcends logic, empirical fact and rational mind.

I think some are very uncomfortable with the kind of "knowing" faith imparts. It can't be grasped, dissected, inspected, proven or disproven, it can only be held and experienced first hand.

I think the Scripture is an authoritative manual that points to a way of being that invites us to "know" and to learn the way that faith enables us to "know" certain truths.

For me, it't the ultimate "do-it-yourself" guide. And I do not mean that trivially or dismissively.

Cheers
FF

(edited for punctuation)

[ 02. April 2006, 14:08: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :

Whether or not the so-called "secret gospel of Mark" was a forgery is not an issue for me. Baigent and co. say that Clement took it seriously enough to issue instructions that good Christians should even deny any truths in it, because even truth can be harmful in the devil's hands (my paraphrase - I think Clement's letter is too long to quote for copyright reasons - the HBHG authors have probably hijacked it!) any way I'll google it and try to get back with a link.

But for anyone who knows the reference (pp 334-336 in HBHG) I'd like to know if Clement's letter is a forgery, or if not whether it has been translated accurately. Because if it's not and it was, then he certainly shot the Church in the foot - and quite unnecessarily.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

quote:
Originaly posted by SteveTom
The reason is that the church did such a good job of getting hold of all their paperwork and bonfiring it.

Really? Historical evidence please. I'm not suggesting that the church has no power interest in keeping certain things secret but when did these bonfires take place?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I agree that 2 Peter was almost certainly not written by the apostle Peter.

However, that does not say anything about the accuracy of the gospels. As I understand it, The Da Vinci Code is about the life of Jesus, not about the epistles in the NT.

Moo

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

Forgery has quite negative cononations and can imply "false" as in forged money. I'm not sure if this is the correct word to use for ancient books letters etc that were written in someone elses name. from what i gather this was not uncommon and the people reading it would have understood this. Mind you, I'm open to correction on this because I can't remember where I picked this info up from.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
We really know very little about most of the alternative versions of Christianity that competed in the early years - apart from the one which became the Imperial State Church. The Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, etc. are shadowy movements. The reason is that the church did such a good job of getting hold of all their paperwork and bonfiring it.

I think we are starting to get an idea of what the various Gnostic sects believed -- material from the 1st to 3rd centuries with a Gnostic flavour has started to turn up. Arguably the Gospel of Thomas is now as well known as the canonical gospels.

I agree that it is somewhat frustrating that most of what we know about the other christian-like sects of the 1st and 2nd centuries is from the writings of the proto-orthodox Church. For example, there is reason to think that a Gospel of Matthew _without_ the birth of Jesus was in circulation in the Ebionite movement in the 1st Century, but we only know about it from the writings of Epiphanius, an orthodox Christian historian. He claims, understandably enough, that the Ebionites `mutilated' the `real' Matthew. But what if it was the other way around?

Maybe in time further manuscripts will be found that shed some light on these perplexities.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
For example, there is reason to think that a Gospel of Matthew _without_ the birth of Jesus was in circulation in the Ebionite movement in the 1st Century, but we only know about it from the writings of Epiphanius, an orthodox Christian historian. He claims, understandably enough, that the Ebionites `mutilated' the `real' Matthew. But what if it was the other way around?

And, what does it matter if the birth narratives were a later addition to Matthew? Either you have an Ebionite movement that removed the birth narratives from their version of Matthew to fit their doctrinal beliefs, or orthodox Christianity that added the birth narratives to counter what they considered heretical Ebionite belief. The end result is a Gospel that reflects orthodox Christianity rather than the Ebionite version.

This is only a problem if you think that the Ebionites were right, and that the early church knew they were right and deliberately suppressed the truth for some reasons of their own. Which is, AIUI, the hypothesis that Dan Brown tries to explore in his fictional work - though, I don't know if he looks at Ebionites or one of the other heretical groups (or, whether he's invented the whole thing, and his "hypothesis" is itself a work of fiction relating to no specific early heretical group).

It's much more reasonable to think that the orthodox church, and the assorted heretical groups, all considered themselves right and the others wrong. And, tried to suppress what they considered errors and support what they considered to be truth. Even if some of the methods they used (such as editing Gospels, creating entire documents purporting to be written much earlier by an apostle, or attempting to destroy the literature of the opposition) would be considered inappropriate today. The result is a canon of Scripture that presents orthodox Christianity.

Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :

Alan Cresswell. "The result is a canon of scripture that presents orthodox Christianity" is exactly right. For Christians that meant that it could not then be challenged - is that right? If so, why not? Maybe they just got tired of fighting. Or perhaps it was challenged? What happened to the challengers? I remember my early ventures into scripture. I think it was the author of "Something Overheard" - a very good introduction recommended by my tutors - who said, with admirable candour that you can't just read the scriptures "straight", so to speak. "Christians" he said, "have an axe to grind." Nothing wrong in that. But if you're on the edge of things, Christians might tell you to go and grind YOUR axe elsewhere. Christians had Dan Brown and co. coming to them!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There have been challenges to the canon of Scripture. Some have introduced new books (even books dug up inscribed on gold plates needing special glasses to read), and arguably have departed from orthodox Christianity in the process. Others tried to get rid of some books by describing them as Epistles of Straw and effectively got told "don't be silly, you may not like it but if you're a Christian you have to lump it".

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's much more reasonable to think that the orthodox church, and the assorted heretical groups, all considered themselves right and the others wrong. And, tried to suppress what they considered errors and support what they considered to be truth. Even if some of the methods they used (such as editing Gospels, creating entire documents purporting to be written much earlier by an apostle, or attempting to destroy the literature of the opposition) would be considered inappropriate today. The result is a canon of Scripture that presents orthodox Christianity.

I agree. I'm not suggesting that anybody deliberately supressed anything, and common-sense surely suggests that all the 1st- and 2nd- century christian-like groups thought they were `right' and the others `wrong'.

But I would disagree with your assertion that it doesn't matter. Even if the orthodoxy that emerged in the 3rd-4th century was a consensus -- as I think it was -- and not a conspiracy, it isn't impossible for a consensus position to be wrong. I would argue that if Christianity makes factual claims that are, as it happens, false, this could potentially be very important indeed.

Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Forgery has quite negative cononations and can imply "false" as in forged money. I'm not sure if this is the correct word to use for ancient books letters etc that were written in someone elses name. from what i gather this was not uncommon and the people reading it would have understood this. Mind you, I'm open to correction on this because I can't remember where I picked this info up from.

I believe the word you're looking for is pseudonymity. The identity of the author wasn't the most important thing, it was the tradition and authority in which he stood. It's not unique to the NT - people wrote Psalms and attributed them to David, wrote extra bits of Isaiah and attributed them to him, and composed a book of Wisdom attributed to Solomon nearly 1000 years after he died.

Posted by Fr Alex (# 10304) on :

You do have to be careful with these 'gnostic' gospels. I had the great joy of studying under Keith Elliot, who has made a career out of them, and I even read some of them too! Whilst lots of the nice Christmas bits can be found in them, the ox and ase, there is also some off beat stuff too. For example, according to one (I'll look it up if you really want) states that those who have had abortions spend eternity in hell cleaning the poo and wee from everyone above them (they are the lowest of the low) as well as being covered in it themselves. Whilst I am proLife, I think this is a little extreme.

Fr A

Posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Forgery has quite negative cononations and can imply "false" as in forged money. I'm not sure if this is the correct word to use for ancient books letters etc that were written in someone elses name. from what i gather this was not uncommon and the people reading it would have understood this. Mind you, I'm open to correction on this because I can't remember where I picked this info up from.

Having worked for a government department, I can assure you that any analysis of all the letters emanating from, and signed by, the head of the department would reveal him to be quite a crowd of people.

Yet they are not forgeries. Authorship and authority are two different things. Many people write letters on behalf of organisation heads, and sometimes even sign them (I have signed letters "for X", where X was the head of a section, and I was very briefly acting in his role).

Peter and Paul were the heads of missionary organisations. Why did they have to write everything sent out (quite properly) in their names? The naming of letters tells us about solidarity and authority. Our modern concern for "who actually held the pen" doesn't even apply to all documents in our own time. Modern works of art are self-consciously the work of a particular personality. Ancient works were often anonymous - or self-effacingly put forward as being on behalf of a higher authority.

I am reading the Old Saxon "Heliand" at the moment (8-9th century poem of 6,000 lines): a great work of art, but by "an unnamed monk". Ditto Beowulf. These days, the author would be demanding copyright, royalties, luncheons, and a big commercial contract. We are much more concerned about the personality and individuality of authors now, than the ancients were.

Even Jane Austen published her first few novels as "by a lady" - a you could create, but you didn't necessarily put yourself forward.

I suppose we could say that most modern political speeches are forgeries, because the speech is usually written by some anonymous "speech writer" - not by the politicians themselves.

Posted by Anglicub (# 3413) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Forgery has quite negative cononations and can imply "false" as in forged money. I'm not sure if this is the correct word to use for ancient books letters etc that were written in someone elses name. from what i gather this was not uncommon and the people reading it would have understood this. Mind you, I'm open to correction on this because I can't remember where I picked this info up from.

You are correct on this; attributing one's writing to a more respected figure was widely done and not a big deal in ancient times.

The issue with Secret Mark, however, is not quite the same; the question there is whether the writings Morton Smith claims to have found were actually from the time of Clement or whether he made them up himself and passed them off as authentic -- actual forgery in the "money" sense. It's a big debate with strong opinions on both sides; my teachers here seem to be primarily in agreement with Bart Ehrman in doubting its authenticity; I'm still agnostic on the question. AFAIK we don't have the original documents he claimed to find at Mar Saba (which were supposedly only handwritten copies themselves) but only Smith's handwritten copies of that document, so there's no real way to verify them -- so you can see why there's vigorous debate on the matter!

Posted by motojerry (# 4147) on :

If you're interested in an internet source with a fascinating collection of early Christian writings go to:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :

FF You wrote (on 2 April) "I think some are very uncomfortable with the kind of "knowlege" faith imparts.

Speaking for myself, yes and no. Starting with the old, old cliche, I don't need any proof that my wife loves me. Getting religious, I don't need any proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

But there are times when people make claims that I might want to challenge if their "faithful" knowledge appears to disadvantage others unfairly. And we all, at times, I expect, believe things intuitively, and I'm sure that many Christians would feel uncomfortable with some of my "certainties" (sometimes we just HAVE to come off the fence)

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

I agree.

It's uncomfortable sometimes for the "knower" because they can't say how they know, they just do.

It's also uncomfortable for the challenger, because how can you argue with it? There's nothing to analyse.

You can challenge someone's knowing-through-faith but I don't think it's possible to move it an inch until some experience shows a person the wisdom or folly of that knowing.

Words alone won't do the job.

FF

(spelling)

[ 11. April 2006, 16:31: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

i had started this thread elsewhere but i still need these questions answering.

my friend asked me this I do not have the faintest clue
he asked me this in his own words

"say that the gospel of thomas or mary or barnabus and many others are real which they are as they where deciples who was chosen by jesus 2 learn the word of god do you not think they are just as an important as mat mark luck and john"

The bible is the inspired word of God, was my answer, these things are not in harmony.

he says "well its says in information i can get that some of mat mark luke and john dont know whixh ones now may have been writen upto 200 years ad, and the gospel of thomas is no fake in fact there is a thing on the net called the five gospels parallels beacuse thomas gospels matchs the others perfectly and is much older

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Okay, well no, they're not as important as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The four gospels just weren't written 200 years after Jesus lived. His facts are spurious. Mark was completed in the mid sixties AD, Luke and Matthew sometime in the eighties, and John was completed in around 120AD I believe, but is believed to have largely been written earlier than that, in the first century. We have parts of the gospels that date back earlier than 200 years after Jesus, and we also have references that other people made to the gospels, from earlier than that as well. The four gospels were are in substantial agreement with each other, and they've pretty much always been accepted by the community of believers - and don't you think that the very early church would have been in a better position to judge the gospels than we are?

Ask your friend for a link to the stuff he's mentioned. Trusting conspiracy theories off the net is not very wise - they're abundant and wrong.

Posted by GrahamR (# 11299) on :

The earliest part of the New Testament so far discovered is the Ryland Fragment which dates to about AD 125.

Also, the "Gospel" of Thomas is actually a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus (or short conversations usually with his disciples)- it doesn't include any events, including the crucifixion and resurrection. Many of the sayings recorded only make sense as some form of Gnosticism/mystery religion:

quote:
Saying 70:
Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you."
(From the "Scholar's Translation")

If they aren't additions and Jesus really was a Gnostic, I really can't see why the disciples would have suppressed this.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

riverfalls

It might be worth your while to look at some of the other threads on this board. My favourite post of the lot is this one by Louise. In order to understand the history of the NT or the supposed history behind the da Vinci Code novel you have to do some work. The idea that these things are explainable easily by any sort of conspiracy theory is basically a form of arrogance. It's hard to say that to a friend of course, but there are loads of folks on these boards who have looked very hard at the sort of statements your friend made - and know they are very suspect on both fact and analysis. We aren't being fooled by any so-called Imperial Church conspiracy; that's a very old story now. But your friend might be being fooled by a rather different sort of conspiracy.

You could do worse than encourage your friend to take a look at this discussion board. Not everyone sees these things the same, but loads of us have read stuff and thought hard about it. We have reasons for what we believe. Encourage him to join in the debate! He may have some interesting things to say.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

There is also a thread in Kerygmania discussing how the NT canon was formed.

You may find that useful.

Moo

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

In my last post, when I said "His facts are suprious", I mean't that riverfall's friend's facts are spurious. I didn't mean that Jesus' facts are spurious!

Posted by Righteous Rebel (# 7524) on :

Words like "forgeries" and "not as important as the canon" frankly puzzle me. Who decides that they are not as important? There are many fine scholars out there, who have been doing research on the Gnostic writings for many years, including Dr. Elaine Pagels, James Robinson, John Dart and Karen King, among others. And that most preeminent psychiatrist, C.G. Jung was said to have been heavily influenced by Gnostic writings, in fact developed all or most of his whole approach to analysis from Gnostic teaching and philosphy. Gnostics are not a "new religion" (or even yet another splinter group). They simply adopted a viewpoint towards life where knowing one's own self was of primary importance, and thus, knowing God in the process. They were not elitists, nor could they afford to be, at least 2000 years ago; they were basically, like most Christians of that time in "survival mode." Today's Gnostics or as they prefer to be called gnostikoi, are culturally and politically far-removed from the original practioners of gnosticism. While we are not of this world, of necessity, we must learn to adapt and cope with the chaotic condition the world is in, just as the early gnostics did. Gnosticism is a voyage of self-discovery and a movement toward wholeness and oneness with the Creator, rather than blind submission to an ecclesiatcial order that is more interested in power and politics than true spirituality. So many things have simply become meaningless rituals and the early and present day Gnostics recognize that. There is a continual evolution taking place in the spiritual realm, if one truly is interested in meaningful development. As a hatha yoga principle states, we need to learn to "stretch but not strain." That is the only way true growth can be achieved, IMHO. [Cool]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
Words like "forgeries" and "not as important as the canon" frankly puzzle me. Who decides that they are not as important? There are many fine scholars out there, who have been doing research on the Gnostic writings for many years, including Dr. Elaine Pagels, James Robinson, John Dart and Karen King, among others.

Well, from a Christian faith perspective, 'not as important as the canon' means that these books, in Christian experience, do not witness as faithfully to our experience of salvation in Christ as do the canonical gospels. We Christians are surely allowed a canon if we want one aren't we? That doesn't affect the relative credence non-Christians might want to give to the books, of course.

To move to strictly scholarly criteria, however, the scholars whose names you cite are considered fairly leftfield within academic NT/ aprocrypha studies, especially outside of the United States. Most gnostic gospels are near useless as historical sources regarding the 'historical Jesus', because of late dates and clear evidence internal to the texts that they belong to a late stage of tradition history. The Gospel of Thomas is an important exception in this respect, in that it seems to contain early sayings-material, and in fact has informed how we think about the redaction at work in the canonical gospels - for example, there is a version of the parable of the seeds without the 'explanation' offered subsequently in Mark, confirming a supsicion that the parable was first a stand-alone parable of the Kingdom.

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

Doesn't saying, "I've not read it and never will" open us up to fair criticism of being biased, though?

I notice I killed the thread where I pointed out that Dan Brown said in an interview that he wanted to provoke discussion and that this book is a novel.

I think we ought to consider the fact that the discussion on these boards demonstrates that it doesn't suit Christians to believe that version of his words (though as far as I know it is what he said) - do we, as custodians of 'the Truth' know that there is a 'truer' version of his attitude which only Christians are priveliged to know - a truth hidden even from Brown himself?

Is he perhaps the spawn of Satan but not consciously?

Or might he actually have meant what he said?

[ 19. May 2006, 19:47: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

I'd be very happy if everyone accepted it as a novel. What really winds me up about it is when 60% of those who've read it seem to think that there's actual truth in it, and it puts my faith in a whole new light.

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

TBH I think there's great value in having one's ideas challenged. After all, if Christians have the truth, nothing which comes up will alter that. And if not - well, who wants to worship a lie?

I'm pretty sure Christianity has survived worse than this! It seems to me there is a certain miffed-ness in the Church about the fact that Dan Brown has seemingly effortlessly brought religion into everyday conversation where the Alpha Course didn't quite make it globally...

So what is the different light on your faith, Dinghy? Or do you mean other people see it differently now?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by narnie83:
Anyone read 'The Wild Girl' by Michele Roberts? It's one of those 'Mary Magdalene: In Her Own Words' kind of novels, in which it's put forward that Peter suppressed Jesus' feminine gospel for a masculine one, and history was re-written. Based on a horrible gender-binary essentialism and with really spurious social/cultural history. But pretty readable.
<snip>

I'm so glad I used the "search" button before I posted! What I was going to say was "Anyone read 'The Wild Girl' by Michele Roberts? " [Hot and Hormonal]

I read it, in answer to your question Narnie, in '85 - and have wondered vaguely about the similarities of theme between this novel and Da Vinci (which I haven't read, on my wife's recommendation) during the Dan Brown brouhaha. Good analysis of the Roberts [Overused]

!

DH Lawrence, in "The Man Who Died" (in 1929) also explored the theme of the rescued victim of crucifixion. Maybe someone's noted that, too - I forgot to use "search" on that one. And then there's the pseudo theologian Barbara Thierring, much beloved of Australia's public broadcaster during the early '90s, who was pseudo-theologising something similar. [Snore]

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh... is THAT what that button is for?? [Hot and Hormonal]

/end of tangent

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
So what is the different light on your faith, Dinghy? Or do you mean other people see it differently now?

The latter. Now, they seem to think that I'm a poor, deluded boy whose whole faith has been built on lies and conspiracies put forward by authoritarian Catholic sects and mad monks, and anything I say can be quashed with a knowing, "Aah, but you would say that, wouldn't you!" And all without a scrap of evidence other than some novel that doesn't even claim to be anything other than fiction.

That's a pessimistic, doom-mongering view of things, of course, but you get my drift.

Posted by les@BALM (# 11237) on :

The church is good at surpresssing all sorts of things including, the truth, sexuality, women, laity, "herectics", etc

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
Today's Gnostics or as they prefer to be called gnostikoi, are culturally and politically far-removed from the original practioners of gnosticism. While we are not of this world, of necessity, we must learn to adapt and cope with the chaotic condition the world is in, just as the early gnostics did. Gnosticism is a voyage of self-discovery and a movement toward wholeness and oneness with the Creator, rather than blind submission to an ecclesiatcial order that is more interested in power and politics than true spirituality. So many things have simply become meaningless rituals and the early and present day Gnostics recognize that. There is a continual evolution taking place in the spiritual realm, if one truly is interested in meaningful development. As a hatha yoga principle states, we need to learn to "stretch but not strain." That is the only way true growth can be achieved, IMHO.

Somewhat loaded language here.

"Blind submission" seems to presuppose that blindness and submissiveness are common characteristics of those in the mainstream Christian denominations.

"An ecclesiastical order more interested in power and politics than true spirituality". This seems to presuppose that "true spirituality" is not likely not be found in any of the leaders of the mainstream churches.

"If one is truly interested in meaningful development". As opposed to those of us in mainstream who are, presumably, not so truly interested?

No doubt all "right thinking people" who have "truly thought about these things" will agree with this rhetoric, whereas the rest of us will have to plough on humbly in our ignorance. Oh, BTW I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but your post does display some of the more worrying aspects of elitism that led to the second century criticisms of the gnostics in the first place.

"We know better. Those poor simple folk didn't need to be martyrs, you know. And what they believe about baptism and Eucharist, well, there is a so much deeper understanding available via US". That was the condescending way some of them went on. Not very attractive behaviour really. No wonder the old bishops got cross with them.

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :

People rely far too much on third parties to do their reading for them. These works have all been in print in very good translations for a number of years and we haven't seen much clamouring, even on the fringes, for the inclusion in the Canon of books from the Nag Hammadi Library or other apocryphal Gospels and Letters. The Gospel of Thomas is about the only one of the famous 'suppressed gospels' that plucks any of the same chords as the Canonical Gospels. I suspect this has something to do with seeing material which already exists in the Synoptic tradition stripped of its narrative framework. Seems 'fresher' somehow. However, there are plenty of people braying about the deliberate suppression of the 'enemy's' writings who ought to purchase a copy of the Nag Hammadi Library (James M. Robinson ed.) for themselves and read it and then ask themselves whether, in the main, these writings seem to represent a primitive tradition which was lost or suppressed.

RR

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi,

quote:
Today's Gnostics or as they prefer to be called gnostikoi...

I'm content to be called (little g) gnostic. No Greek necessary.

Big G gnostic always meant trouble for me. Little g flies under the radar without getting hung up.

FF

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

Big G gnostic always meant trouble for me. Little g flies under the radar without getting hung up.

FF

Another home run!! They could have done with you in the second century AFF. Oh, stuff! Maybe you WERE there ....

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Second century was fine.

12th, 13th and 15th, mmmmm...not so much [Biased]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

To my way of thinking, if the authority of the scripture rests solely on the ground of the authenticity of its authorship, it's on shaky ground.

Be careful of importing modern ideas of authorship into ancient texts. Pseudonymity (which is clearly at play in the pastoral epistles, and possibly in Colossians in Ephesians) was a widespread practice in the first century. It was not considered to be 'forgery', but was rather a way both of paying a complement to the purported author and of continuing the tradition of thought begun by that authority (c.f. 'author').

In any case, the reason Christians read the scriptures as canonical is that, over a course of centuries, these books were found to be faithful to the Christian experience of salvation in Christ. Whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians does not matter one jot to me. I find the idea of Christ as 'the head of the Body, the Church' to resonate with my experience. Other groups outside the Church find other books to be authoritative.

On strictly historical grounds, I think that non-canonical texts - with the exception of Thomas and whatever we might be able to reconstruct of the postulated 'Q' - are of little value in researching 'the historical Jesus'. That does not mean that I think for one second that the canonical gospels are literal historical narratives. I merely think that there is little early Jesus-tradition in most of the 'gnostic' gospels.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

I am well aware of what constitutes "pseudepigraphy".

Did you read anything I wrote after the quote you've selected out of the rest of the context? I don't think you would find we disagree.

FF

[ 10. June 2006, 23:15: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
I doubt that there's anything very much both favourable and sensible that can be said about the fantastic paranoid hokum of The Da Vinci Code.

The closest thing I can think of is that the church has to some extent deserved it. It has partly deserved the attack on its own story by its attempts - largely successful - to suppress and destroy the writings of its enemies...

What is the evidence for this process of active suppression? My impression is that it was much more a case of deciding whether certain documents were scripture, or certain teachings true to the faith. Where it was decided within the church that they were not there was not much interest elsewhere in keeping them going.

ISTM that the blame the church is getting is becuase it failed to preserve and transmit texts it thought were false and was uninterested in.

Things get a bit different some centuries further on, I know but I'm talking about the first two or three hundred years.

[ETA last para]

[ 11. June 2006, 05:05: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This article and its associated links may provide some of the clues to the assertion. I got it by Googling so the usual health warnings apply.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I don't think you would find we disagree.

FF

I'm sure we agree about a lot. I just get alarm bells ringing when concepts of 'authorship' are applied to the biblical books without a great deal of explanation.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

I think I quoted Ehrmann at some length. Not a lot of explanation is needed because this issue is very simple. Let me sum up:

1) We know at least 3 books of the canon are not penned by the people they are attributed to.

2) We have no way of knowing for certain who wrote the rest of the books.

Conclusion: If the authority of the canon rests solely on the authenticity of its authorship, these are very shaky premises upon which to base that authority.

Conclusion: The canon's authority must come from somewhere else.

Where does it come from?

You believe authorship doesn't matter because the canon's authority comes from the fact that these writings were chosen for their quality of accurately representing the Christian experience.

I believe authorship doesn't matter because the canon's authority arises from its inspiration, which has its source in the divine.

I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. I used the word forgery. The emotional charge associated with this word is in the reader, not in the meaning of the word. If I had used the word pseudepigrah, the meaning is the same. Would you have objected to that?

FF

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

I'm a lot more pessimistic than you about attributing authorship. I think that, apart from the proto-Pauline letters, all material in the New Testament is either pseudonymous or anonymous. But as you say, it is the authority of the canon that matters for me, which I take to be the Church's retrospective recognition of inspiration.

What are your criteria for determining whether a text is 'inspired'?

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

If the text inspires something in me, then I consider it inspired.

FF

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Thanks. I think the 'catholic' Christian perspective is the same, only with 'us' rather than 'me', if you see what I mean.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Sure. Only I can't speak for "us", no matter what group I might belong to. I can only speak for me.

Cheers
FF

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Actually, I think there is evidence to suggest that we can be more positive about authorship than this (see e.g. Martin Hengel 'The Four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ'), but it is complex and doesn't boil down easily. I agree that hanging everything on authorship is a rather dodgy though. The question of authorship is about confidence in historical evidence, though, so we are talking about a sliding scale of conviction not a knockdown logical proof.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Martin Hengel 'The Four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ

Mmm. I disagree with Hengel, but that would be a tangent too far. Suffice it to say that, given we all agree that 'authentic' 'authorship' is not necessary to the value of the NT books, it seems unwise to base any arguments on it.

Posted by ozymandias (# 11533) on :

Check out a book published most recently by Random house called "The lost books of the Bible" which shows that most of these supposidly suppressed books are infact frequently avaliable but have been forgotten because of their unreliability. Check out the gospels of Mary where we get the names Anne and Joachim or the even more bizzare Gospel of Pilate.Well worth a read because of the insight that it gives into early Christian thought.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Are you thinking of the 'Protoevangelium of James' r.e. Anne and Joachim?

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Where does manuscript survival come in this? An awful lot of the material written over the last 2 millenia does not survive. What we do have often isn't selected by anyone, it just happens. For example, the earliest old Irish material is glosses on three manuscripts found on the continent (Wurzburg, San Gall and somewhere which currently escapes me). Viking raids and the like made survival in Ireland more unlikely, so it was in monasteries founded by the Irish on the continent that material survived. However, things regarded as important are more likely to be written on better quality vellum, looked after better and copied more (so often we have more Latin manuscripts than vernacular ones)

With the canonical texts there were reasons for their continued copying and preservation. The non-canonical stuff was less important presumably. I think we often forget how labourious it was to make books before the advent of the printing-press!

Carys

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

[Overused]

Carys. This says what I was trying to say in my first post on this thread - but much more comprehensibly.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
With the canonical texts there were reasons for their continued copying and preservation. The non-canonical stuff was less important presumably. I think we often forget how labourious it was to make books before the advent of the printing-press!

Exactly. It's like the detractors of the early church are saying, "how dare they not carefully copy and preserve the books WE find interesting?"

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Where does manuscript survival come in this?

Indeed. It is not like all the "orthodox" texts we want were preserved either. Where is Papias's history? And other documents quoted by Eusebius that we no longer possess? I am sure we don't have every scrap of paper written on by the apostles, either. Q?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

What bugs me is that there's a difference between active suppression and failure to preserve (as others have noted above), but even "active suppression" is not necessarily an Evil Thing. I mean, come on--how many of us have "actively suppressed" a Jack Chick tract by consigning it to the round file?

In my opinion, some kinds of crap belong in the same place the old Sears catalogues used to be kept. And being neither a librarian nor an archivist, I don't think I have any duty to preserve Chick tracts et al for the benefit of future generations.

Posted by ozowen (# 8935) on :

Quoth Lamb Chopped

quote:
I don't think I have any duty to preserve Chick tracts et al for the benefit of future generations.

Aint that the truth.
I keep all my Chick tracks with my Abba collection.... [Killing me]

Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by narnie83:
.

Oh, and the terrible film 'Stigmata' with one of the Arquettes and Gabriel Byrne was all 'suppressed gospel-y' too. Jesus wrote soemthing alone the lines of 'the kingdom of God is in you.' I spent the whole film going 'but that's no different from what it says in the actual gospels you idiots...'

I think my response was on the lines of "Good heavens, I've never heard that before! Does the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
know?". But then sarcasm is one of my besetting sins.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

It's not something I've worried about at all (for Quakers it's mostly a non-issue, and my own position is akin to AFF's), but in the Athanasius letter Barnabas62 linked to above, he wrote:

quote:
...God-inspired scripture, concerning which we have attained to a sure persuasion, according to what the original eye-witness and ministers of the word have delivered unto our fathers...

This seems to suggest that Athanasius is claiming canonicity for those writings based on the fact that they were written by apostles who were eyewitnesses and first-generation ministers of the gospel. Am I misreading that? Has it ever been considered an important argument for canonicity?

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

As I understand Ehrmans to say, yes, precisely. The early writings eventually made it into the canon, or not, based on belief in their authentic authorship, or not.

Posted by Steve_R (# 61) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
As I understand Ehrmans to say, yes, precisely. The early writings eventually made it into the canon, or not, based on belief in their authentic authorship, or not.

According to John Drane Introducing the New Testament "The word Canon here comes from a similar Greek word meaning a measuring stick: the New Testament Canon was to be an accurate measure by which all theological and doctrinal viewpoints could be tested"

This clearly supports the view that the Canon derives its "authenticity" from its doctrine rather than its actual or purported authorship.

Also note that early canons also included:
The Revelation of Peter
Wisdom of Solomon

Excluded or dispiuted at one stage or another were:
Hebrews
James
2 Peter
Jude
2&3 John

Also considered for inclusion (but rejected):
The Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Gospel of the Hebrews
Acts of Peter
Letter of Barnabas

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve_R:
According to John Drane Introducing the New Testament "The word Canon here comes from a similar Greek word meaning a measuring stick: the New Testament Canon was to be an accurate measure by which all theological and doctrinal viewpoints could be tested"

This clearly supports the view that the Canon derives its "authenticity" from its doctrine rather than its actual or purported authorship.

Does it? That would imply that they had another measuring stick to measure the stick itself against.

My understanding is the same as Timothy the Obscure's and Autenreith Road's: that canonicity was based on the likelihood of apostolic authorship, or rather the likelihood of connection to the apostolic community (I don't think Matthew, Mark or Luke would actually be considered apostles themselves, even if it was them that authored the books in question). And then that was used as the yardstick against which to measure new theological viewpoints.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

From my reading of Ehrmans (Misquoting Jesus), the point about books which were in but then dropped, or weren't in for a long time but finally accepted, was precisely because of debates about their authorship.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0