Uneasiness over Non-Canonical Texts Update

On an excellent blog that has only recently come to my attention, James Watts interacts  with the series by April DeConick I refer to in my notes to Biblical Studies Carnival XIX.

James is undoubtedly right that the Gospel of Thomas, to cite an obvious example, stands no chance to replace the four gospels found in the New Testament in contemporary religious culture or culture tout court. Not even a writer as delightful as Elaine Pagels could pull that off.

Still, I believe very strongly in the value of reading ancient literature outside of that understood as biblical, for its own sake, and with a view to exploring commonalities and differences with biblical literature. To use examples familiar to me, there is a sense in which I came to understand biblical prophecy only after coming to grips with prophecy as attested in Mari, Assyria, and the Iliad for that matter. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, in the case of a gospel like that of Thomas. The specific characteristics of the four canonical gospels are much clearer against the background the gospel of Thomas provides.

Comments

[tim bulkeley]

Aren't you here confusing (i.e. mixing together) two distinct notions:
- valuable to read and study
- canonical
Clearly Thomas etc. are valuable to study, but such works do not provide a rule of faith...

In general you seem to be arguing for a very open, broad (if graded see post above) canon. In practical terms I'd argue the reverse, but also a multi-tiered canon, with the four gospels at the centre, rest of the (traditional Protestant) Bible around (with varying degrees of closeness!) then Deuterocanonicals, then other useful reading...

Trying to cope with the sort of broad canon you seem to propose would keep a full-time scholar busy, with no teaching! Imagine the poor person in the pew...

[John Hobbins]

Hi Tim,

No, I don't propose that the gospel of Thomas should function canonically. Thanks for allowing me to clarify that.

As far as graded or multi-tiered canons are concerned, it sounds to me that ours are similar if not identical. It's a bit more literature to be familiar with, and a person's wellbeing or salvation certainly does not depend on knowledge of but a fraction of the whole, I suppose, but it's nothing compared to the sea of the Talmud.

Furthermore, I don't see why the great broad study Bibles of antiquity like Codex Alexandrinus cannot serve as models for us today.

[tim bulkeley]

I guess my perception of the difference comes from a different ecclesiology etc. being from the broadly Anabaptist tradition it is important to me that Scripture can be read, understood and interpreted by ordinary people, and that scholars and priests have no monopoly on the canonical texts. The more the idea of canon is broadened the easier it becomes to assert such a bar to entry to discussion of Scripture. (See e.g. some of Jim W's posts and comments on my posts for an opposing view from another Baptist!)

[John Hobbins]

As a Waldensian, I share some of your concerns. Pre-Reformation Waldensians attended Mass, but the center of their spiritual life was small-group Bible study and sharing of the Lord's Supper led by lay itinerant preachers.

It does not follow, of course, that ignorance of Ben Sira for example is therefore a good thing. John Wesley, a folk theologian if there ever was one, found it opportune to quote from ben Sira in his preaching. He obviously thought it contains valuable teaching.

The first question a Protestant needs to ask is if the current practice, which did not become the norm until the twentieth century, to NOT include said literature in printed Bibles, is wise.

I think it is unwise. Their omission leads to an impoverishment of the Christian conscience. I am not suggesting that one should return to a position at variance with the 39 Articles, according to which we are not to "apply to them to establish any doctrine."

I am suggesting that the deuterocanonicals (indeed, a wider corpus of them than NSRV, REB, NAB, and NJB contain) should be printed together with the Old and New Testaments in Bibles meant for all.

This would be in accord with proto- and early Reformation practice, as attested by Wycliffe's Bible, Luther's Bible, Olivetan's Bible (the initial production of which was financed by Waldensians), the Geneva Bible before 1640, and the KJV.

Not to include them, I know, has become a way to distinguish oneself from the tradition-bound Orthodox and Catholic communions, and now, the tendency of liberal Protestants to include them in the Bibles they print, only to ignore them just the same (how disgusting is that?).

To include them, on the other hand, would be as sign, for evangelicals, that they now see themselves as authentic heirs of the entire Christian tradition.

Speaking as an evangelical, I see such a self-understanding as a very good thing.

[tim bulkeley]

We are indeed thinking similarly, maybe we need two understandings of canon. Both graduated or fuzzy. One for developing theology and ideas about praxis, which should be conservative in the sense of excluding rather than including. The other for preaching, study and devotion, which could be inclusive rather than exclusive... I listened to a podcast this morning of a DSS scholar suggesting, in passing, that some of the prayers from Qumran would be good added to the churches' repetoire...