“Top Ten Faulty Arguments” Revisited
First, Timothy Paul Jones points out a typographical error. I wrote: “First, even if we grant that full-blown Gnostic Christianity is a late second century phenomenon (well, mid-first century really if we include Valentinus and Marcion)” but should have written “well, mid-second century…”). Oops.
Bryan L. asked for my opinion on why the non-canonical gospels fell out of use. Was there a concerted effort to suppress the texts? It would seem so from reading the canon lists and Athaniasius’ 39th Festal Letter. But such limitations on the canon can only be enforced in areas where the Western church had power and influence. As that power and influence grew, the Western canon became enforced. That said I agree that certain texts seem to have been more popular in certain areas and this popularity would have a natural effect on shaping the canon (though were they popular because the people liked them or because their preachers/bishops, etc. liked them and chose to read no other texts?). Gnostic texts, of course, had a limited audience (average readers/listeners would find them hard to understand and the texts’ views on asceticism unattractive).
Peter Head wrote: “For me most of these are only problematic when absolutised and generalised. Try using ’some’ for 1 and 4; and ‘many’ for 2 and 3. Then I’d (probably) have to agree with them (as you probably would too).” Peter is correct—I would agree with these arguments if the qualifiers were attached. But the problem with these arguments is precisely that they are absolutized and generalized, and are so because they rest on apologetically-motivated assumptions. That is what makes them faulty arguments.
Danny Zacharias has asked for citations for each of the faulty arguments. I will include complete citations when my work on this material is transformed into a formal paper. For now, I offer these select examples:
1. All non-canonical texts are Gnostic. See the discussion of the Gospel of Peter by Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus, p. 69-70 (he considers the lack of pain experienced by Jesus on the cross and the text’s anti-Jewishness as signs of Gnosticism) and the discussion of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Komoszewski et al, Reinventing Jesus, p. 154 (“Although we are distinguishing the infancy gospels from the ‘Gnostic’ gospels, in many cases the former belong to the latter category”).2. Canonical texts are early compositions and non-canonical texts are late. Craig Evans (Fabricating Jesus) dates the composition of the Gospel of Thomas to ca. 175 or 180 (rather close to the date assigned to the extant Greek papyri). He does so for several reasons (see pp. 67-68): because of the gospel’s apparent awareness of many of the NT writings, because it contains Gospel materials that scholars regard as late (i.e., M, L and John), because it reproduces Matthean and Lukan redaction, and because it shows familiarity with traditions distinctive to East Syrian Christianity, which did not emerge before the middle of the second century. All of these reasons are debatable but looking at the dating question purely by the material evidence, Evans’ position would be akin to dating Mark to ca. 150 because the earliest manuscript evidence is believed to be from 175 CE (P45). Peter Head commented that this manuscript should be dated to the mid third century. If so, this makes the physical evidence for Mark even bleaker (though Head states that we know Mark was in existence certainly by Irenaeus’ time, for the bishop mentions all four canonical gospels; mind you one could always make the argument that we don’t really know that Irenaeus is referring to canonical Mark—a similar argument is made by Evans about whether or not our manuscript evidence for the Gospel of Peter is truly the “Gospel of Peter” mentioned by Serapion [in office 199-211 CE])
3. The Non-canonical gospels are not “gospels.” See Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus, ch. 4. The canonical gospels are “primarily narrative, with teaching interspersed within an overall storyline reaching a definite climax, while the latter (such as “Thomas”) consist simply of a collection of sayings, arranged as much for the purposes of meditation or memorization as for any thematic sequence or continuity…though the Gnostic documents do sometimes call themselves ‘gospels,’ they manifestly belong to a different genre” (p. 67).
4. The writers and readers of non-canonical texts were hostile to the canonical texts. See Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus, p. 81 (and Komoszewski et al, Reinventing Jesus, p. 152-153). Here he takes issue with Elaine Pagels’ view that ancient Christians could read the canonical and Gnostic gospels side-by-side, with the canonical for public worship and the Gnostic for advanced-level teaching. Wright admits that this is what Valentinians did but still criticizes Pagels for the view: “it could only be sustained by a systematic and sustained rereading, and in fact radical misreading, of the canonical gospels themselves” (p. 81). Whether the Valentinians and others were right or wise to do so is not important, only the fact that they did.
5. Extant versions of non-canonical texts are identical to their autographs. See, for example, the discussion of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas by Komoszewski et al, Reinventing Jesus, which is based on the Greek A recension of the text by Tischendorf, now shown to be a late, expanded version of the gospel. I find this approach to the texts particularly problematic in the scholarship on the Gospel of Thomas for it routinely neglects the Greek fragments of the text which, though incomplete, are better witnesses to the original text as they predate the Coptic by two centuries and are likely in the text’s original language.
Tony;
I think what we have to consider is that your and April write from within a specific intellectual tradition and many of the Christian writers you critisize are writing in a different one, so are likely to come to different conclusions about CA. I’m not saying that to be all post-modern, but to explain why Christian scholars feel it necessary to write about and refute CA texts. Now, I fully grant you that some of those efforts have been sloppier than others and I also agree that your first five critisisms have some force. Yet, in essence, I don’t think you can legitimately expect Christian scholars and more secular scholars of CA to agree on the status of CA texts. Of course, Christian scholars will tend to view them with suspicion and measure them against tradition and the canonical Gospels. Equally, your position should strike no one as surprising.
Now, that said, I do agree we need to study CA texts in their own terms. From my Christian perspective, my reasoning is twofold. First, to understand the environment that (proto-)orthodoxy came out of we have to consider what the alternatives were. That is rather more complex, as you note, because some CA texs were (and are) more acceptable than others. That was always true. Second, to understand how these texts are being used today both by those who want to critisize orthodoxy and by those who wish to defend it. While I grant that many people who try to refute them are playing fast and rather loose in their understanding of them, I would point out that many defending these texts and wish to see them more fully represented in Christian circles are playing equally fast and loose by very selective readings and citations of them. This, I note, is in the popular realm and not something that I would include you or Dr. DeConick.
Does that make some sense?
Phil
Thanks Tony,
Two tiny points: it is not only me dating P45 in the third century, as far as I know it is everyone.
Irenaeus quotes from the beginning of Mark (1.1f) and the end of Mark (16.19) so I don’t think there is much doubt that he knew a complete (more than complete!) text of Mark. There is considerable doubt as to how well he knew what was between the beginning and the end, but that is a different story.
Peter,
My date for Mark is from work by Comfort; but again, it doesn’t affect the point I was trying to make. About whether Irenaeus knew Mark, I’m sure he did but I’m simply trying to turn the arguments of the apologists against them. That is the big lesson for all of us, I think, that we should not treat the texts differently if they are canonical or non-canonical.
I’ve found your comments helpful as I try to avoid some of these pitfalls in an upcoming book on which I’m working. In the midst of this, it did occur to me that the inverse pattern of what you describe seems to be present in J. Dominic Crossan’s writings (and a few others)—an overly-suspicious treatment of the canonicals and an overly high assessment of some strata of Christian apocrypha.
Tony,
Now that you have added some citations at my request (thanks btw) I really need to take issue with #2 and 3. As to #3, if Wright is comparing only Thomas and the canonical gospels, would you really disagree that they are a different genre? It seems clear to me that this is a genre issue—he is not saying the apocryphal gospels weren’t read “as gospel” by the early church. Would you really argue that Thomas and Matthew are the same genre? A general consensus seems to be that the canonical gospels are ancient biographies, I don’t think this genre label can be applied to Thomas.
As to #2, I must admit that I am really perplexed. You have laid out 4 supporting reasons for why Evans regards Thomas as late, and yet you call the argument faulty. It can only be proved faulty if each item in the argument is shown to be incorrect or at least highly questionable—and you would have to engage with all the scholarship that agrees with these points. Fabricating Jesus was not an original contribution to the field per se, but a summary of what a lot of scholarship has already said about Thomas.
As to the “material evidence”, does Evans even use this to support his argument? I don’t recall that he does. You seem to be implying that he recognized the date of the extant Greek papyri and dated the composition close to it — his arguments for the late date of Thomas are on entirely different grounds. You haven’t yet shown number 2 to be faulty, though I have been educated by your other points.
Thanks a bunch!
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Evans, but I must admit that—from my perspective—he does overstate the case for such a late date on GTh. I think a date of 120-140 better fits the evidence—teachings of Jesus, stripped of apocalyptic elements in the aftermath of failed Jewish expectations of the world’s end.
Timothy,
Thanks for your comments. Allow me to respond:
1. On “gospel”: Yes Thomas and the canonical gospels are different genres of literature. My problem with Wright et al is defining a new genre (“gospel”) by looking only at biographical texts called “gospels”. Perhaps we can consider “gospel” a meta-genre that can include a wide variety of literature. But to rule out non-biographical gospels as not belonging to a genre of “gospel” that does even exist (“gospel” is not a recognized literary genre) seems to be simply an attempt to discredit the texts and not to engage in proper literary analysis of the material.
2. Evan on Thomas: I do have problems with all of Evans’ arguments about the date for Thomas. But more importantly Evans begins with the assumption that Thomas is late and then seeks to justify it with what I see as poor evidence (see my earlier post on Evens’ book). I think it is extremely difficult to date a text’s origins that close to the manuscript evidence. I don’t favour a radically early date for the text, but late second century is, to me, too late. And one more thing: I wouldn’t characterize Evans’ discussion as a summary of scholarship on Thomas–in fact, it is a summary only of that scholarship that supports his argument (this is another pet peeve of mine: citing only the scholarship that you like and ignoring, or at best belittling, contrary scholarship; this makes the casual reader think that there are no other positions on the issues).
“Evans begins with the assumption that Thomas is late and then seeks to justify it with what I see as poor evidence”
This is purely a judgement call that is slighting his argument. Should I say that all scholars who date Thomas early begin with the premise that it is early? We should judge each conclusion on the merits of its argument.
Neither should someone say Tony begins with the premise that the authors are writing as Christian apologists and seeks to prove his premise
Danny,
I’ve said it before: neither liberal nor conservative scholars should operate with presuppositions. I’ve even applauded writers like Evans for criticising liberal scholars for doing so. I would just like to see both sides of the spectrum operate with more historical-critical rigour. As for calling these authors “apologists”, just take a look at the testimonies in their own books from other scholars and at their publishers’ own press releases. I don’t think they’d object to the label.