 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
The Lost Gospels
Wednesday, May 3, at 12 noon, U.S. Eastern time
Some religion scholars believe early Christianity was much more diverse than experts have long believed. They say other scholars' insistence on labeling lost Christian texts "Gnostic gospels" blinds them to the texts' differences from one another -- and to their similarity to orthodox Christianity. For example, they challenge the idea that those believers, labeled heretics, were alienated from the world and at war with their bodies.
How are the so-called Gnostic gospels similar to the canonical books of the Bible? What elements in them led them to be branded as heretical?
How would abandoning the term "Gnostic" change scholars' understanding of early Christianity? How is keeping the term useful? Or is the distinction meaningless?
» The End of Gnosticism? (5/5/2006)
Karen L. King is a professor of ecclesiastical history at Harvard University's Divinity School. She is the author of The Secret Revelation of John and What Is Gnosticism? (both Harvard University Press) and The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Polebridge Press).
Richard Byrne (Moderator):
Welcome to today's Live Colloquy on the ancient Coptic texts that are usually lumped together as The Nag Hammadi Library or "Gnostic" gospels. Beneath that shorthand, of course, are writings that in many cases resist easy labels. Some texts, like the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas, were not found at Nag Hammadi. The majority of the texts are not "gospels" in the traditional sense, but revelations, apocalypses, tractates and even a bit of Plato. Some scholars argue that many of them are not even "Gnostic." Our guest today, Karen L. King, a professor at Harvard's Divinity School, has written extensively on these texts. Not only has she written a book examining the historical use of the term Gnosticism -- and making a case for its relegation to the scrap heap -- but she has also written two recent books on the Gospel of Mary and the Secret Revelation of John that put her theoretical views into practice via close readings. Karen King has an initial comment, and then we will open the colloquy to your questions. Thanks for joining us!
Karen L. King:
The question of "Gnosticism" is not merely a matter of noting tht limitations which pertain to all typologies and categorical definitions. It is about understanding the dynamics by which early Christian discourses of self and other (orthodoxy and heresy) have shpaed and continue to shape the master narrative of Christian origins--and by implication contemporary Western discourses of religious identity, along with notions of tolerance and intolerance.
Question from David Gansz, Edison State Community College, Ohio:
I am amused by the fact that adherents to -- and practitioners of -- the Christian dogma appear to be as threatened by the Gnostic writings today as they were 1,800 years ago. Evidently, human consciousness has evolved very little over that time. Given that all knowledge is secret and hidden until it is possessed, what is the major threat that Gnosticism poses to organized Christianity presently?
Karen L. King:
If we were to make a list of the issues most hotly debated by the early Christians, we would see that they are very much still the issues being debated today: the reality of the resurrection, the meaning of Jesus' death, the interpretatino of his teachings, the roles of women and slaves, sexuality and the body, suffering and evil, relation to Judaism, unjust political power, and so forth. Christians have been grappling with these issues for centuries. The defensive posture you note arises in denying that, in making claims to be speaking for the one fixed unchanging truth of God; in claiming one's own answers are the original true answers (one strategy of the ancient discourse of orthodoxy and heresy). History poses very serious challenges to those claiming that kind of authority. If people examine the new texts for themselves, they will see that Christianity has been as much about seeking as finding.
Question from Bert Buby, S.M. International Marian Research Institute:
Would it be more correct to distinguish between those texts which are docetic (this seems to be the case with the Gospel of Judas) than gnostic? Do not some scholars also challenge the nomenclature given to the apocrypha as "Gospels", "Epistles", etc.? I think that Dr.Karen L. King is helping us to see the bigger picture with her insights and research on being careful about naming texts as 'gnostic."
Karen L. King:
Docetism (the view that Jesus only seemed to have a body but never really suffered or died) represents a charge of heresy that would apply to some of these new texts (notably the Apocalypse of Peter) but not others. Rather than start from the heresiologists' definition of what the central issue is, I am suggesting that we ask what was at stake in such issues. Here we see 1) different deployments of body symbolism to do different kinds of theological work (for example in the Secret Revelation of John); 2) the question about Jesus' body was fundamentally a question about what it means to be human: Are we soul and spirit-infused flesh? Or are we immortal spirit-infused souls whose fleshly bodies will decay at death? The question of genre arises because of the fluidity of early Christian literary experimentation.
Question from Nick, Surrey:
Some other early Christians accused the Gnostics of being sexual libertines. Was there any truth to the rumor or was it just a useful form of defamation.
Karen L. King:
This question is much debated among scholars. The new literature we have found, despite its considerable diversity, tends toward ascetic positions of various kinds. Let me hasten to add, some of these present marriage and sexual reproduction in a positive light, so we can't confirm the stereotype of "Gnostic hatred of the body." But we also find no evidence of libertinism. That could be because it belonged to strategies of slander or because of the selectivity of what was preserved. Many scholars, myself included, wonder whether the charge of libertinism represents a (more or less purposeful) misrepresentation of certain practices, much the way that the Christian practice of Eucharist was behind charges that Christians were cannibals.
Question from Kent Richards, Society of Biblical Literature:
Thanks for the excellent piece ("The End of Gnosticism"). I am wondering if the debate/discussion over the use of "gnosticism" has analogues that might be informative to this issue? Being from Hebrew Bible studies I think one might see some similarities with the use of the term Canaanites. A significant difference of course is the fact that the term Canaanite exists in antiquity. Should we avoid contemporary designations that are not found in antiquity?
Karen L. King:
I think the issue is not to avoid contemporary designations as such; it is to be clear that our categories are positional and provisional. That is, they are designed to do certain kinds of work, so we need to be as cognizant as possible about what they show and what they hide, who they serve, and what it is we want to learn from them. When a term is used in antiquity (like Canaanites, or gnostikoi) we should all inquire about the same range of issues: what did the naming designate, who did it serve, what kind of work was it doing (theological? social? boundary-setting?), for whom, and whether it was contested and why.
Richard Byrne (Moderator):
We are at the half-way point in today's Colloquy. We do have time for more questions, however, so if you are lurking out there with a query -- fire away!
Question from Richard Byrne, the Chronicle of Higher Education:
One of the points that I regret not being able to include in the article due to space considerations was something that you mentioned to me in our interview in Boston. As we were talking, you noted that as a graduate student, you met with some mild resistance from mentors (and later, colleagues) to working on these texts. In my interview with Elaine Pagels, another prominent scholar of these writings, she also mentioned a similar resistance to her early efforts to incorporate these texts into her scholarship. Can you relate a bit of what factors made schoalrs prior to your generation shy away from engaging with these writings?
Karen L. King:
In my case, it was less shying away from the texts than from the feminist approach I was using. Some are similarly dismayed by the suggestion that anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, and colonialist elements are evident in the dominant approaches to the study of Gnosticism. Unfortunately they are taken as a personal criticism rather than an attempt to come to terms with the heritage of history, an ethical issue for me. Resistence also arises from those who consider any sympathetic reading of these works an attack on the various orthodoxies current today.
Question from Ben W. Brumfield, Software Engineer in Austin, Texas:
In Hidden Gospels, Philip Jenkins suggested that many of the modern popularizers of Gnostic studies act as mythmakers, attempting to cram heterodox groups into egalitarian, pluralist, or feminist molds they do not fit in order to claim an authenticity that comes from antiquity. It seems to me, however, that the in-depth coverage of the Gospel of Judas showed a certain tension between scholars about the document's implications for modern readers, with only a few making expansive claims about Judas challenging the canon, while others gave more measured, contextualized commentary.
What do you think of the current interaction between popular culture and the academic study of early heterodoxy? If certain scholarly opinions are more headline-getting than others, does that affect the direction of scholarship?
Karen L. King:
My own position is to cultivate critical egagement with all religious tradition. People select from diverse tradition what they live out, and need to take responsibility for that. I don't think these texts challenge the canon as such, but I do think they challenge certain claims made about the canon, both in terms of its content and its apostolic authority. The view that historical work on the Bible or early Christianity can be protected from contemporary deployments by believers or theologians has proved false. Conservatives certainly have not taken that stance, but have fully engaged their academic work and its historical claims with people in the pews. When feminists do this it is called ideological; that of course is a strategic move. The question is do the texts support the weight of the claims. Such matters will always be contested where issues of power (and money) are at stake. The media tends to pick up on controversies; while we shouldn't play to them, they do provide teaching opportunities that we can't responsibly avoid. The issue I question in my work is whether claims to antiquity should in fact constitute claims to authority--that is a primary strategy of the ancient discourse of orthodoxy and heresy, and one that deserves closer scrutiny.
Question from Jenny Green, Ottawa Citizen:
What is the significance of re-evaluating Gnostic gospels to our understanding of Christianity today? What do you make of the recent release of the Gospel of Judas?
Karen L. King:
I think we need complex resources to engage the complex issues of our own day. A more complex understanding of early Christianity can help offer those resources--but they need to be accompanied by a capacity for critical reflection within the communities to whom we are responsible. In that context, they potentially have much to offer, but letting us see the canonical materials afresh and helping us engage more widely in the issues under debate. The Gospel of Judas is one more voice--and one definitely in need of critical thought for any appropriation. It can lead people to look again at what the New Testament gospels say about Judas, but it also contains a sharp position of anti-Judaism (in its portrait of "the Twelve" as fundamentally misguided).
Richard Byrne (Moderator):
We have 15 minutes left on the clock in today's Colloquy... plenty of time for a few more questions to add to the excellent queries we have received thus far.
Question from Bill:
The article says often that you disagree with the current consensus, and that you believe that there is a diversity of views among what has been called "Gnosticism," but it is short on specifics. Please discuss key issues which have separated Gnosticism from Christianity: a) view of the material world, b) continuity or discontinuity with Judaism, c) view of the incarnation, d) public proclamation vs. secret knowledge.
Karen L. King:
Among specialists in these texts, there is consensus that they represent a considerable diversity of views. To answer you question of specifics of all of them would take volumes, so let me address one particular work, The Secret Revelation of John (SRJ), which scholars consider of central importance to describing "Gnosticism." a) the material world and the human body was formed according to the pattern of the True God above, but by an ignorant and arrogant demi-God. It thus not the best copy possible (as Plato would have it) but an ignorant parody. Humanity is formed thus in the image of the True God, but in the likeness of the lower world rulers. b)SRJ uses Jewish scripture, esp. Genesis, as a fundamental building block of its theology, but it considers that only Christ can give a true understanding of it. As with other forms of Christianity, there is both continuity and discontinuity. c) the incarnation is not discussed; there are several saviors (male and female) of which Christ is the final one who completes the revelation d) the revelation is to be written down and communicated further to those in a position to accept it, but note that the text also suggests a universal salvation of humanity (excluding apostates).
Question from Richard Byrne:
Another topic that I wish that I could have shoehorned into the article was a bit more information about the Coptic language -- which is an Egyptian language rendered in the Greek alphabet. The scholars with whom I spoke for this article had a range of opinions about its difficulty to learn. Some said that it was easier than Greek itself. Others rated it as very difficult. Since so much of our interpretation of these texts hinges on accurate translations from this language, I wonder if you'd share some of your experiences with translating Coptic and its overall difficulty as a language?
Karen L. King:
Most scholars working on these Coptic texts already know Greek, so the alphabet and a considerable vocabulary are already familiar. That of course makes it easier to learn. The basic structure of the language (belonging to the Afro-Semitic group) is fairly delimited and can be grasped structurally in short compass. The difficulty comes in because of variations in dialect (lack of standardization in spelling, syntactic and grammatical variations, etc.), the relative lack of study of this language (for example in comparison with Greek), and its wide-ranging use of idiomatic expressions (some of which we simply don't yet grasp). As with all literature, they should be studied in the original languages (these are already translations from Greek). Those without that knowledge can best consult a variety of translations to begin to get a sense of scholarly agreements and disagreements. The Gospel of Judas has a number of unresolved questions, due in part to the damaged state of the manuscript and in part due to difficulties of expression.
Question from Kent Richards, Society of Biblical Literature:
I agree with the questions you say we need to be asking as scholars of antiquity. The problems come when we attempt to bring the texts into contemporary discussions where the boundaries that are being set (just to take one of the categories) are so different. How does seeking a more adequate set of terms to describe these texts in antiquity come to play in the use of them in contemporary boundary setting? I think that is the place where it becomes interesting.
Karen L. King:
First of all it allows us to see that all categories are fully part of contemporary discussions. Multiple approaches let us see more clearly where the current issues are, and can help us to articulate more fully what is at stake and for whom. It is also the case that we can do history better, in the sense of more adequately accounting for all of our data. At the same time, analyzing the strategies employed in such debates (very often modern versions of those employed in ancient heresy debates) can help us sort out the polemics and engage in more fruitful analysis.
Question from Marty S., Indianapolis:
If, as it appears, there is so much relativism regarding religious “truth” and in such religious writings and teachings as those found in the “gospels”; if selectivity was used and is being used by those in authority to come up with their versions of “The Truth,” how can one really determine truth from heresy? The Roman Catholic hierarchy claims “The Truth” was shown to them by the Holy Spirit, and that is why their orthodoxy is true; after all, it comes from God. One might be skeptical about such a claim, as it has been made by many alleged charlatans over the centuries, including Jim Jones. It seems the more one learns about the history of the various religions, the more one distrusts all of them. How do you glean any truth from all the confusing, often contradictory dogma?
Karen L. King:
This depends on what kind of theory of religion one holds. If religion is approached as containing the One Truth, it is easy to see how disappointment leads to distrust. If one sees religious tradition as the place to engage the development of one's religious and spiritual life (in a community of tradition), then openness is an advantage. In yesterday's New York Times Magazine, the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr was quoted as writing, "Open-mindedness, he argued, is not 'a virtue of poeple hwo don't believe anything. It is a virtue of people hwo know.. that their beliefs are not absolutely true.'" And I would add, here is the need for critical engagement with tradition as part of ethical responsibility in the spiritual life.
Karen L. King:
Whether of not the term "Gnosticism" remains in use, the Coptic papyrus texts discovered in Egypt in modern times will have an enormous impact on how we understand the formation of Christianity in the first centuries CE. At the same time, they offer a timely opportunity to grapple with the dynamic processes by which discourses of religious identity and exclusive normativity are shaped.
Richard Byrne (Moderator):
I want to thank everyone who stopped by today's Live Colloquy -- and especially those who asked us such excellent questions. I also want to thank Karen King of Harvard University for taking time out to answer questions today. If your interest is piqued by today's discussion, her two studies of ancient Coptic texts: The Secret Revelation of John (Harvard University Press) and The Gospel of Mary Magdala (Polebridge Press) will plunge you directly into the fascinating questions raised today.