tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post1742863493600282932..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: Polypraxy (too)April DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-16637467881632580862008-05-21T13:22:00.000-07:002008-05-21T13:22:00.000-07:00So, what I am gathering is that polydoxy expresses...So, what I am gathering is that polydoxy expresses the jostling for prominence and polemics that the more generally applicable term, polymorphic, does not. <BR/><BR/>Polymorphic probably would include a wider range of interactions rather than just polemical ones--and, in fact, not just among Christian forms, but Jewish, Christian, Greek, etc.--so the critique that there is nothing specifically "Christian" about it is right on, but perhaps that is why I like it. <BR/><BR/>But, if our goal is to describe specifically the interactions among Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, perhaps what we see is "polyorthic," or "many correct ones."Jared Calawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-80792846773696149782008-05-21T12:14:00.000-07:002008-05-21T12:14:00.000-07:00I did consider polymorphic before I made my initia...I did consider polymorphic before I made my initial post. The trouble with that is the same trouble with using "Christianities." This just suggests that there are a variety of expressions, and nothing really "Christian," and nothing about their relationship to each other or self-identity. I have the same criticism of "Judaisms." Now we have all used this language of plurality (=Christianities/Judaisms) because we didn't have anything better. But it is not quite right. Who today would describe Christianity as Christianities, yet it is extremely diverse.<BR/><BR/>The situation in the second and third century is more nuanced. We have foundational Christian stories and traditions and hermeneutics that form the basis of the various expressions, and each of these expressions understand themselves to be the correct way, and they are competing with others by forming alliances and hierarchies and canons and new scriptures to own the day. So we have a situation of polydoxy.April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-28789463669086272892008-05-21T11:19:00.000-07:002008-05-21T11:19:00.000-07:00I completely agree that separation of belief and p...I completely agree that separation of belief and practice is anachronistic, especially when considering that the earliest creeds came out of the ritual of baptism (and, as you point out, the Eucharist). That is why I offered and resisted the term "polypraxy" in same breath in your previous post. Perhaps "polydoxy" includes practice (and perhaps it is for you to define it that way, as the prerogative of the one offering the neologism), but it sounds like it privileges one to the expense of the other even though that may not be the intention. <BR/><BR/>My offered term, polymorphic, which is not a neologism, may be a bit generic without specific reference to religious concepts as "doxy" has, but by being generic, meaning "many forms," it does allow the flexibility of including and not dividing practice and belief. Moreover, given the connotation of constant change that the term "morph" has accrued, it can illustrate the fluidity of Christian "forms" in this time period.Jared Calawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514noreply@blogger.com