(4) Are Gnostics fringe believers?

My third point was that most biblical scholars aren't interested in studying the NH documents because they are perceived to be late and therefore of no consequence to Christian Origins. The same is true, I suppose, for ante-Nicene literature in general. Not many biblical scholars take the time to become well-versed in much beyond the apostolic fathers.

This is a terrible mistake in my opinion. Christian Origins isn't just about studying the historical Jesus or the rise of the first Christian Jews or the study of Paul. Christian Origins is about trying to map out how an obscure Jewish messianic apocalyptic movement became a Christian religion by the time of Constantine. The second century is the "moment" when this transformation was underway, when the normative process kicked into high gear.

It is a fallacy, although one tauted around frequently as fact, that the "other" forms of Christianity in the second century were "fringe" groups of Christians. Part of the reason for this characterization is that for years we have called the proto-orthodox tradition "mainstream" while all the other traditions "alternatives." Although better than "orthodox" and "heretical," this is language that still gives us a false impression. It is still language that is the consequence again of our theological heritage, the desire to preserve authentic biblical faith of the churches today. Our tradition is "mainstream"; everyone else's is "alternative." This makes it seem like everyone else is on the "fringe" of Christianity, and that they are small, minor or deviant movements.

I have realized the problems with this language only recently. So in my newest book on the Gospel of Judas (The Thirteenth Apostle), I have shifted the language I use to talk about the second century Christians. I now use the term "Apostolic church(es)" when discussing what we have previously called "proto-orthodox" or "mainstream." This shift in language suggests something much closer to the truth: that the Apostolic Church was one variety of Christianity in the ancient world, and in the second century it was not yet the dominant form.

The literature tells us - both the patristic and the NH - that the "other" forms of Christianity were in no way fringe or minor. The Church Fathers tell us over and over again, how massive the Churches of Marcion and the New Prophecy were, how widespread the Gnostic teachings. How concerned were they? Enough to write volumes and volumes against their teachings. Tertullian alone devotes an entire book to depose Valentinianism; five books to criticize Marcion. Irenaeus' Against Heresies is no small feat arguing against minor forms of Christianity. Etc. In the ancient world, where literacy is low and writing expensive and for restricted purposes, the massive amount of rhetoric written against these people is extremely informative.

The literature produced by the "other" forms of Christianity looks scant only because the members of the Apostolic Church burnt it. But these other Christians were equally prolific in their writing and instruction. We happened to get lucky with the NH and Tchacos finds, which recovers part of this other literature. From it we can tell that they were very very sophisticated theologically, and were often critical of theologies of the Apostolic Church. And we can see theologies develop within the Apostolic Church that respond to the criticisms of the other Christians. The theology of the Apostolic Church would not have become what it did without the Gnostics and other Christians (and Jews) as dialogue partners.

The next time we want to dismiss the Gnostic material in particular as late and irrelevant, just remember that a version of the Apocryphon of John existed by the time that the Pastoral letters were written (about 130 CE)! Basilides was our first known commentator on any NT books, teaching and writing around 120 CE. By 120 CE, Valentinus had already set up his school in Alexandria and was a well known theologian. Carpocrates similarly was fully operational at this early date. Marcion (who was no Gnostic) was not only functioning in this period, but had successfully established his own churches with the first NT canon in place (Luke and ten of Paul's letters).

Update:
Doug has an interesting post on his blog about this very issue, and how it is perceived by people outside the academic sphere.

Recommendations from Refugees International

Here is a link to recommendations that are now being made by Refugees International for Iraqi Refugees. Many of these refugees are Mandaeans who are in very vulnerable situations because of their religious affiliation as neither Jew nor Christian nor Muslim.

Iraqi Refugees: Time for the UN to Fully Engage

Refugees International recommends:

The United Nations:

• The Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator take a leadership role in directing cooperation between UN agencies, the establishment of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the region, and effective country team management.
• Operational agencies, such as UNICEF, the World Food Program, and the World Health Organization, make responding to Iraqi refugees’ needs a priority of their work in countries hosting Iraqis; coordinate increased activities and appeals with UNHCR; and establish contingency plans to respond to the refugee crisis in the medium term.
• UN country teams in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon make responding to the Iraqi refugee crisis a priority; better coordinate the overall UN response in each country; and join UNHCR in advocating with host governments to respect the rights of Iraqi refugees.
• OCHA immediately establish a presence in the region to provide information and coordination support to UN agencies responding to the needs of Iraqi refuges.

Donor governments:

• Fully fund all current and future UN appeals to respond to the Iraq displacement crisis;
• Engage directly with individual UN agencies and insist on their greater involvement in the region.

Catholic Bishops urge Secretary Rice to increase aid to Iraqi refugees

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio have just returned form a mission to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. They have written a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezz Rice (dated July 26). An e-version of their letter can be read here. They voice their concern about the Iraqi refugees (Mandaeans are a vulnerable part of this population) who are “in dire need of additional support from the United States and the international community.” The bishops highlighted in their letter that the basic needs of the refugees and their families are not being met, including medical care. They say that the children are particularly vulnerable.

(3) Is Coptic a hindrance to serious study of NH texts?

My second point was that the Nag Hammadi texts are in Coptic, a language not as accessible to NT scholars as the language of the DSS.

Okay. But so what. Learn Coptic.

I have been a strong advocate that Coptic become a regular language in any Christian Origins curriculum. It should not be considered an additional language to Greek and Hebrew. Over fifty early Christian texts are written in Coptic, and this doesn't even begin to include the early monastic literature, although the early monastic literature is farther removed from the study of Christian Origins than the second and third century literature from NH and the Tchacos Codex.

If a scholar doesn't learn Coptic, he or she can only include the Greek literature in any discussion of early Christianity and Christian Origins. This means that his or her study of the period is lopsided, including only the NT texts and the early fathers. Not knowing how to read Coptic is not an excuse for excluding almost half the literature from full consideration in our reconstruction of early Christianity.

If you want to learn Coptic, it is taught at many major universities. The International Association of Coptic Studies keeps a web page of all places where Coptic is taught. There is one very good learning grammar by Thomas Lambdin. There is another that has just been published by Bentley Layton, although I have not received my desk copy yet to comment on its usefulness as a learning grammar. Crum has been reprinted. There are also online resources available. I have all of these links here. Click and scroll down to Coptic History, Literature, and Art - General Resources/Coptic Language Resources.

Update: July 30, 2007
Mark Goodacre here also recommends that all graduate students in Christian Origins learn Coptic early in their career.

(2) Is Gnosticism Perverted Christianity?

As promised, I'm going to unpack my earlier post. My first reason why the NH documents aren't used or known by scholars as much as the Dead Sea Scrolls: because they were quickly labeled "Gnostic." "Gnosticism" has been used as a pejorative term meant to label texts that "pervert" scripture and the "real" Christian faith. Why would any "real" biblical scholar want to waste time studying perverted Christianity?

There are several things I'd like to note about the inaccuracy of this position for those of us invested in the historical hermeneutic:

1. Not every piece of literature in the NH collection is "Gnostic." The Thomasine literature is simply early Christian literature that represents the earliest form of orthodoxy in eastern Syrian around Edessa - a mystical form of Christianity that required celibacy to be admitted to the church. There is some Hermetic literature in NH collection (i.e., Discourse on 8th and 9th; Ascelpius). There is some Platonic literature (i.e., Republic). There is some early Christian (i.e., Teaching of Silvanus; Letter of Peter to Philip). To lump them all together as "Gnostic" and then ignore them is a way of marginalizing forms of Christianity that aren't familiar to us.

2. The word Gnosticism is a term relatively modern (18thc.) and it does not reflect the historical reality of the second century. There was no Gnostic religion separate from Judaism and Christianity or trying to pervert Christianity. Gnostic thought developed first within Judaism as a way to read the Bible literally while also maintaining the cosmology and anthropology of Middle Platonism. By the early second century, Christian theologians like Basilides and Valentinus who were philosophers were reading Christian scripture through this same lens. Orthodoxy did not yet exist, so there was no "real" Christianity to "pervert." There were many varieties of Christianity competing to control the Christian landscape. The "real" story is that Christianity was diverse in its early expression, and became more and more singular as borders were drawn and ideas and practices limited by very powerful bishops in the big metropolitan areas like Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. This story is quite different from the one that these bishops claimed and which scholars for centuries bought into: that Christianity was singular in its early formation and that heretical thinkers (the Gnostics!) emerged along the way to lead good Christians astray.

3. The notion that Gnostic thinkers were perverting authentic Christianity is a theological position, not a historical one. It is a position with theological investment, that is, securing and maintaining the "real" and "biblical" Christianity of today.

4. If we want to know how the heck early Christianity formed into the type of Christianity it did, the second century is what we have to study. It is in the second century that the boundaries are drawn and the lines lay out. Everything prior feeds into it and everything after flows out of it. It is a period when normation is at a high and yet nothing has been established. Everyone is talking to everyone else and defining their own positions over and against those of others. Everyone is control of his own piece of the pie and no one owns the whole pie but everyone acts as if he does. Really understanding the second century literature is the only way to really understand Christian Origins. Christian Origins is not just about the creation of the NT books, or what the NT books can tell us about the first Christians. Christian Origins is about understanding how a messianic apocalyptic Jewish sect became a Christian Church by the time of Constantine.

5. If we take seriously the fact that the heretic was not a heretic before he was labeled a heretic by someone else, then the second century literature becomes even more interesting. What was the heretic before he became a heretic? Orthodox? Think of the Ebionites. Their form of Christianity was akin to the "original" form of Christianity of the Jerusalem Church (pre-Paul). By the mid-second century, they are heretics. Why? Because the Christian population became dominated by Gentiles, and their Jewish constituency became in their eyes an oddity and a liability. So the original form of Christianity was declared heretical by the newer Christians. What might this say about the Gnostics?

A 7-minute Video: Mandaeans Struggle to Keep Their Faith Alive

James Angelos, Mary Catherine Brouder, and Peter Cox have produced a video for News21 called "An Ancient Religion Endangered by Iraq War: Mandaeans Struggle To Keep Their Faith Alive".

Here is the link to the video. It is absolutely worth taking the time to view. I haven't been able to figure out how to make a direct stream to my blog, so to view it you will have to go to this link.

Dr. Charles Haberi of Rutgers is interviewed, along with several Mandaeans who are living in the States. There are several clips of baptisms of men, women, and children, and images of a Mandaean wedding. The point of the video is to show that the Mandaeans are scattered in a diaspora, and without help, they will not survive.

This is the written accompanying report from News21 about their conference held in Canada:

CAMBRIDGE, ONTARIO–It is one of the oldest religions in the world, predating Christianity. Mandaeans see John the Baptist as their greatest teacher and ritual baptisms are a staple of their faith. They speak a dialect of ancient Aramaic and are the only surviving Gnostic faith. Despite their antiquity, the Mandaean religion and people are in danger.

For two millennia, they've lived in Iraq. But since 2003, they've been leaving en masse, fleeing attacks by Islamic extremists who consider them infidels. Prior to the fighting, scholars estimate 60,000 Mandaeans lived in Iraq. Today there are fewer than 5,000. Most have fled to Syria and Jordan, among the nearly two million Iraqi refugees.

There are roughly 1,000 Mandaeans now living in North America, admitted as refugees during Saddam Hussein's reign. They are lobbying Congress to allow their Iraqi relatives to join them in the United States, where they hope to keep the their faith alive.

(1) Why Nag Hammadi texts aren't as interesting to scholars of early Christianity as the Dead Sea Scrolls

Jim West has made an interesting observation in a recent post. He has noticed that more scholars of Christianity show interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls than in Nag Hammadi. Why? he asks.

I have thought about this for a long time. It is one of the reasons why I started this blog - to raise awareness about the Nag Hammadi writings and to focus attention on why they are so vital for us to study as biblical scholars. I'm also trying to get an exhibit of Nag Hammadi manuscripts to accompany the Codex Judas Congress, but this will depend on whether or not the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities will allow them to leave the Coptic Museum. Let us hope!

I think that scholars of early Christianity are more interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls for these simple reasons:

1. The Nag Hammadi documents got labeled pejoratively "Gnostic" from the beginning. Doresse when he looked at the first codex and read a few lines made the announcement that these books were Gnostic writings. In the 1940s and 1950s this was not a positive spin (and frankly it still isn't). In fact, many early commentators talk about these texts as "perverting" scripture and the "real" Christian faith. Since our field is so dominated by this theological perspective, the study of "perverted" literature was not considered important. Many scholars (even yet today) wonder why any "real" biblical scholar would want to waste his or her time studying perverted Christianity. I know this because scholars have said this directly to me, calling the literature "crazy" and "a waste of time."

The Dead Sea Scrolls never had this labeling problem. My understanding of the spin originally put on the scrolls is that it was not one of a perversion of "real" Judaism, but of a disgruntled sect of Judaism (the Essenes), a sect that might tell us something about Jesus and early Christianity. For scholars of Christianity at the time, this was a positive thing because it helped them explain the formation of Christianity which was for them like the Essene movement, a critique or revolt against Judaism. From what I can tell, this was part of the anti-Semitic explanation of Christian Origins common at the time. The other explanation was to erase its Jewish roots by demonstrating the victory of Hellenistic thought and practices. So Christianity was understood to be a Gentile religion that superceded and erased the Jewish one.

2. Because the Nag Hammadi materials are in Coptic, they are difficult for the majority of scholars to assess in the original language. This is not the case with the Dead Sea Scrolls whose original language is much easier for scholars of the bible to handle.

3. The Nag Hammadi materials, for the most part, are from the second and third centuries. Most biblical scholars don't even study the ante-Nicene fathers let alone the Nag Hammadi documents because they perceive the time period to be later than the NT, so therefore inconsequential to biblical studies. This is not so for the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate the NT writings.

4. Gnosticism is a word with a lot of baggage, most of it completely inaccurate. One of these inaccuracies is the belief that Gnosticism is a religion in antiquity that is separate from Judaism and Christianity, that is is a revolt against Judaism and Christianity. So scholars who understand Gnosticism as a religion separate from/revolting against Judaism and Christianity, do not see that the study of Gnosticism has anything to contribute to the study of the bible or early Christianity.

In future posts, I will address why each of these assumptions needs to be reassessed by all of us studying early Christianity.

Coptic Culture Conference

The Coptic Orthodox Church in the UK is proposing to organize a conference in Stevenage on Coptic Culture: Past, Present, and Future. The conference aims to bring together specialists, academics, and Coptic clergy working on all aspects of Coptic culture, from its earliest phases to the present day. New research on Coptic art, writings, and archaeology will be highlighted. One of the panels being discussed is Coptic culture and the nature of Coptic identity (religious, ethnic, and cultural), and its integration into local community in Egypt and abroad.

I don't know much more than this. As more information comes my way about this event, I'll post on it. Right now, the proposed dates for the conference are May 15-17, 2008.

So 2008 is going to be a big year for Coptic studies, with three major conferences. This is highly unusual, but let's make hay while the sun shines. These are the dates for your calendars:

Codex Judas Congress, March 13-16, 2008, Rice University, Houston, Texas

Coptic Culture: Past, Present, and Future, May 15-17, 2008, Shepalbury Manor, Stevenage, UK

Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies, September 14-20, 2008, Sonesta Hotel, Cairo

More Information about the IACS 9th International Conference

The Ninth International Association for Coptic Studies Congress will take place in Cairo, 14-20 September 2008.

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III will be the host of the congress. He has put the Saint Mark Foundation for Coptic History Studies in charge of the local organization. The president of that Foundation is Dr. Fawzy Estafanous. To open the congress, on Sunday 14th, there will be an all day public event at the Coptic Patriarchate with lectures and discussions.

The congress will function with morning plenary sessions followed in the afternoon with panels, workshops, and papers.

If you are interested in attending (even if you are not a member of IACS), you can request an electronic pre-registration form at iccopts9@web.de. Put in the header of your e-mail, "please send me iccopts9.rtf".

International Association for Coptic Studies Call for Papers

In the most recent Newletter for IACS, there appears a Call for Papers in the following categories:

1. Christianity in Medieval Egypt. Panel Coordinator: Johannes den Heijer (johannes.denheijer@uclouvain.be)

2. Coptic Language and Linguistics. Panel Coordinators: Ariel Shisha-Halevy, with Eitan Grossman (shisha@cc.huji.ac.il or eitan.eg@gmail.com)

3. Coptic Versions of the Gospel of Mark. Panel Coordinator: Anne Boud'hors (anne.boudhors@irht.cnrs.fr)

4. Early Coptic Codices: Typological Criteria. Panel Coordinator: Sofia Torallas Tovar (sofiatorallas@gmail.com)

5. From Coptic to Arabic. Panel Coordinator: Mark N. Swanson (mswanson@lstc.edu)

6. Gnosticism and Manichaeism in Egypt. Panel Coordinator: Gregor Wurst (gregor.wurst@kthf.uni-augsburg.de)

7. Monastic and Liturgical Vestments in Egypt: From Late Antiquity to Medieval Times. Panel Coordinators: Sabine Schrenk with Maria Mossakowska-Gaubert (schrenk-sa@netcologne.de and mmossakowska@ifao.egnet.net)

8. Shenoute of Atripe. Panel Coordinator: Andrew Crislip (crislip@hawaii.edu)

9. The Visual Culture of Egyptian Monasticism. Panel Coordinator: Elizabeth S. Bolman (ebolman@temple.edu)

These are the panels with calls for paper; there are other panels without calls for papers too. So this is going to be a huge conference - Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies - Cairo, September 14-20, 2008.

The Magdalene Feast

I just returned home from the Magdalene Festival held at Christ Cathedral in Houston. What a fabulous, moving, and inspiring celebration. I felt that we really brought Mary Magdalene as "the Apostle to the Apostles," into the church. The icon that Rev. Mary Green "wrote" was stunning, a real centerpiece of the Taize worship service. The music was outstanding, performed by Anita Kruse (pianist/composer), Jennifer Kenney (flutist), and Sonja Bruzauskas (soloist/singer).

I am very honored to have been part of this ceremony, and thank Betty Adam and Pam Stockton (President of Brigid's Place) for bringing the service to life in such a elegant and beautiful way. And it was so much fun to see a few of you there too!

This evening will be one of those warm fond memories that I will cherish in the years ahead.

St. Mary Magdalene Festival at Christ Cathedral

Tomorrow is the feast day for Saint Mary Magdalene. The folks at Bridget's Place and Christ's Cathedral in downtown Houston have put together a Taize worship service based on Mary's story to celebrate her feast day. Rev. Mary Green has painted a gorgeous icon of Mary Magdalene that will be blessed at the ceremony. After the service, I'm giving a lecture on the Gospel of Mary and women in the early church. I am looking forward to the event, and hope that some of you who live in or around Houston might join us. Here is a link to all the information about it.

Paperback Cover for Autumn Release of Original Gos. Thom. in Translation

I have been given a preview of the cover art for the autumn 2007 paperback release of The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, the companion volume to Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas.

Since the cover art for the 2006 paperback version of Recovering was dependent upon my own "iconic" rendering of the apostle Thomas, I was asked to make a comparable design for In Translation. This way the companion volumes would look like companion volumes.

So I decided to do an orality-scribality theme. Since the cover for Recovering is the apostle Thomas teaching, I felt that the cover for In Translation should be the apostle Thomas scribing. Here he is sitting as his desk, hard at work "remembering" the teachings of Jesus and writing them down.

I want to thank the people at Continuum who are responsible for making my renderings look so good on these covers, and for taking the risk of using an author's drawing rather than an image created by graphic designer.

More about Hybridity

There have been some interesting comments on my last post on hybridity. So I want to respond here to those.

In my opinion, hybridity is a buzz word, and it is problematic because many in our field are applying it too loosely. Often I think that it is being used to try to dress up our field and discussions so that it appears that we are saying something new. There is a tendency in many fields to use arcane insider language instead of transparent. This has always been a gripe of mine about the field of philosophy, and I resist bringing over this language into my own writings UNLESS it is going to help us.

The usage of hybridity is confusing in our field when it moves out of the arena of imperialism and post-colonial analysis where it can be argued to make some sense (but, even the scholars who study post-colonialism cannot agree if it is a best term to use or not!).

To apply it as a descriptor of the tradition of early Judaism-Christianity (pre-Nicaea) - to call this a hybrid - is misleading. It is a "single" tradition that develops positions internally that eventually, through normation, compete and force the consolidation of two separate and different traditions with common heritage.

Gnosticism is not a hybrid either. It does not represent the mixture of the views of a colonizer imposed on the colonized. It is the Platonic world view made biblical by people who wanted to think in these directions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with post-colonial hybridity and imperialism.

Gnostic movements did, however, make other Christians anxious, but then other forms of Christianity made certain Gnostic groups anxious as well. I don't think this had to do with hybridity producing colonial anxiety. I don't think that Irenaeus really cared whether the Gnostic groups laid claim to Christian tradition - what he cared about was the fact that some of his own church members, including one of his deacon's wives, had joined a Gnostic church down the street from his own. This led him then to begin to criticize the Gnostics for not really being Christian, but trying to trick people into thinking they were Christians by stealing Christian language and ritual.

All religions may indeed be syncretistic. But this is not a reason to discard the word or replace it with hybrid (which is a word that has too much baggage from the sciences and from philosophy, and is not being applied carefully enough in our field). To say that a religion is "syncretistic" isn't the point. The point is to describe and analyze the way in which this is true. Then a whole range of possibilities presents itself in terms of politics, normation, religious identities, and all the rest.

Hybridity, the new buzz word

Since my summer is filled with catch up reading and writing, I have become very aware that post-colonial hybridity has found fertile ground in recent publications in the field of early Jewish and Christian studies. In postcolonial studies, "hybridity" refers to "the creation of new transcultural forms within the contact zone produced by colonisation" (Aschroft, Grittiths, Tiffin: Post-Colonial Studies, p. 118)

A hybrid, if I remember my biology correctly, is an often (always?) sterile offspring of two different taxa. So a donkey and a horse make a mule. A blackberry and a raspberry make a loganberry. A fallen angel and a human woman make a giant (okay, not in our biological world, but in biblical mythology!).

I have nothing particularly against the term "hyridity" when it is applied in the context of two or more different aspects of society-culture morphing into something other, although I know that the word is debated in post-colonial circles.

In religious studies, one of the words that we used to use to talk about this phenomenon was "syncretism," which still seems like a good descriptor to me. So the worship of Serapis was a religious movement that morphed out of the mixture of Egyptian devotion to Osiris and the religious sentiments of the Greek colonizers. His name is a combination of Osiris and Apis, a bull god that was worshiped at Memphis. The Greek ruler of Egypt, Ptolemy I established the cult of Serapis at Alexandria and incorporated features of Greek worship including iconographical features of Zeus.

As a side - when I was in Egypt last, I made the trek down to Alexandria - a spectacular city on the coast - and visited the Serapion site. This picture is from that adventure. It was an incredibly beautiful day. Below the Temple ruins was a huge underground library, with shelves carved out of the rock ledges.

Although "hybridity" might be used to replace our term "syncretism", I wonder if its application as a descriptor of early Judaism-Christianity is really such a good idea. To apply this term to Judaism-Christianity before Judaism and Christianity became distinct, only serves to confuse an already confusing nomenclature. Christianity was Jewish for almost two centuries, although by the mid-second century some demarcations are beginning to be either created and/or acknowledged. But this entity was not a hybrid that developed out of Judaism and Christianity merging! It was more like an androgynous entity which became two religious traditions over a long period of time. Maybe I should coin the term "androgynity" to refer to this phenomenon?!

The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says is available at Amazon US

Finally the US Amazon has caught up with the Canadian and European. So for the price of four lattes or cappucinos, you can pre-order the book at Amazon (US) and get it just in time for Christmas presents! The link to Amazon (Canada) is here, and Amazon (UK) is here.

At this time, the web page at Amazon doesn't contain a summary, but I am told that the book will become searchable in the not so distant future. Until then, I provide here and on my own web page an annotated version of the table of contents. The book is not 160 pp. The last set of proofs I saw ended around 200 pp.

Part 1 An Unfamiliar Story

Chapter 1 The Silenced Voice

Provides overview of the diversity of second century Christianity. Includes discussions of the Apostolic Church, the Marcionite Church, the Ebionite Church, the Church of New Prophecy, and the Gnostics.

Chapter 2 A Gnostic Catechism

Everything you ever wanted to know about the origins and ideologies of Sethian Gnosis. Discusses the question, "What is Gnosticism?" as well as fundamental aspects of Gnostic thought: the world created by Plato, bible stories about Yahweh's Angel, oppositional gods in Gnostic theology, God's original sin and fall, the Gnostic created order, and Gnostic liberation.

Part 2 Translation Matters

Chapter 3 A Mistaken Gospel

Covers the problems I have identified in the National Geographic English translation, problems which have resulted in an interpretation of the Gospel of Judas which just cannot be maintained. Judas is not the perfect enlightened Gnostic; he never ascends to the holy generation; Jesus does not want Judas to betray him; Judas does not perform a righteous act by betraying or sacrificing Jesus; Judas' dream does not mean that he will enter the divine realm one day; the number 13 is not his lucky number.

Chapter 4 The Gospel of Judas in English Translation

Provides my own English translation of the Gospel of Judas, set out page-by-page and line-by-line according to the manuscript.

Part 3 Good Old Judas?

Chapter 5 Judas the Confessor

Argues for a subversive interpretation of Judas' confession. This chapter covers the critical attitude of this text toward the twelve apostles and how Judas fits into this scheme.

Chapter 6 Judas the Demon

Examines Judas' relationship to demons within the Sethian traditions, and discusses his tragic fate and the reason for the revelation of the Sethian mysteries.

Chapter 7 Judas the Sacrificer

This chapter contextualizes the sacrifice of Jesus within Gnostic traditions about Jesus' passion and Gnostic criticisms of atonement theology.

Chapter 8 An Ancient Gnostic Parody

Summarizes the narrative in the Gospel of Judas and considers what this Gospel might mean for us today.

Epilogue

Discussion of the contemporary need for a "good" Judas in light of our reappraisal of Jewish and Christian relationships in the wake of WWII. Looks at portrayals of Judas in popular film pre- and post-WWII.

Appendices

Further Reading

Recommends books on the Gospel of Judas, second-century Christianity, the New Testament Apocrypha, Gnosis and the Gnostics.

A Synopsis of Sethian Gnostic Literature

Describes every piece of Sethian Gnostic literature extant, laid out chronologically by approximate date of composition. Includes references to where each text is located in manuscript, including multiple versions.

Testimony from the Church Fathers on the Gospel of Judas

Includes quotes from each Church Father who mentions the Gospel of Judas, plus my own commentary on these quotations.

An Interview with April DeConick

A brief interview covering the main points of the book and its implications.

Notes

Expository Times on Thomas

In the latest issue of The Expository Times 118:10 (July 2007), my article on the Gospel of Thomas is published (pp. 469-479. The piece is an overview of work that has been done on the Gospel since it was found in the 1940s, but provides this overview from the perspective of my own work and understanding of this Gospel.

Top Ten Recommendations for Books on Biblical Orality-Scribality

Many of you have been writing to ask me for a reading list for studies in orality-scribality in biblical literature. So here are my top ten picks in alphabetical order:

1. Samuel Byrskog, Story as History, History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
2. David M. Carr. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
3. William A. Graham. Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
4. Richard A. Horsley with Jonathan A. Draper. Whoever Hears YOU Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999.
5. Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley (eds.). Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.
6. Martin S. Jaffee. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE–400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
7. Werner Kelber, The Oral and Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
8. Terence C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency. WUNT 2:105, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
9. Susan Niditch. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature, Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
10. D. C. Parker. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

How did oral performances actually work?

David Hamilton has left a very intuitive comment on the last post, which I duplicate here:

I have been enjoying your comments on orality and have struggled, like many modern people, I think, to connect with that approach on a personal level. But I realized earlier this week that I have actually experienced the compositional interaction of text and oral performance in a deep personal way.

Before taking my current job, I was a technical trainer for 20 years. For the last 10 of those years, I trained people on Lotus Domino and used courseware provided by Lotus. But of course one cannot read course materials verbatim; that would be the worst kind of training approach. So I would follow the outline or at least keep it in mind, while I filled in the gaps with my own interpretation of the relevant knowledge. I became quite conscious that my teaching was very much a performance, including techniques for engaging the students on a personal level, using humor to keep the mood light, asking probing questions to inspire them to think, and making the material relevant to their (professional) lives.

I mention this because I suspect that we moderns, deeply embedded in the book world, have trouble relating to how orality and text can interact in performance. Yet if we think about it a little, probably most of us have experienced this in some way.

Composition in an Oral-Literate Culture and a Book Note: A Full Hearing: Orality and Literacy in the Malay World (Amin Sweeney)

What does a book about contemporary literacy in Malay have to do with biblical studies? Quite a bit actually. As I continue to prepare my paper "Memory and the Sayings of Jesus: Contemporary Experimental Exercises in the Transmission of Jesus Traditions," I find myself drawn to all kinds of studies on orality and literacy. Sweeney's book, A Full Hearing, is particularly interesting to me because it examines a society dominated by orality but encountering literacy. Fascinating is Chapter 9, "Oral Orientation in Written Composition," in which Sweeney describes the shape of Malay literature, a literature preserving orality. He writes on pp. 307-308:

"The introduction of print literacy - which brought with it the possibilities already realized in the 'donor' cultures - did not cause a clean break with the past. Even those highly literate in a Western language who rejected the old modes of expression found themselves in a battle with the past when they wrote in Malay, for the language brought with it the past, a past of radically oral manuscript culture...The introduction of print literacy did not cause an immediate change in the general state of mind. The natural tendency was to perceive the new in terms of familiar schemata. The result was that even the educated sector of the populace continued to favor a paratactic, formulaic, copious, repetitive, narrative, and concrete mode of expression. Such a mode was necessary for effective communication in an oral or aurally consuming society; in a print culture, it is not: what became redundant in print now strikes us as mere verbosity."

When we think about the oral-scribal culture of the ancient world, and the type of literature that we are dealing with by and large, we see a similar oral mode of expression dominating the writing. What our early Christian literature is, is literature produced within orality, often as a support for oral performance behaviors, including reading which was an oral-aural enterprise.

I am more and more convinced as I continue to immerse myself in these studies, that our old way of framing the Synoptic Problem (and the Thomas Problem) just is not correct. We don't seem to have a good enough handle on how the ancient peoples actually composed literature, and for what purposes. We must push head on in the direction of orality-scribality if we are ever to have a chance to work out these issues fully, and we must leave behind the cut-and-paste literary redaction model, which may work for our world of composition, but has little to do with oral consciousness and composition of works within that type of environment.

Tabor on the Gospel of Peter

James Tabor has written a post on his own views about the Gospel of Peter. He thinks that it contains an early chronology and other elements that should be taken into consideration when reconstructing a history of those final days in the life of Jesus. What do you think? Are there any elements in the Gospel of Peter that you think are "independent" of the synoptic stories and/or "early" as Crossan, and now Tabor, argue?

Some Thoughts on the Tchacos Codex

Picture: Professor Wurst's presentation on the reconstruction of the Gospel of Judas at the Sorbonne, October 2006. Photo taken by me.



I have been working through the critical edition of the Tchacos Codex published by Kasser and Wurst. So here are some of my initial reactions and thoughts.

The presentation of the volume is beautiful. The layout with the face page photograph and the Coptic and English translation in columns mirroring the photograph is brilliant. But (and it is too bad that there has to be a but) the photographs are nothing more than pretty pictures. Because the pages were reduced by about 50% as far as I can tell from my own measurements, we do not have anything close to a facsimile. So it is impossible to use the photos for any kind of critical reconstructive work.

I don't know why, but I was under the impression that this particular publication was supposed to contain facsimile photos, an assumption that Kasser appears to have been under too, given his words in his introduction where he mentions full size color photographs. Yet we don't see anything near full size photos in this publication.

The long and short of it is that the book is pretty, but it is not a scholar's critical edition in terms of the usefulness of the photographs. I sure hope that the Society plans to do something about this (publishing facsimile photos, please?!), because otherwise we are all going to have to fly over to Switzerland to work on the text. This is going to continue to hold up the critical investigation of this Codex. I know that I cannot fly over to Switzerland to examine the original pages until sometime next year. So this lag time is going to hamper my own investigation and critical work on this very important Codex.

Announcing a Special Event on the Gospel of Judas

In San Diego at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting, there is going to be a special event on Sunday evening from 7-8:30 p.m.

Books on the Gospel of Judas: An Evening with the Authors.

Professor Michael Williams from the University of Washington will preside and provide a summation of the state of affairs and suggest possible directions for further research. To view all the panelists with links to their books, click here. The link will take you to a web page I put together for the event.

Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism Web page and San Diego Agenda

I have just added to my website a new page describing the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism group. It is a Society of Biblical Literature Section that meets annually at the SBL convention. Sessions are open to anyone who is interested in the subject, and we have an open call for paper proposals every year. I will keep this page as a permanent fixture on my website, and update it with new information, including information about future meetings and agendas.

I have just posted on the web page the schedule for the San Diego sessions. Kevin Sullivan has done a terrific job bringing together a number of excellent scholars in a book review session and a session devoted to the discussion of our first "Mystical Provenance" - the Ancient Near East.

Five lessons about Normation

I use the word "normation" to describe the process whereby one religious tradition asserts its superiority over others, particularly laying claim to being "the" orthodox tradition, while others are considered to be lesser, defective, or downright errant.

What lessons about normation might we be able to learn from the most recent declaration by the Vatican and the reinstatement of the Catholic Latin Mass?

1. What is written as normative by one religious group does not reflect the religious reality. In this case, the written declaration of the Catholic Church uses language of superiority, describing other forms of Christianity in deviant and "lesser" terms. But the fact is that other forms of Christianity do not consider themselves to be deviant or lesser, nor do all Catholics themselves think along these lines. Because one group describes another group as thus-and-so does not mean that the other group is thus-and-so.

2. Normative posturing in religion is successful because of its appeals to authority, appeals which are meaningful to certain parties, but do not reflect the fact that other parties have their own equally successful appeals. In this case, the appeals from the Vatican come in two ways: Roman successorship of the Pope (Petrine authority), and apostolic succession (our tradition is a continuation of the tradition that has been handed down from the twelve apostles).

3. Normative declarations result in confusion and offense. Need I say more?

4. There is always response to normative posturing (although in the ancient world this may not always be captured in the literature). Typical responses include outrage, anger, insult, defensiveness and questions like why would you say this about me? My religious views are just as good as yours if not better.

5. The group that is norming will then consolidate its position, sometimes adjusting its previous position, sometimes intensifying it.

Some Remarks about the Catholic revival of the Latin Mass

Rebecca Lesses has left this in the comments of a previous post about the recent Catholic declaration and the revival of the Good Friday Mass.

I have to say that in this case I agree with Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League - that it is offensive that the Catholic Church is reviving a version of the Good Friday Mass that calls for the conversion of the Jews, as if we needed to become Catholics to be saved. Even if this Mass is said very infrequently, the offense remains, because the revival of the Mass is a signal to us that our religion is not acceptable and must be changed. This is exactly the message that the Catholic Church gave us throughout the long years before the Second Vatican Council, and it resulted in many atrocities being committed against Jews, including forced conversions.

And another point - what does the revival of the older Mass mean for Jewish-Catholic dialogue? In my past experience with dialogue, I found that although we obviously disagreed on many theological points, that there was a great deal of respect for Jews and Judaism. Perhaps the Pope is trying to appease this particularly conservative group that has left the Catholic church - but what about what I hope is a much larger number of Catholics who do respect Jews and people of other religions?

Rebecca is referring to the comments that Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has released, which I quote from JTA Breaking News-The Global News Service for the Jewish People:

The Anti-Defamation League called the decision to revive a Catholic prayer for the conversion of the Jews a "body blow to Catholic Jewish relations."

Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director, met this week in Rome with Vatican officials to press Jewish concerns over the revival of the Latin mass and possible beatification of Pope Pius XII. Though he had initially taken a softer line, on Friday Foxman slammed an expected papal order allowing the use of a 16th century prayer which beseeches God to "remove the veil from the hearts" of the Jews, "and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ."

"We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday Mass, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted," Foxman said. "This is a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

Foxman also discussed the possible beatification of Pope Pius XII, the Holocaust-era pontiff accused of silence in face of the Nazi extermination of European Jewry. In an interview Thursday with JTA, Foxman said that Pius should not be granted a step towards sainthood until the Vatican's wartime archives are released for scrutiny, though he is prepared to be patient in waiting for the archives to be opened.

"If Pope Pius is worthy of beatification, that beatification will be available to him after the archives are open and possibly after the survivors are not there to witness this debate," Foxman said.

This news article which I quote here from AHN Global News for a digital world, includes a reference to the Catholic response:

Some Jewish leaders were offended by the pope's decision and say it will do harm to a still incomplete reconciliation between the two religions, reported the Associated Press.

"The language is insensitive. The language is insulting," said Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, a U.S.-based Jewish civil rights group.

The decree made no change to the 1962 missal, the main prayer book for the old rite, which includes prayers on Good Friday that call for the conversion of the Jews and calls them blind to the Christian truth.

French Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard said the Good Friday prayer could be changed if it caused difficulties with Jews. Church sources said it would rarely be prayed because the old rite is an exception and the new rite, which drops this text, would be used in most churches around the world on that day.

The pope's decision to allow the Latin or Tridentine mass is a move that is seen to be a call for many traditionalists to return to the Church. Traditionalists are generally not pleased with many of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, most notably the change in the mass from Latin to local dialects.

"The traditional mass is a true a gem of the Church's heritage, and the Holy Father has taken the most important step toward making it available to many more of the faithful," said Michael Dunnigan, chairman of Una Voce America.

The decree does not force Catholic churches to change to the Latin mass, it only gives them the option to do so if a "stable group of faithful" request it.

Corrections to Earlier Post on Catholic Declaration

I am copying some corrections to my previous post here, so that those readers who don't scroll back over a blog post will not miss them because they are important.

I am corrected in the comments on the first post about the Catholic declaration, that the Catholic Church is simply reaffirming its position that only its sacraments are valid, and that this is not necessarily the same thing as the possibility of being saved outside the Catholic Church, as was implied by the news article.

So I stand corrected that the Catholic Church is not saying now that other church traditions are not valid in terms of salvation (the document says that they are neither deprived of significance nor importance of the mystery of salvation). This appears to be a misrepresentation in the media.

Once I actually found the document (thanks to Gdelassu), I am still troubled to read that the Catholic Church wishes to reaffirm this on the one hand (regarding Protestantism):

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].

While also saying this (regarding Protestant traditions):

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"[11].

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"[12].

And this (regarding Orthodox traditions):

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"[13], they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].

This all seems to me to be walking a very fine line. And at the end of the day what does it say about those who are the "other" churches? That they are deficient. That they are lacking and worth less. This is all language of normation. It is language that subjugates and controls. I ask all my readers for a moment to put yourself on the other side of this. How does it make you feel to be a Protestant? An Orthodox believer? A Jew?

I'm with those in the comments who want to know why this document would be released now? To what purpose is it? And to respond to Rebecca's concern about the Jewish population, one of the first links in the press article takes you to another press article on the Jewish reaction to another decree released on Saturday, July 7th.

Update 2: 7-10-07
Thank you to Judy Redman who replied in the comment section:

Re your update: I think that the subtle difference is that if the Catholic church denied that there is ever any possibility of salvation outside the Roman Catholic church, they would be denying the possibility of a gracious act by God in conferring salvation on some who had not had the opportunity to receive the sacraments. The whole discussion around limbo and unbaptised babies highlights this problem.

Re why now? One possibility is that Benedict put this on the agenda of the Congregation as a non-urgent soon after he became Pope and now is when they managed to get the paperwork together. It may also have some internal ramifications. If you look at the bit before the questions, it is quite clear that there is disapproval about the teaching of some theologians:

Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

Update 3: 7-10-07

Gdelassu offers this in the comments as a further clarification:

1) The Catholic Church does not claim (as per Dr DeConick) "that only its sacraments are valid." The Catholic claim is that all Trinitarian baptisms with water are valid, regardless of the affiliation of the one administering this sacrament. Given that baptism is the only sacrament strictly necessary for salvation in the Catholic understanding, this has a rather obvious impact on the rather breathless protests in circulation here and elsewhere about the implications of this document's claims vis-a-vis the salvation of non-Catholics. Meanwhile, however, Ms Redman is correct that the Catholics do not recognize the holy orders of any Protestant communion (including the Anglicans), for whatever that non-recognition is worth.

2) With an eye towards the question "why now," I think it would be helpful to read this document together with the motu proprio which preceeded it by a few days. The restoration of the Latin Mass and the reaffirmation of the unique status of the Catholic Church are sticking points for the (schismatic) Society of St Pius X (the Lefebvrists). There is currently a leadership struggle underway in the SSPX between Bernard Fellay (who is eager for reunion with Rome) and Richard Williamson (who was a vocal critic of Ratzinger before he ascended to the papacy and who is still openly hostile to Benedict XVI now). As such, considered together these two documents look like they are intended to provide ammunition for Fellay in his fight against Williamson. That is, I would submit that the pope is trying to show that Williamson's suspicions of the Vatican are overstated, so as to encourage that party of the SSPX which favors reconciliation to come back into communion with Rome. It remains to be seen whether these documents will serve to that end, but I suspect that this is the context in which they are being issued.

Fallacies about Non-Canonical Texts

Tony has a wonderful post on Apocryphicity summarizing what he considers to be faulty arguments against non-canonical texts. He finds these surfacing almost as tropes in apologetic books he reads. The first five are:

1. All non-canonical texts are Gnostic.
2. Canonical texts are early while non-canonical texts are late.
3. The non-canonical gospels are not "gospels".
4. The writers of non-canonical texts were hostile toward canonical texts.
5. Extant versions of non-canonical texts are their autographs.

I have noticed these same assertions in my own reading of this literature. I must say it really gets my ire up. I would go even farther than Tony does here. These are not just faulty arguments, they are powerful fallacies that are trotted forth in the literature as "truth." Particularly whenever I read material written on Gnosticism by apologetic scholars, I find myself gritting my teeth, since their concept of Gnosticism is as old as the hills. Not only is it not current, it is a regurgitation of the kind of older scholarship that was written ages ago, rediscovering the early Church in terms of modern Protestantism.

I look forward to Tony's next five.

Update: Friday 13th of July
Michael Bird responds to Tony here.

Can it be true? The Pope declares Catholic Church the Only True Church

David Hamilton just forwarded me a link to a msnbc news article reporting on a Vatican declaration just released. It declares the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church and says that Orthodox churches are defective and that other Christian denominations are not true churches.

This declaration is already being criticized as another step backwards from Vatican II, a council that Pope Benedict attended as a young man. It is said that he has long complained about what he considers the erroneous and liberal interpretation of that council.

Most disheartening to me about this declaration is the reuse of that normative defense that developed out of the second century debates between apostolic churches and others. The Vatican document claims that the reason for the Pope's decision is that “Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” Thus other Christian communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — that is they cannot trace their bishops back to Jesus' twelve apostles.

So the Protestant churches particularly are criticized in this new document which says that they are not true churches but merely ecclesial communities. Therefore Protestants are not saved because their churches do not have the “means of salvation” [NOTE: Please see Update below]. Orthodox churches do not fare much better in this document. They are acknowledged as “churches” because they have apostolic succession and so enjoy “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But the document makes clear that the Orthodox churches are deficient because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them.

So here we are again faced with issues of power and domination, of one institution of faith competing with another to own the whole pot. The normative lines and arguments are drawn and presented by one "apostolic" tradition, in hope of gaining the upper hand.

It seems to me that the study of the past, particularly the second century, is even more vital now, because it provides a mirror of normative activity and discourse that continues to be engaged by the Catholic Church and its newest Pope. If we want to know what it was like for the "other" forms of Christianity in the second century, today's declaration gives us some insight. It should be recognizable from this that the Gnostics and the Marcionites and the Ebionites considered themselves orthodox, were powerful movements, facing a strong and authoritative rhetoric against them - just as the Protestants and Orthodox churches suddenly face today. So much for religious tolerance and constructive dialogue.

Update: 7-10-09
I am corrected in the comments that the Catholic Church is simply reaffirming its position that only its sacraments are valid, and that this is not necessarily the same thing as the possibility of being saved outside the Catholic Church, as was implied by the news article.

So I stand corrected that the Catholic Church is not saying now that other church traditions are not valid in terms of salvation (the document says that they are neither deprived of significance nor importance of the mystery of salvation). This appears to be a misrepresentation in the media.

Once I actually found the document (thanks to Gdelassu), I am still troubled to read that the Catholic Church wishes to reaffirm this on the one hand (regarding Protestantism):

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].

While also saying this (regarding Protestant traditions):

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"[11].

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"[12].

And this (regarding Orthodox traditions):

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"[13], they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].

This all seems to me to be walking a very fine line. And at the end of the day what does it say about those who are the "other" churches? That they are deficient. That they are lacking and worth less. This is all language of normation. It is language that subjugates and controls. I ask all my readers for a moment to put yourself on the other side of this. How does it make you feel to be a Protestant? An Orthodox believer? A Jew?

I'm with those in the comments who want to know why this document would be released now? To what purpose is it? And to respond to Rebecca's concern about the Jewish population, one of the first links in the press article takes you to another press article on the Jewish reaction to another decree released on Saturday, July 7th.

Update 2: 7-10-07
Thank you to Judy Redman who replied in the comment section:

Re your update: I think that the subtle difference is that if the Catholic church denied that there is ever any possibility of salvation outside the Roman Catholic church, they would be denying the possibility of a gracious act by God in conferring salvation on some who had not had the opportunity to receive the sacraments. The whole discussion around limbo and unbaptised babies highlights this problem.

Re why now? One possibility is that Benedict put this on the agenda of the Congregation as a non-urgent soon after he became Pope and now is when they managed to get the paperwork together. It may also have some internal ramifications. If you look at the bit before the questions, it is quite clear that there is disapproval about the teaching of some theologians:

Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

Update 3: 7-10-07
Gdelassu offers this in the comments as a further clarification:

1) The Catholic Church does not claim (as per Dr DeConick) "that only its sacraments are valid." The Catholic claim is that all Trinitarian baptisms with water are valid, regardless of the affiliation of the one administering this sacrament. Given that baptism is the only sacrament strictly necessary for salvation in the Catholic understanding, this has a rather obvious impact on the rather breathless protests in circulation here and elsewhere about the implications of this document's claims vis-a-vis the salvation of non-Catholics. Meanwhile, however, Ms Redman is correct that the Catholics do not recognize the holy orders of any Protestant communion (including the Anglicans), for whatever that non-recognition is worth.

2) With an eye towards the question "why now," I think it would be helpful to read this document together with the motu proprio which preceeded it by a few days. The restoration of the Latin Mass and the reaffirmation of the unique status of the Catholic Church are sticking points for the (schismatic) Society of St Pius X (the Lefebvrists). There is currently a leadership struggle underway in the SSPX between Bernard Fellay (who is eager for reunion with Rome) and Richard Williamson (who was a vocal critic of Ratzinger before he ascended to the papacy and who is still openly hostile to Benedict XVI now). As such, considered together these two documents look like they are intended to provide ammunition for Fellay in his fight against Williamson. That is, I would submit that the pope is trying to show that Williamson's suspicions of the Vatican are overstated, so as to encourage that party of the SSPX which favors reconciliation to come back into communion with Rome. It remains to be seen whether these documents will serve to that end, but I suspect that this is the context in which they are being issued.

What is happening in the field of Jewish and Christian Mysticism? and Article Note: "Communion with the Angels" by Peter Schäfer

Peter Schäfer just sent me an offprint of one of his most recent publications, an article published in his edited conference volume: Wege mystischer Gotteserfahrung: Judentum, Christentum und Islam = Mystical approaches to God : Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (München: Oldenbourg, 2006) pp. 37-66. I want to highlight this particular article because in it Schäfer grapples with Qumran, a Jewish community with literature and liturgies filled with mystical practices. In this piece, he does not argue for or against religious experience, but appears to me to be taking very seriously the plethora of references to religious practices in this corpus. Schäfer, in this article, discusses the Qumran literature from the perspective of a community which conceived of itself as a community of priests, who lived in absolute cultic purity and believed themselves to be united with the angels. Sometimes this unity is had through liturgical communion (such as in the Hodayot and related texts) - the sectarians join with the praise of the angels in heaven.

He thinks, however, that the Qumran literature cannot be understood as the hidden source of what is later Merkavah or Hekhalot mysticism, because the Qumran literature should not be read in terms of ascent through the seven heavens, nor does their literature highlight a vision of God on his glorious throne. What we see in the Qumran literature is not a unio mystica, but a unio angelica and perhaps a unio liturgica. He also recognizes that this is a communal experience, not an individual one.

As you may already know from my own work on mysticism, I have my differences from the "Schäferian" approach to the study of early Jewish mysticism, particularly its emphasis on the production of this literature out of an exegetical impulse mainly, at the expense of religious experience. And I'm not convinced that there is no evidence for the type of ascent mysticism that Schäfer argues is not present in Qumran literature. Regardless, my own approach is to consider the intersection of exegesis and experience, and to take very seriously the mystical tradition as a living practiced religious tradition. So the question that was foremost in my mind when I read this new article by Schäfer was: Are we beginning to see some consolidation in the field, some sense that we absolutely must explain the liturgical, magical-theurgical and ritual aspects of it, that perhaps there is an element of the "experiential" (=my word) within it?

So there is much good to say about Schäfer's article in my opinion, because it pushes, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in a couple of directions that I think are essential for the future of our study of early Jewish and Christian mysticism. I have written about this previously in Paradise Now, where can be found my own essay ("What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?"), attempting to map this fledging field of study. The first "new" direction we must go is to recognize that mysticism to early Jews and Christians was not understood to have the characteristics of "Underhill" mysticism. The transformation usually was an angelification, not an assumption into God himself, as Schäfer notes about Qumran. Whether Schäfer thinks this a special type of mysticism or no mysticism at all was not clear to me, but I certainly define it it in terms of mysticism. As I have argued in Paradise Now, we need to define "mysticism" out of the literature rather than imposing a modern definition on the literature to see if "our" mysticism is there! If the transformation they were talking about is angelification and not union with God, then we need to acknowledge that. I did notice that Schäfer was still struggling with these old definitions of "mysticism" while also assuming them - the "Underhillian" emphasis on the "individual" and "union with God" in particular.

Second, there has been a tendency in this field of study toward perennialism and phenomenology. In other words, mystical themes like "vision of God," "ascent journey," "merkavah," etc. have been understood to represent a static concept of merkavah or hekhalot mysticism that had its origin in earlier Jewish literature or community. Christian varieties have been understood to have evolved out of this Jewish origin, but exactly how this happened has not been addressed. At any rate, there has been the tendency to see all instances of a certain theme across the literature as representative of some universal theme or practice that all groups are using the same way and inheriting from each other.

I have come to recognize over the last ten years that this paradigm is problematic, not the least of which because it is a linear model of evolution, when in fact we are dealing with a wide web or matrix of mystical views and practices, and a dynamism that is overwhelming. I think that the time is now to begin the complex process of mapping the emergence of mystical traditions within different communal settings - both in terms of belief and practice. I think that Peter Schäfer is doing this in this article, and I think that this is the type of study we need to be conducting in the future.

The members of the SBL section Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism already had a long discussion about this at our last meeting in Washington, D.C. To address it, members of the group decided to launch a new multi-year project to determine possible provenances of early mysticism in Judaism and Christianity. We are operating in rough chronological order beginning with the Ancient Near East in San Diego, 2007. We decided on this new agenda when we met as a group last November, because we wish to create a forum to discuss how, why, and in what forms mysticism emerges at various times, locations, and communities prior to 500 CE. Papers from the sessions will be collected for inclusion in series of volumes called, After Paradise Now: Essays Exploring the Provenances of Mysticism in Early Judaism and Christianity.

In 2008, we will look for papers in Hebrew Bible and Enochic literature, so those of you who are interested in submitting a paper should contact Kevin Sullivan (ksulliva@iwu.edu) who is chairing the program unit.