Subject: Re: Apocrypha

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 12:05:05 -0400

1) In regards to this discussion, it should be noted that
Hennecke-Schneemelcher, the standard work on the NT apocrypha, include many
Nag Hammadi documents (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the
Saviour) among the NT apocrypha.

2) The line between "gnostic" and "orthodox" is essentially non-existent in
the earliest church.  Examples:  
A) Clement of Alex., *Stromates,* end of Book I (cp. 29): "But at this
point, let our first Miscellany of gnostic notes, according to the true
philosophy, come at a close."  Strom. I.13: "He who is conversant with all
kinds of wisdom, will be pre-eminently a gnostic" (these are the "true"
Christians, as per Clement).  Strom. I.11: says "Philosophers are *children*
unless they have been made *men* by Christ...But strong meat belongs to
those that are of *full age*...", a nice recapitulation of the tripartite
division of believers in some gnostic systems (the "hylics" [lowest],
"psychics," and the "pneumatics" [highest]).  Strom. I.9: "And our
much-knowing gnostic can distinguish sophistry from philosophy..." (the
"gnostic" is the well-instructed Christian).  Etc., etc. (whole of the
Stromates, esp. Bk. I, is full of such "Christian Gnosticism").
B) Paul has all sorts of gnostic language and ideas:  Gal. 4:21-31: the
story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar is "an allegory" (v. 24), whose meaning
is secret (= not obvious), and needs explanation;  Gal. 3.19: "the Law was
promulgated by angels, assisted by an intermediary."  How gnostic can one
get?  Eph. 5:8-9:  "you were darkness once, but now you are light...be like
children of light."  Col. 2:2-3: "until you really know God's secret in
which all the jewels of wisdom and knowledge [gnwsews] are hidden."  I
Thess. 5:5: "you are all sons of light...we do not belong to the night or to
darkness."  Col. 3:12: "You are god's chosen race."  II Cor. 3:12-18: Jews
cannot understand their own scriptures because a "veil" between them and the
text keeps them from discerning clearly--Christians, however, can discern
because the "veil" has, for them, been lifted.  (For more on Paul and
Gnosticism, see the by-now "ancient" study of E. Pagels, *The Gnostic Paul*
[1975].  Of course, she is only building on the work of Bousset, Kaesemann,
Schoeps, and many earlier scholars--who [very oddly] often don't make it
into her bibliography...)

All of this reeks of gnosticism, and fits the formal definition of
gnosticism: esoteric knowledge, hidden from the average person and disguised
in the literal reading of the text, but manifest to the knowing "gnostic"
who has been "enlightened," and can discern the "hidden" "spiritual"
meanings in the text; intermediaries in creation and dealing with men;
stratification of people into three levels;  the pneumatic gnostics are
"children of light," and a "chosen race" apart from the "dusty ones";
knowledge is paramount and identical with the divinity.  Allegorical
interpretation is the norm.  Etc., etc.

Therefore, "gnostic" material is (1) formally in the NT (= Christian)
apocrypha, as given by the handbooks, editions, and as treated by
scholarship;  (2) the division between "orthodox" and "gnostic" is useless
in first century Christianity--and probably even 2nd cent. Xity--because the
definitions could only be applied retrospectively.

Of course, on this whole matter of orthodoxy and heresy, see W. Bauer,
*Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.*

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

At 10:45 AM 4/17/97 EDT, you wrote:
>
>On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:59:52 -0500 (EST) Jim West <[email-masked]>
>writes:
>
>>
>>I don't think that Gnostic material qualifies as apocrypha, does it?
>
>I specifically referred to this subset as CHRISTIAN  APOCRYPHA.
>
>>Apocrypha are materials written by Jews or Christians which are 
>>of an orthodox character- but which were not included in the 
>>Canon.  I do not think that Nag Hammadi qualifies here.
>
>The very fact that Gnostic writings were proscribed denies their
>orthodox character.
>
>Since they are Christian in nature, and dated after 70 CE, the date
>of the destruction of the Temple, they could not be included in 
>the LXX canon of the Hebrew Bible.
>
>Moreover, since they are "Early Christian writings not included in the
>Christian Bible"  they decided fall into Category 2b of the definition of
>APOCRYPHA in WEBSTER's SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY.
>
>Remember, Catholics refer to material in the LXX as
>Deuterocanonical and other writings as Apocryphal while
>Protestants often refer to writings in the LXX as Apocryphal and
>other writings as pseudepigraphic.
>
>
>
>HILL
>
>
>