Its interesting to note how some debates in Christianity seem to have always existed, such as the meaning of Jesus's words in the Last Supper and its meaning for communion or Eucharist (the everpresent transubstantiation versus consubstantiation discord), the nature of the Trinity, and primarily the role of human experience in relating to and interpreting the divine. On one level, its disconcerting to think that Christians have been arguing over the same stuff for nearly 2,000 yearts. On the other, its nice to know that orthodoxy has always had disagreement and detractors, and that this disagreement and these detractors are not disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, but doing so as a result of their own genuine seeking of the divine and their interpretation of their experience in that search.
Its also interesting to see how influential some individuals are in the history of Christianity as compared to how well known they are today, at least in more mainstream circles. Throughout my own Catholic school education, you hear much about Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, and even Martin Luther, John of the Cross, and Francis of Assisi. You hear pretty much nothing about Iranaeus. However, this Bishop Iranaeus may have more influential in the establishment of the "four form Gospel" (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), as orthodoxy, and the exclusion of all other "Gospel" writings that contradicted these writings, primarily if it contradicted John's Gospel (as that text has the most theological impact of the four New Testament Gospels). I think most people casually knowledgeable about the formation of early Christian thought often point to the Council of Nicea, the formation of the Nicene Creed, and triump of Athanasius over Arius as pivotal. This book makes clear that the groundwork for anything accomplished in the Fourth Century by this Council and the Emperor Constantine was due to the work of Iranaeus in the Second Century.
I don't think the author is arguing that the Gospel of Thomas is supposed to be included or not. I think she juxtaposes the Gospel of Thomas with that of John (showing how John was probably written in response to the Gospel of Thomas), and leaves it to the reader to determine the guidance of including one text that firmly establishes Jesus as divine/God (John) and excluding a text that preached looking within oneself and one's experience to know the divine.
The book reminds me of a thought/belief I have always had, and one that I have struggled with in my own faith journeys. The idea that Christianity not only calls for faith in a monotheistic, benevolent God, and a belief in an incarnate savior in Jesus, but that this divine presence was guiding humans in making decisions about what to include in the canon of thought regarding Christianity in these first few centuries after Jesus's life, and that this guidance existed throughout centuries for religious figures not to change the wording of a text, or to fudge on an interpretation. To me, this always has been an equal leap of faith that traditional Christianity demands.
Anyway, good book for anyone interested in the area. The author is not preachy at all, approaches the topic even keel, just presenting the primary documents and telling what happened. Plus, the footnotes and the text of the Gospel of Thomas really helps a reader draw his/her own conclusions regarding the author's statements and allow for his/her own interpretations of the text of the Gospel of Thomas.
No comments:
Post a Comment