Is that a canon in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
April 16th, 2009 | by Matthew Smith |I mentioned last week that I was going to read an introductory text on early church history. The book I was referring to was Paul McKechnie, The First Christian Centuries: Perspectives on the Early Church, (Illinois: InterVarsity Press: 2001) which I’ve borrowed from the good brothers at The Society of Saint Francis. I’ve only read the first chapter which is full of the controversy and debate I was expecting!
This chapter deals with what McKechnie calls the source debate: how do we know which ancient texts are authoritative and how much can we trust them? In general, the texts written closest to the events are considered to most likely be accurate so there is a lot of debate about dating the texts. There is also the extracanonist debate which looks into whether books outside of the accepted canon aka The New Testament should have more authority than they are traditionally given.
The extracanonists as McKechnie calls them generally argue that the books of the New Testament only tell the story that the winners of ancient debates wanted us to know. We know that later on (like in the third and fourth century) there was a campaign against gnosticism which also sought to destroy all gnostic texts. The extracanonists say that the scraps of texts that have been rediscovered over the years represent a large body of Christians who may have been as numerous and influential in the early church as the group that became accepted by Rome.
The intracanonists argue that there is no evidence that these groups were of great influence in the early church. McKechnie puts himself in between these groups arguing that you can view the early church as being a shaggy bush: it had a general shape as described by the New Testament books but around the edges there were branches sticking out that were pruned as the church became more established (for better or for worse).
I suspect McKechnie is leaving something important out of the debate here. What is to be gained by considering these extracanonical books to have authority? Clearly the extracanonists feel these books have important content that is at odds with the agenda of the intracanonists. What are they really arguing over and does it have relevance to the arguments we are having today about the church?
2 Responses to “Is that a canon in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
By Lisa on Apr 17, 2009 | Reply
It has relevance if you start looking at some of the non-canonical gospels, for instance, which suggest that women played a much bigger part in both the ministry and human life of Jesus. One of them (I think that it was the Gospel of Mary, but couldn’t be sure without digging up a copy) suggests some hostility between Mary and Peter, for instance, and that one of the Mary’s, at least, was much more closely involved in the inner circle than the canonical gospels suggest.
We have some Catholic and, in some places, Anglican congregations tearing themselves apart over the role of women in the ordained ministry. So, if my memory of what I have read of the non-canonical gospels is right, it seems quite possible that women were among the original ‘ordained’ ministers, depending of course on what you take ‘ordination’ to mean and where in the gospels you take the basis for it.
This is just from one perspective, and I haven’t read enough to know what other themes an arguments arise once you start reading more widely, though I have vague recollections that the whole question of resurrection was quite contentious in some of the alternative writings.
By Matthew Smith on Apr 17, 2009 | Reply
I was thinking the status and role of women in the early church might be one of the things at stake – I think it will be an interesting topic to follow up on. McKechnie is not really interested in the debate in this chapter but just lays out a quick background of the key texts and why he will be focusing on the traditional canon – the New Testament as we know it for the rest of his book. Thanks for reading BTW!