Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Body: The Non-Canonical Gospels
For Urbantasm, I've been reading up quite a bit on theology, eschatology, and the occult. John Bridge considers himself to be the antichrist, and the novel deals quite a bit with religious themes, particularly concerning the nature of space and infinity. It's been very fascinating, because there's an automatic tension between a lot of these texts, even though they are widely separated in terms of how and why they were composed. The Catholic Study Bible and Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ make cases that are automatically critical of, for example, the non-canonical gospels, and the tension between various modes of fortunetelling and the Catechism is well documented.
I personally accept the arguments for why the canonical texts are such, and why other accounts were not included. In fact, reading these texts makes me particularly grateful that they are not a foundation of our faith, since they are frequently misogynistic and tend to restrict salvation to a narrowly definted elect. Many deemphasize the principle of forgiveness and access to grace. It would seem that the canonical gospels, even if they are considered not as religious texts but as social referendum are both more stable and inclusive, and I'd like to think that this is at least part of the reason why they were ultimately selected.
All this said, however, the non-canonical texts are fascinating... they're fascinating in their diversity and their imagery. The Christ they depict is often more violent -- I was dimly reminded of Tetsuo from Akira -- and the scenes are often apocalyptic and psychedelic. This is the scary looking god with the red eyes in the stained glass windows at St. John Vianny's in Flint:
Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
- The Gospel of Thomas
Another time he took me and James and Peter to the mountain where her used to pray, and we saw (on) him a light such that a man, who uses mortal speech, cannot describe what it was like. Again he took us three likewise up the mountain, saying 'Come with me.' And again we went; and we saw him at a distance praying. Then I, since he loved me, went quietly up to him, as if he could not see, and stood looking at his hinder parts; and I saw him not dressed in clothes at all, but stripped of those (that) we (usually) saw (upon him), and not like a man at all. (And I saw that) his feet were whiter than snow, so that the ground there was lit up by his feet; and that his head stretched up to heaven, so that I was afraid and called out; and he, turning about, appeared as a small man and caught hold of my beard and pulled it and said to me, 'John, do not be faithless, but inquisitive.' And I said to him, 'Why, Lord, what have I done?' But I tell you, my brethren, that I suffered such pain for thirty days in the place where he touched my beard, that I said to him, 'Lord, if your playful tug has caused such pain, what (would it be) if you had dealt me a blow?' And he said to me, 'Let it be your concern from now on not to tempt him that cannot be tempted.'
- John's Preaching of the Gospel
But the best (in terms of interest), and the worst (in terms of a responsible thesis), is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
3:1 The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered.
3:2 When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."
3:3 And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. (4) The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."
4:1 Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey."
4:2 Immediately, he fell down and died.
4:3 Then, some of the people who had seen what had happened said, "Where has this child come from so that his every word is a completed deed?"
4:4 And going to Joseph, the parents of the one who had died found fault with him. They said, "Because you have such a child, you are not allowed to live with us in the village, or at least teach him to bless and not curse. For our children are dead!"
- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
- The Gospel of Thomas
- John's Preaching of the Gospel
3:2 When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."
3:3 And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. (4) The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."
4:1 Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey."
4:2 Immediately, he fell down and died.
4:3 Then, some of the people who had seen what had happened said, "Where has this child come from so that his every word is a completed deed?"
4:4 And going to Joseph, the parents of the one who had died found fault with him. They said, "Because you have such a child, you are not allowed to live with us in the village, or at least teach him to bless and not curse. For our children are dead!"
- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Labels: Bible, BODY, Christianity, hermeticism, syncretism, theology
0 comments.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Syncretism.
Meandering thoughts this Thursday morning.
One of the major reasons I ultimately left the Unitarian Church was because its defined search for truth was so unfocused that it didn't offer me much by way of spiritual nourishment.
That said, looking back at the changes in religion and religious organization over the last millennium, and then considering the present and future, I wonder what changes are ahead. Straightforward syncretism is rarely fruitful. There has to be tension involved (ie. a questing) involved in building any religion with cultural staying power. Religious progress always seems to happen in the context of a struggle to articulate something intangible and difficult, and to reconcile it with different classes, regions, and world views. Formulaic syncretism neither benefits from nor adequately confronts these complexities; it simply aligns correspondant tropes and concepts and equates them with each other. Since this does not force a spiritual reckoning, neither does it engender a fertile field of religious contemplation or inquiry.
I think, however, that religious syncretism has a role to play in the future. I've been struck recently by certain similarities and differences between Buddhism and Christianity as expansive "missionary" religions. By way of similarities, both sprang from ancient, ethnically defined religions, achieved dramatic success far from home, and proved as durable and elastic as their predecessors. Among interesting differences, and those which to me suggest the most fruitful syncretic possibilities, are not overlaps, but in fact points of difference in their resort to elaboration and austerity. For example, in theravada Buddhism, the Buddha abjures any claim to godhood or messianism, defining his precepts as a moral code and an approach to enlightenment. As against this, Christianity, which is epistemologically explicit, could possibly benefit from the very nuanced, and in some ways very different, Buddhist understanding of humility and obligation.
But this is all I can say about this without learning much much more.
Labels: BODY, Buddhism, Christianity, religion, syncretism, theology
0 comments.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Body: Driveby on Newton, Evolution, and the Boston Globe.
Sam sent me this Op-Ed from the Boston Globe and this more coherent rebuttal.
Here's what I contributed to the discussion:
You are 100% correct. And here's the real irony. Newton would surely have rejected today's creationism both with and without the benefit of today's better science.
I say "with" because as a scientist Newton understood the need to look at evidence impartially and objectively. In his day there was compelling evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, though the Bible essentially states the opposite. Newton accepted this, however religious he may have been. There was, however, little of the compelling evidence available today that suggested evolution or the age of the Earth, which is why he (and pretty much everyone) was a comfortable creationist.
I say "without" because the premise of a "young-earth" today is not what it was a few hundred years ago. Taking every word of the Bible literally is largely a product of the 20th century - most typically the latter 20th century, and has more to do with politics than with an honest wrestling with the word of God. In the 1600s, a lot of the Bible was accepted as metaphorical and allegorical, as invested with truth and not necessarily fact: camels through the eyes of needles and all that. Todays' creationism is an abomination that flies in the face not only of accepted science but also of respectable and rigorous theology. I think that Newton would be repulsed by creationism today.
I say "with" because as a scientist Newton understood the need to look at evidence impartially and objectively. In his day there was compelling evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, though the Bible essentially states the opposite. Newton accepted this, however religious he may have been. There was, however, little of the compelling evidence available today that suggested evolution or the age of the Earth, which is why he (and pretty much everyone) was a comfortable creationist.
I say "without" because the premise of a "young-earth" today is not what it was a few hundred years ago. Taking every word of the Bible literally is largely a product of the 20th century - most typically the latter 20th century, and has more to do with politics than with an honest wrestling with the word of God. In the 1600s, a lot of the Bible was accepted as metaphorical and allegorical, as invested with truth and not necessarily fact: camels through the eyes of needles and all that. Todays' creationism is an abomination that flies in the face not only of accepted science but also of respectable and rigorous theology. I think that Newton would be repulsed by creationism today.
Labels: Bible, BODY, Christianity, evolution, religion, science, theology
0 comments.
