South Ridge -You are
always welcome here.
A ministry of First Presbyterian Church
What about recent Scholarship ?
It is argued in some corners that the recent scholarship by folks such as Elaine Pagel, Karen King , and Helmut Koester has uncovered a totally different Jesus and Christianity in newly unearthed gospels. While the church is always drifting away from Jesus in one direction or another, and while it is true that the Patriarchal culture in which Christianity was born did skew the thinking of many early Christians (just as our own thinking is skewed by the unexamined secular, postmodern, post-Christian assumptions we unknowingly bring to the table), what is needed is a change emphasis, not a new gospel. In other words, to make Christ and early Christianity a rag doll to be stuffed so that it conforms to the image deemed acceptable by secular, politically correct Academia in 2006 is to commit the very same crime that they assign to the early church. Thus we are not talking about recent scholarship in general, but rather the work of a particular, small, but vocal group with a particular slant. Another recent scholar, Dr. Darrell Bock, provides a great summary of this 'new school' of 'neo-Gnostics'.
A Candid Look at the New School and Its Claims
If these claims were not in scholarly books, we might be tempted to call them hype. Here we see the roots of The Da Vinci Code and its real, ultimate argument. The claim is that Christianity needs a new story because the old one was bad history in which the suppressed losers were denied a hearing. Injustice needs correcting. We need to look at the evidence from a fresh historical angle to save those who have not been able to speak for themselves throughout the centuries. The Da Vinci Code’s discussion about the alleged historical distortion from the early Christians has made this piece of fiction strike a raw nerve with many Christian readers. In effect, the ancient church is called a liar.
These claims have raised questions for others who do not know this history at all, whether in the Gospels, the master story, or in its newly advertised, revised form. And note who is guilty here. It is not merely the bishops of the past. An entire stream of modern scholarship is at fault because it has dared to discuss these texts in detail and label them Gnostic, non-Christian, and/or heretical. The charge from this new school of study is that the old school’s labeling of these texts is an invalid, modern invention. This labeling is a modern tool of the powerful to keep the oppressed at bay. The Da Vinci Code seeks to destroy this master story supported by a whole array of scholars present and past. The master story is wrong and needs revision. The author of the novel can call to his aid some big guns of recent scholarship.
But as we discussed before, the best evidence of early Christianity comes not from those of the fourth century and beyond looking back, but from people in the debate at the time. These second- and third-century texts were written before Nicea ever happened. There is no circular argument here but an ancient, contemporary contention for ideas. People on both sides of the debate cared deeply about and disagreed about those ideas. Some cared so deeply that they gave their lives as martyrs because they believed they were upholding the truth.
No amount of revisionism can deny that a real debate about the nature of Christianity flourished in the second and third centuries, long before Nicea. Neither can it deny that although these four Gospels had not yet been fully received into a named canon, the four Gospels had risen to the top of the heap in terms of use and influence, and all sides had to deal with them.