The Other Side: Apocryphal Perspectives on Ancient Christian "Orthodoxies" ed. by Tobias Nicklas et al.

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Other Side: Apocryphal Perspectives on Ancient Christian "Orthodoxies" ed. by Tobias Nicklas et al. Lorne Zelyck tobias nicklas, candida r. moss, christopher tuckett, and joseph verheyden (eds.), The Other Side: Apocryphal Perspectives on Ancient Christian "Orthodoxies" (NTOA/SUNT 117; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017). Pp. 269. €120. This edited volume of fourteen essays addresses the problematic categorization of texts as "apocryphal"—"canonical" and "heterodox"—"orthodox." The editors indicate that the binary categories of "apocryphal" and "canonical" are anachronistic when attributed to texts before the fourth century c.e., and the classifications of "heterodox" or "orthodox" are also made from a later perspective, which produces a distorted image of the individuals and groups that produced and used these texts. The purpose of the volume is to show the limitations of these categories and to work toward a new description of "apocryphal" texts that more accurately represents their significance, function, and authority within the dynamic history of early Christianity (pp. 11-12). Christoph Markschies ("Models of the Relation between 'Apocrypha' and 'Orthodoxy': From Antiquity to Modern Scholarship") analyzes the meaning of models, "apocrypha," and "orthodoxy" from Origen, Eusebius, and Cyril of Jerusalem, to Nicklas and his own extensive publications, with methodological precision. I sympathize with his humorous (?) but honest reaction, that repetitive debates about terminology (especially "orthodoxy") inevitably lead to "a mixture of boredom and anger" (p. 22). Thankfully, many of the essays in this collection provide insightful examples of how "apocryphal" texts functioned in particular social contexts. Tobias Nicklas ("Beyond 'Canon': Christian Apocrypha and Pilgrimage") examines pilgrimage accounts that provide details about the ministry of Jesus, the apostles, and saints that are also found in "apocryphal" texts and traditions. For example, the Piacenza pilgrim visited the 'Lord's Field' near Jericho, which Jesus planted and now grows perennially (see Inf. Gos. Thom. 11/12; Papyrus Egerton 2 [2v]). Ismo Dunderberg ("Recognizing the Valentinians—Now and Then") shows how the validating acknowledgment of other viewpoints occurred along a spectrum, from Irenaeus's thoroughgoing disapproval of the Valentinians and their teachings, to Clement of Alexandria's approval of at least some Valentinian teaching, to Origen's complete agreement with a few of Heracleon's interpretations. Petri Luomanen ("The Nazarenes: Orthodox Heretics with an Apocryphal Canonical Gospel?") substantiates previous arguments and responds to critiques of his New Two-Gospel Hypothesis of so-called Jewish-Christian Gospels—Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites (the Nazarenes used a Syriac/East Aramaic translation of Matthew). Reidar Aasgaard ("The Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Orthodoxy from Above or Heterodoxy from Below?") analyzes the social setting of these Gospels. While both are theologically "orthodox," broadly disseminated, and had a genercritical and synchronic readings of the Gospel of John. Whatever position one holds on the questions raised by this book, it deserves to be consulted by any scholar professionally involved in them. Francis J. Moloney, SDB, Catholic Theological College, University of Divinity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia tobias nicklas, candida r. moss, christopher tuckett, and joseph verheyden (eds.), The Other Side: Apocryphal Perspectives on Ancient Christian "Orthodoxies" (NTOA/SUNT 117; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017). Pp. 269. €120. This edited volume of fourteen essays addresses the problematic categorization of texts as "apocryphal"—"canonical" and "heterodox"—"orthodox." The editors indicate that the binary categories of "apocryphal" and "canonical" are anachronistic when attributed to texts before the fourth century c.e., and the classifications of "heterodox" or "orthodox" are also made from a later perspective, which produces a distorted image of the individuals and groups that produced and used these texts. The purpose of the volume is to show the limitations of these categories and to work toward a new description of "apocryphal" texts that more accurately represents their significance, function, and authority within the dynamic history of early Christianity (pp. 11-12). Christoph Markschies ("Models of the Relation between 'Apocrypha' and 'Orthodoxy': From Antiquity to Modern Scholarship") analyzes the meaning of models, "apocrypha," and "orthodoxy" from Origen, Eusebius, and Cyril of Jerusalem, to Nicklas and his own extensive publications, with methodological precision. I sympathize with his humorous (?) but honest reaction, that repetitive debates about terminology (especially "orthodoxy") inevitably lead to "a mixture of...