Sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

Introduction: The Potential for Genre Analysis in Determining Gospel Audiences

Up to this point one of the main features of this thesis has been to take the role of genre seriously in discussing the scope, purpose and meaning of texts. Certainly genre should play an important role in the interpretation of texts as we have seen with the origin traditions related to the Gospels, as well as the Gospels, themselves. An examination of the non-canonical gospels as examples of Greco-Roman literature that have a similar form, function and subject matter as the canonical gospels, would seem to be

advantageous in assessing the greater question of gospel audiences.

Two recent attempts to compare the non-canonical gospels to the canonical gospels in terms of audience have produced similar results. In his article entitled ‘The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham,’ David C. Sim has argued, following the work of Klijn, that the Jewish-Christian Gospels ‘were created for particular Christian Jewish groups in local areas (Egypt, Transjordan and Beroea).’1 Similarly, he states that the Gospel of Thomas, like other Gnostic texts, was written by and specifically for Gnostic readers.2 A stronger presentation is offered by Thomas Kazen who argues for the need for diverse Christian texts representative of the range of

1

David C. Sim, ‘The Gospels for All Christians?’ p. 19. See also Michael F. Bird, ‘Sectarian Gospels for Sectarian Christians? The Non-Canonical Gospels and Bauckham’s The Gospels for All Christians,’ in Edward W. Klink, III, ed., The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, LNTS 353, (London: T. & T. Clark, 2010), pp. 27-48; p. 28. One of the difficulties here is the way in which Sim accepts the work of Klijn without question or critical reflection. The issues surrounding the Jewish-Christian Gospels are more complex than Sim lets on.

2

Ibid., pp. 18-19. Again, Sim does not dialogue with the relevant arguments in relation to the Gospel of Thomas and its composition or purpose. Genre is not considered at all in this discussion and as a whole the subject of genre is downplayed by Sim.

Christian beliefs present from the end of the first century on.3 Here Kazen compares the Gospel of Thomas, Papyrus Edgerton 2, POxy 840, and The Gospel of Peter to the canonical gospels in order to draw the comparison that these sectarian gospels would have had an implied audience similar to those of the canonical gospels, and that both the canonical and non-canonical gospels would have originally been intended for local use despite the fact that they eventually circulated widely. In both instances, Sim and Kazen give little to no account to the issue of genre and how it serves to inform us of both authorial intent and audience expectation. The question that still remains unanswered is: What generic affinity do the non-canonical texts have to the canonical gospels, if at all? Can we compare the non-canonical gospels to the canonical gospels based purely on common subject matter, or does genre play an essential role in this process?

The relationship between the canonical gospels and the non-canonical gospels has been strained at best. Tuckett is right to suggest that all works that claim to be gospels or texts that have had the tag ‘gospel’ applied to them could be considered in some loose way as gospels.4 Yet, as Tuckett notes, this broad category would exclude some important texts while including others that do not belong.5 This broader category of literature might then be better described as ‘Jesus books’, or ‘writings devoted to Jesus.’6 This is too vague to account for the interpretative force indicated by genre. Presumably, there could be a collection of literary works that could be grouped together based on subject matter (all of the works with Socrates, or ancient Greece or Rome as the subject,

3

Thomas Kazen, ‘Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians? Intention and Mirror Reading in the Light of Extra-Canonical Texts,’ NTS 51 (2005), pp. 561-78; pp. 561-66.

4

Christopher Tuckett, ‘Forty Other Gospels,’ in Markus Bockmuhl & Donald A. Hagner, ed., The Written Gospel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 238-53; p. 241.

5

Ibid. 6

Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 427.

for example), yet any number of genres could be represented in such a collection. How then might this greater collection of literature be compared? Tuckett has suggested that the criterion of gospel could be ‘a text purporting to give some account of the life and/or teaching of the historical Jesus (in contrast, say, to a ‘letter’, sermon or doctrinal

treatise).’7 This definition undoubtedly gets closer to the definition of Greco-Roman biography as the narration of a person’s (of importance) words and deeds.8 Any such discussion of gospels indicates just how difficult it can be to group these works without a clear demarcating principle.9 This is all the more difficult considering the development of the gospel genre from the first century on.10 Further confusing the issue of genre is the fact that many of the non-canonical ‘Jesus books’ are imitations, at least in part, of the diverse genres present in the New Testament.11

Most discussions of the subject of genre begin with some sort of analysis that is reminiscent of or indebted to form criticism. Yet, as Thatcher has observed, the

traditional elements of New Testament form criticism do not seem to have applicability

7

Tuckett, ‘Forty Other Gospels,’ p. 241. 8

Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), p. 24; What Are the Gospels?, p. 241. Burridge sees the canonical gospels as comprising a literary sub-genre of bi,oj, ‘Jesus biographies,’ that are similar to philosophical biographies, What Are the Gospels?, p. 243.

9

Christopher Tuckett, ‘Forty Other Gospels,’ p. 243. Tuckett suggests that the gospel literature can be divided into sub-genres based essentially on content and structure. Here we begin to see some of the difficulties in separating the material, as Tuckett observes, where some works can fall into more than one category. He sees the following options: 1) narrative gospels; 2) sayings gospels; 3) infancy gospels; and 4) resurrection discourses/dialogues. He also sees harmonies as a potential fifth category, pp. 244-8. One of the potential drawbacks, as has been noticed before, is that this loose classification is not consistent. At points it divides literature by subject and at others by literary form. Thus one work can fit into multiple sub-sections. It is unclear how helpful this becomes to the discussion of genre.

10

Burridge sees a number of levels of development from 1) Mark who writes in a genre like that of philosophical biography, 2) to that of Matthew and Luke, who incorporate more biographical elements into their narratives, to 3) the non-canonical gospels, in which some conform to bi,oj, while others do not, to 4) the later genre of gospel commentaries which demonstrates a final shift away from biography as the gospels have begun to be thought of as scripture; What Are the Gospels?, pp. 240-3.

11

J. K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), p. 1. Elliot also notices that this apocryphal literature became quite popular and was read widely and became ‘the basis for much folk religion and popular piety,’ p. 2.

to the non-canonical gospels inasmuch as these elements were formed through an

analysis of the Synoptic Gospels.12 This sort of approach to gospel genre has significant drawbacks. These difficulties are seen most clearly in the approach of Helmut Koester who has confined his treatment of gospel genre to determining the Sitz im Leben of the material found in gospel literature.13 The focus on the function of the literary material steers the discussion away from the literary form of the texts and presupposes a community model that may or may not be verifiable. Further, the focus on style that Koester prefers enables him to avoid the view that gospels must have some common literary form.14 In this way, he is able to conceive of gospels as ‘all those writings which are constituted by the transmission, use, and interpretation of materials and traditions from and about Jesus.’15 This allows any Jesus book to be considered in the same conversation as the canonical gospels, regardless of literary genre.

This general notion of including all Jesus books into the common conversation has the effect of obscuring the role of genre in the interpretative process. Burridge has expressed the importance of genre in these discussions stating,

Genre is a major literary convention, forming a ‘contract’ between author and reader; it provides a set of expectations for the reader about the author’s intentions, which helps in the construction of the meaning on the page and the reconstruction of the author’s original meaning, as well as in the interpretation and evaluation of the communication contained in the work itself.’16

We continue to be reminded that genre provides important parameters through which a text is evaluated and understood. In order to continue to assess the implied audience of

12

Tom Thatcher, ‘Early Christianities and the Synoptic Eclipse: Problems in Situating the Gospel of Thomas,’ BibInt 7.3 (1999), pp. 323-39; p. 326. See Robert M. Grant, ‘Notes on the Gospel of Thomas,’

VC 13 (1959), pp. 170-80. 13

Helmut Koester, ‘One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,’ HTS 61.2 (1968), pp. 203-47; p. 204; Thatcher, ‘Early Christianities,’ p. 327.

14

Thatcher, ‘Early Christianities,’ p. 329. 15

Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990), p. 46; Thatcher, ‘Early Christianities,’ p. 329.

16

both the canonical and non-canonical gospels, consideration must be paid to genre. Whereas Sim and Kazen give little deference to genre in their discussions of gospel audiences in relationship to the proposed audiences of the non-canonical gospels, the purpose of this chapter is to avoid such potential cross-generic comparisons on the subject of audience and to seek to interpret the implied audiences of select non-canonical gospels in light of genre.17 More specifically, this chapter serves as a caution to

assuming that non-canonical gospels and canonical gospels can be read without

consideration for genre. Here the Jewish-Christian Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter will be examined as non-canonical gospels that may differ

significantly generically from the canonical gospels.18 For each example three issues will

17

This is not to say that ‘Jesus books’ or literature about Jesus cannot be used comparatively to discuss other concerns (Christology, etc.). Certainly, comparing non-canonical and canonical gospels as well as comparing the canonical gospels with each other would be of benefit. But in terms of examining the communicative matrix of author-genre-audience, through which authors write in specific genres for certain audiences, comparing texts of the same genre will be important in assessing issues of audience.

18

The current chapter was researched, planned and outlined before Bird, ‘Sectarian Gospels for Sectarian Christians?’ circulated to me as a proof in an edited volume to which I have also contributed. The choice of examples are the same as Bird’s but Bird does not give much or any attention to this issue of genre and as such this chapter still offers original insight into the subject. I can only conjecture that Bird and I chose the same examples for similar reasons. The reasoning here being that the Jewish-Christian Gospels would seem to be important examples of sectarian works and would be interesting to bring into discussion with the canonical gospels. Being of a similar genre there may be some important insights here. GT is used by Kazen and Sim to support their arguments that gospels were sectarian. While it may be true that GT was sectarian (this is by no means certain) it is uncertain if it is of the same genre as the canonical gospels. As such it is a perfect example for comparison. Finally GP would seem to be of a similar genre to the canonical gospels and would also be insightful for comparison. Given the extensive amount of early Christian literature available to us a certain amount of selectivity was necessary in choosing the examples that are covered in this chapter. This is not to suggest that there are no other examples that would be worthy of study or that would not benefit from a similar comparison to the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Judas, the infancy narratives (Protoevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, etc.), The Gospel of Gamaliel and the Gospel of Nicodemus (as well as other examples from the ‘Pilate Cycle’) are all worthy of consideration. The Gospel of Judas was not chosen because it does not seem to be analogous to the genre of the canonical gospels and given the constraints of this project comparing further examples of generically dissimilar texts to the canonical gospels did not seem prudent. Likewise most of the other examples mentioned above were excluded from the present study due to generic dissimilarity (narratives as opposed to biography proper). For some of the current discussion on the Gospel of Judas see Bart D. Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed, (Oxford: Oxford, 2006); Simon J. Gathercole, ‘The Gospel of Judas,’ ExpTim 118.5 (2007), pp. 209-15; The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity, (Oxford: Oxford, 2007); Stanley E. Porter and Gordon L. Heath The Lost Gospel of Judas: Separating Fact From Fiction, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007); Frank Williams, ‘The Gospel of Judas: Its Polemic, Its Exegesis, and Its Place in Church History,’ VC 62.4

be addressed: 1) generic comparison to the genre of Greco-Roman biography; 2) a discussion of their place within the historical matrix of circulated texts; and 3) a

discussion of the implied audience as it emerges from the text. The goal here is to place these texts into the greater literary context of the Greco-Roman world and specifically the literary context of the canonical gospels as a means of furthering the discussion of gospel audiences.

The ‘Jewish-Christian Gospels’

The collection of works referred to as the Jewish-Christian Gospels (consisting of the Gospel of the Ebionites (GE), the Gospel of the Nazoreans (GN) and the Gospel of the Hebrews (GH) form an important corpus of works for generic comparison to the

canonical gospels.19 If Sim is correct and these gospels were written in sectarian

communities for sectarian audiences it, may be the case that the canonical gospels fit into a similar social location.20 Presumably these gospels would serve as congruous examples

(2008), pp. 371-403; Gesine S. Robinson, ‘The Gospel of Judas in Light of the New Testament and Early Christianity,’ ZAC 13.1 (2009), pp. 98-107; and Andrew Gregory, ‘The Non-Canonical Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Some Reflections on Issues and Methods,’ EvQ 81.1 (2009), pp. 3-22. For general discussion of the Non-Canonical gospels see Tuckett, ‘Forty Other Gospels’; and Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 3-225 and New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991).

19

I am following the consensus view that there are three Jewish-Christian Gospels. I am persuaded that there may in fact be only two but time and space do not permit a further discussion. See Hans-Josef Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction, (London: T.& T. Clark, 2003), p. 36-7; and Andrew Gregory, ‘Jewish-Christian Gospels,’ in The Non-Canonical Gospels, Paul Foster, ed. (London: T. & T. Clark, 2008), pp. 54-67; pp. 56-59 for a discussion of the issues related to the number of Jewish Christian Gospels.

20

Sim, ‘The Gospels for All Christians?’ p. 19. Here he writes: ‘A good number of Gospels were composed in the second and later centuries, and it is arguable whether any of these were intended for all Christians. Many of them were clearly composed by specific Christian groups for a very restricted readership.’ He goes on to state that ,‘If the Christians of the second and later centuries composed their Gospels for restricted and localized Christian readerships and not for general consumption, then it may well be the case that the canonical Evangelists did as well.’ At least two issues arise here: 1) Sim is uncritical of the texts he offers as examples here and he gives little to no consideration to genre as an interpretative element (on p. 18 he downplays its usefulness entirely); and 2) Sim assumes that these texts were written

for comparison with the canonical gospels on the grounds of form, function and implied audience. Thus, the Jewish-Christian Gospels serve as an excellent starting point, but not without reservations. The Gospels themselves are available to us only as quotations in the writings of later Christian writers.21 As such, it is with caution that we should

approach the task of evaluating the texts and reconstructing the social milieu out of which they emerged.

Gregory has questioned the extent to which these texts can be properly viewed as Jewish-Christian and to what extent these texts are representative of heretical forms of Christianity.22 He sees the Jewish-Christian Gospels on the whole as ‘broadly congruent and consistent with the canonical gospels, especially the synoptic tradition.’23 While it is true that Epiphanius (Epi. Pan., 30.13.1) presents the Ebionites and their gospel as heretical; the image of Jesus that emerges (vegetarian, resistant to the temple cult) does not conflict significantly with the presentation of Jesus in the canonical gospels. Both GN and GH seem to have been viewed somewhat favorably by early Christian writers and the GH, while not counted as one of the (semi) officially ‘recognized books’, was not put into the category of heretical documents but rather as one of the ‘disputed’ books in line with such works as the epistles of James and Jude and the Revelation of John.24 It for sectarian audiences and projects that social situation back onto all four of the canonical gospels. This need not be the case for any of the canonical gospels or for the examples that he cites.

21

See A. F. J. Klijn & G. J Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 19-51; A. F. J.. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Traditions, (Leiden, Brill: 1992), pp. 3-38; Philip Vielhauer & Georg Strecker, ‘Jewish-Christian Gospels,’ in Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha I: Gospels and Related Writings, (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp. 134-78; and Hans-Josef Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, pp. 36-54 for relevant bibliography and discussion on the extant witnesses to the Jewish-Christian Gospels.

22

Gregory, ‘Jewish-Christian Gospels,’ pp. 66-7. 23

Ibid., p. 66. 24

Ibid., p. 67. This demonstrates that GH had some significant appeal in the time that Eusebius was writing and if his account is correct it was read fairly widely. See EH 3.25 for a full account of the list of