NT Apocrypha as Counter Canon

This article by Annette Yoshiko explores the topic of  Para biblical literature in biblical studies through focus on New Testament Apocrypha. What I though was interesting about this article was the idea that the NT Apocrypha is a counter canon. That is defined by Hennecke and Schnemmelcher as writings that have not been received into the canon (but should be part of the Canon) and which form the point of view of Form Criticism further develop and mould the kinds of style created and received in the NT.

                As I said from my previous blog post I do think that these NT apocrypha (e.g. The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas etc.) should be considered in the Bible or at least by Christian leaders of different churches. Furthermore if these books don’t get the chance to get in the Bible, because “the canon is closed”, if it is possible for the Christian leaders to accept these (some) books as part of the Christianity apostolicity or historicity. That would give opportunity for Christians to read/learn other different stories of Jesus and tales of what his apostles did after he died.

                In the article Annette states in page 415 that the scholars (Whiston, Toland and Hone) operate under the shared assumption that such Para biblical writings are either “late” forgeries……or potential sources for exposing he suppressed truth……” I still don’t think there is anything wrong by considering some of these Apocrypha, as some of the books that are in the NT  Bible are also considered as fraudulent. Additionally let’s say if we consider to put the infancy Gospel of Thomas, even though it claims not to be written by Thomas, there a bunch of letters from Paul in the NT that are considered as Pseudography.

 This Gospel also gives us an inside story of Jesus’s childhood. Something that is not talked about in most of the Gospels found in the NT Bible. Even though Jesus is not portrayed as the best child, (you would think he would be) he comes off as obnoxious, selfish seems to do miraculous or dangerous acts out of impulse. In the bible, the Jesus we read about does not act impulsively or on a whim, he has reasoning behind his actions. This could be the reason the church would not consider it as part of the Canon. However as Jesus is growing he changes for the better. The Gospel also shows that Jesus could read, good argument for scholars who say he could not read.

Overall, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does show Jesus as full of knowledge and power, but also shows him as immature and mischievous. Jesus did have childish aspects in him that made him seem very imperfect, however, there are signs and miracles that Jesus performed that shows that he would most likely mature and evolve into the Jesus that is in the ancient scriptures.

This Gospel is just an example of the many other parable writings, which even though are claimed to be written by the authors, are very interesting, and “could result in the recovery of dynamic trajectories and connection that shaped the worlds of late antiquity and the Middle Ages” (425)