English Club Chatter

THis week if you havent seen the movie would anyone like to make an English club movie night of it. I havent seen it yet. Nor read the book, but I would like to. THursday anyone?

I will start by admitting that I both read and enjoyed the book. However, there's nothing new about the 'Da Vinci' controversy. Questions about Christ's divinity go all the way back to Paul and the fist sects of Jews that began to define themselves as Christ-followers. In fact, anyone who's interested in this subject *should* research the source of these questions -- Jewish ideas of the Messiah. Jews never thought of their messiah-to-be as divinity-come-to-Earth, but as a human who would free the Jews from Roman rule and setup Jerusalem as the political and spiritual center of the world. Do a little online research and you will find that the Jewish criteria for being messiah are far different from what Paul describes as messianic criteria in his defense of Christ. This might seem like a small distinction -- the differences between Jewish and Christian perceptions of the messiah -- but they are vital to the debate when one considers that Christianity depends on Jewish history, started as a Jewish sect, and relies on the apology of Paul who claimed to be a Jewish scholar (Pharisee). A book that highlights these differences is 'Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity' (can't remember the author).

Another place to look are the Arian and Gnostic controversies facing early Christian leadership. Research the various councils and debates regarding the controversies, as well as checking into as many Apocryphal scriptures. Many of these 'Gnostic' gospels deserve to be noticed for both their narrative (adding to the Christ myth) and literary quality, but have been denigrated by a Church whose authority seemingly rests in the current cannon.

That sounds good Jesi! In fact, we have an event night planned for this Thursday in the Student Union, but we can just change the event and the venue if everyone likes. Let me know on this blog or email me (laughbaum.12@osu.edu) if anyone wants to chime in!

EDIT: I should not have capitolized apocryphal -- bad habit based on my conservative theological training -- I meant to referrence scriptures generally thought to be less authoritative than the canonized gospels.

If anyone wants to follow Aaron's suggestion and look at some of the texts that didn't make it into the biblical canon, here's one site (among many).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

If you click on "Apocrypha" or "Gnostics" you can find the Gospel of Mary and loads more. A very good, and very readable writer on this material is Elaine Pagels ("The Gnostic Gospels," "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas").

The book Aaron mentions is by Hyam Maccoby (The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, HarperCollins, 1986) and was recently reprinted by Barnes & Noble Press. (Aaron's copy is, as it happens, sitting on my coffee table right now.)

As for the rest, it seems wise to distinguish Biblical texts from scripture (literally "writing"), which can be taken to include various additional texts, notably the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jewish) and the Nag Hammadi Library (Hellenic, Jewish, Christian). Which fact is largely why many, if not most, scholars have taken to calling these texts "extra-canonical" as opposed to "non-canonical," which carries a negative (exclusionary) connotation.

Indeed, Athanasius of Alexandria, the first to list (in 367 C.E.) the 27 books that ended up in the Christian New Testament, included seven writings in a "third testament" or deuterocanon, writings that he felt were appropriate for study by those wishing to join the Church (catechumens):

"Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John.

[. . .]

"But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd [of Hermas]."

Whether this distinction between canon and the broader category of scripture would be accepted by members of a given faith community depends on a lot of things, but in Christianity's case, it was certainly a long time before the Bible became what it is today.

I would second HH's recommendation of Elaine Pagels and add Bart Ehrman, who has written on heterodox Christianity (Lost Christianities), extra-canonical scripture (Lost Scriptures), the redaction of the texts in the current NT (Misquoting Jesus), and The Da Vinci Code's historical errors (Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code).

The site http://gnosis.org also includes the entire Nag Hammadi library as well as a ton of other material related to gnostic Christianity. Peter Kirby of Early Christian Writings also maintains a Jewish-focused archive at http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com . . .

DC

P.S. I don't know weird from weird, I guess, because I find the canonical Revelation, for example, much weirder than anything in Thunder, The Perfect Mind. ;)

Given that I helped derail this thread, which started as one focused on literature and religion re: The Da Vinci Code, I include below four novels that might be worth checking out.

Ki Longfellow, The Secret Magdalene (Eio, 2005) - A well-written look at one "alternative" history of Christ's life and ministry with an especial emphasis on gnosticism.

Women of Genesis (Orson Scott Card) - Capably written trilogy of character-driven novels focused on the women of early Biblical history.
1 - Sarah (Forge, 2001).
2 - Rebekah (Forge, 2002).
3 - Rachel and Leah (Forge, 2005).

So, here's a DaVinci Code related question (Monica, are you out there?).

Would we really be better off if the prevailing religion in our culture were matriarchal rather than patriarchal? If we replaced God with the Goddess?

Discuss.

Why does it have to be this OR that?

Both must be acknowledged by the willful explorer in order to see the entire picture. You can't choose merely one channel to get to a place where gender doesn't mean a damn thing. People need to get past the penis and vagina and embrace the receptive and productive forces that drive the all. Maybe Jesus was a hermaphrodite. And don't forget the virgins and eunuchs. Please! No more, "Me Tarzan, me Jane," "Jack and Jill went up the hill," "Adam and Eve were naughty,;" *sigh* The path, the web, the labyrinth, the Divine doesn't give a shit. What exists is a combination of both, and when we refuse to respect that we are getting absolutly nowhere. There would be no benefit whatsoever if we threw out "the God," and instated "the Goddess." It's the same dung, different colour.

OK, it's not dung. The is a terrible beauty within the "Masculine" and "Feminine," but together, there is a completion which cannot be attained without each.

To not do this is just weird. The religious conflicts raging everywhere lack this balance, among other things. I'm not a Wiccan, but I do know that they respect the masculine and feminine, as do Gnostics. I can't be certain, but I don't really see a Wiccan bombing anything anytime soon.

Ha! I thought that might draw you out, Monica. Perhaps the problem is not with a divinity, but with our conceptions, perceptions, representations of divinity, which, not surprisingly, tend to be cast in our own image. And our sense of our own image is limited to this narrow binary: male/female. What is "man"? What is "woman"? And who do we include/exclude in these perhaps limited categories? What does it mean to "be a man"? Does it mean exercising strength, taking decisive action, dominating, not dithering about thoughts or feelings too much? What about "woman"? Are women "naturally" more nuturing, more peaceful, more interested in dialogue and community, more connected to emotions? So what if you're a man who doesn't like football? What if you're a woman who gets nauseous at the thought of tupperware? Would we be better off with Condie Rice in the Oval Office? Was Thatcherite Britain a more nurturing country than it is under Blair? Or are these unwomanly women? I've always liked Jimmy Carter, but I guess he's not a man's man. Hmmm.

“Perhaps the problem is not with a divinity, but with our conceptions, perceptions, representations of divinity, which, not surprisingly, tend to be cast in our own image. And our sense of our own image is limited to this narrow binary: male/female.”
Perhaps Monica is not the right person to try and answer these inquiries. I have never had a problem reconciling the existence and nature of the Divine with gender. Of course I am not immune to certain stereotypical issues; the material world is full of them. The Divine is not. The certain texts that some people believe to have been “divinely inspired” contain them because they are not the Divine. They are words that a very diverse collective of people produced, revised, enhanced and ordered; often with specific agendas. I find great pain and pleasure delving into these writings; in fact, reading texts that are deemed by some to be “divinely inspired” is a bit of an obsession of mine. And I respect them for what they are. What I do not respect is the reaction they sometimes produce. I don’t need anything to separate me from the Divine, especially not the inane anxiety of people who don’t understand that both the productive and receptive, Masculine and Feminine, are essential to seeing the truth, which is always a personal journey. It’s an inside job that requires focus. And I do not believe that all of us are bound by this narrow binary of male/female. No. I am that I am, god damn it. The ether of my essence is not particularly concerned with my physical biology, nor what is expected of me as a woman in this material plane. I am neither privileged nor disenfranchised according to my sex because though I enjoy delving into other seeker’s generations, I ultimately go to the source. I am never separate from it.
So, ha ha!

I'm reminded here of Jung's concept of syzygy, "an archetypal pairing of contrasexual opposites, which symbolizes the communication of the conscious and unconscious minds. The conjunction of two organisms without the loss of identity." Indeed, I would argue that all binaries, though most especially the Feminine-Masculine, should be treated in this way. Embracing the binary itself, rather than grasping after one pole or the other, reminds us that both "sides" are equally necessary but neither is, in itself, definitive.

What if we all get to Heaven and God looks like Lucy? "Oh, I get it. Well I'll be..."

OK, so what happened to The DaVinci Code? Did anyone see it? What did you think? Thumbs up, thumbs down? Does it make sense or not? And what is it actually saying?

As Faculty Advisor to the English Club, I have deleted the last four postings, two by the self-styled "SLH" and two responding to these. The initial posting by SLH was, in my opinion, hateful and intended to be personally offensive to many in the club. This kind of verbal behavior is not acceptable. Vigorous, even angry debate can be valuable and productive. Vicious insults are another matter. If you don't like this, you can feel free to email me or talk to me about it in person. I have always felt that the student members of the English Club should be allowed to manage their own affairs. At the same time, I would be irresponsible as an advisor if I allowed the juvenile nastiness of one individual to cause hurt to others in the club and to jeopardize the health of the club in general. Let me say further that, while I am very much in favor of free speech, our society and the university wisely place some constraints upon this freedom. Speech that constitutes harassment or defamation (what is sometimes called "hate speech") is not, in my opinion, or I believe the university's, a protected right. It may also, on a blog like this, constitute a violation of the academic code. If postings like this pop up again, and I can find out who is posting them, I will consider reporting the individual reponsible to the Dean.

That said, my primary interest is not in exercising constraining power but in protecting the health and welfare of the English Club community. I hope you will all continue to use the blog for productive, stimulating, fun, and even challenging conversation.

Sincerely,

Hannibal Hamlin