In case you missed it, here’s a fascinating post by Larry Hurtado, based on a very interesting article by Leander Keck about whether we should consider the New Testament as a ‘field of study’ separate from other early Christian literature. Hurtado’s conclusion is particularly interesting to me:
In short, for theological purposes the NT is (and should be) a “privileged” body of texts. But for historical purposes we should both take account of the breadth and diversity of early Christian literature and also the dynamics that from a remarkably early point gave to certain texts a special status and authority among at least many (most?) early Christian circles.
It’s notable that in former generations scholars were known for their work outside the NT canon as well as inside—such as
J. B. Lightfoot, who wrote commentaries on
Paul (and
Acts and
John as we now know), and was also a major scholar of the
Apostolic Fathers. In our day,
Jimmy Dunn’s three volume work on Christian origins has
extended into the Apostolic Fathers too. Dunn has only managed to do this towards the end of his writing life, of course—and that makes me wonder how realistic it is for someone today to master the sheer volume of secondary literature to be a competent scholar in the extra-canonical texts as well as the NT texts. Perhaps
Simon Gathercole is an exception, having done two major books on the Gospel of Thomas (
here and
here) and a book on the so-called
‘Gospel of Judas’, as well as being known for his work on
Paul and the
synoptic Gospels.
What do others think? Please do respond in the comments.
