What is the authors’ goal? They appear to have two: first, to encourage a spiritual, gnostic renewal of religion, and second, to prove that the earliest Christians were not really Literalists. These two are intertwined throughout the book, which is disappointing because at times it seems that their personal religious advocacy may interfere with their academic research.
Even more problematic is that their arguments about the earliest Christians really aren’t necessary for their personal spiritual goal. Freke and Gandy have, in fact, bought into an important premise which animates the position of the Literalists, namely that the nature of the original Christianity is somehow more “true” than any later developments, and that any other Christianity which a person tries to follow is really a “perversion.” They also assume that there is in fact something which can be identified as a truly “original” Christian belief system, rather than a plurality of different beliefs and approaches.
To be fair, these aren’t the only reformist authors who buy into such assumptions. Many liberal Christians do the same thing by trying to claim that the original Christianity is much more like what they want Christianity to look like today. Sometimes, as in the books of John Shelby Spong, this premise is stated quite openly.
In all such cases, the question of “why” still remains. Can’t they argue that their vision of Christianity is better, on its own terms, regardless of what the earliest Christians thought and did? Do they really need an ancient pedigree in order to validate their arguments?
Freke and Gandy’s book is heavily footnoted, so those who disagree with their historical arguments should have plenty of material to investigate further. I do not, however, believe that the quality of their evidence permits the dramatic conclusions they draw or the polemical manner in which they make them. They may be right, but there will never be enough evidence to justify not being more cautious the in how they present their claims. This is due to the scantiness of all such evidence from the time period — all we can do is draw likely or reasonable inferences, not dramatic and earth-shattering conclusions.
« Back...
