Apparently there's an SBL session on this question (S19-49, Monday afternoon). I'm a bit suspect because the session is sponsored by "HarperOne" (?) and its participants are all published by HarperCollins.

(side note: when will marketroids stop CamelCasing things? That's soooo 1990's)

Anyway, here's the panel:

• John Dominic Crossan, DePaul University, Panelist
• Jonathan Reed, University of La Verne, Panelist
• Amy-Jill Levine, The Divinity School, Vanderbilt University, Panelist
• Marvin Meyer, Chapman University, Panelist
• Pamela Eisenbaum, Iliff School of Theology, Panelist

I'll admit — I'm not too interested in what any of them would say. But I am curious about the question, and curious what folks in the biblioblogosphere might think. The question is a difficult one; I have several questions that arise from just the question alone (let alone thinking about answering it). Like:

• How does one define "non-Biblical" text? Any text that isn't in the Protestant Bible? Is the question specifically dealing with, say NT Apocrypha? Or could I say that perhaps Chrysostom's sermons on John would give tremendous insight? Or could I say (apologies, Jim West) N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Son of God? (No, I don't think that -- I'm just trying to figure out how to define "non-Biblical" in the context of this question).
• Does the text have to be about Jesus, or contain excerpts of Jesus' life? If I think NT apocryphal texts and gnostic texts (e.g. Thomas) paint a decidely improper picture of Jesus, then of course I can't suggest them. They would contribute to misunderstanding Jesus, not understanding him. But what else could I suggest?
• Does the text have to exist in full? Let's say based on what I know of Papias that I'd want to answer the question with his work. But the work doesn't exist anymore, at least that we know of. Further, what about things like Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, or Gospel of the Nazoreans? Egerton Papyrus? Fragments of unknown Gospels found at Oxyrhynchus? We only have limited citations or scraps of these; not full extant editions. Would they count?
• Does the text have to exist at all? What about theoretical texts? For instance, if I was one to think that Q actually existed (nb: I don't, though I'm not opposed to such a thing) then obviously I'd have to say that one. It is non-Biblical, I guess, though if the theory is true then large swaths of it, at minimum, made it in. So does that count?

I could go on. But that wouldn't help answer the question.

I'm thinking about it (and have a short list of candidates). I'll update this post with my answer at the end of the week. But what do you think? Leave comments; if you blog an answer on your own blog let me know and I'll link to your post from this one.

Update (2007-11-09): There have been some comments; two of them focus on the Testimonium Flavianum, the other wondering about Rabbinic criticisms of Jesus as shedding light into the claims made by Jesus and his followers. These are good thoughts.

I'm still griping about the question, however. There seem to be three places in the question that provide lots of wiggle-room: "non-Biblical Text", "Understanding" and "Jesus". I discussed "non-Biblical text" above a bit. The word "understanding" also is problematic. What does it mean? What does it imply? Is it about understanding more of Jesus' biography? Understanding more of how people understood him (that leaves the door open for all sorts of crazy stuff)?

The other term to define is "Jesus". Which Jesus is this? Is it only about Jesus' experience as a human, or is material that provides understanding of Jesus Christ (i.e., the aspect of Messiah)?

This all makes the question hard, particularly since I'm guessing the intent is to discuss early non-Biblical stuff; probably gnostic/Nag Hammadi, that provides alternate and likely fabricated accounts of Jesus' earthly sojourn. But I have problems answering the question that way because I don't think it tells us anything about understanding Jesus, but all sorts of stuff about how gnostics/etc. understood Jesus.

So, on the whole, I'll try take all of that into account when I provide some thoughts about the question later today. But I'll probably understand "Jesus" to refer to non-Biblical discussion about the person Jesus, and therefore also include texts that discuss the aspect of Messiah as well. Whether that is intended or not, I don't know — but it's my blog, so I get to do what I want. :)

Update II (2007-11-09): Ok, here's my list, with some brief explanation. I consulted a few references along the way to help me with my memory of these things, notably New Testament Apocrypha Vol 1 (amazon.com) and Moreschini & Norelli's Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature (amazon.com) (also vol. 1). This list is sort of in a preferred order, though if pressed I'd probably change it around.

• Tatian's Diatessaron. That's right; some may say this is Biblical, but I'd say it isn't. Content from the four gospels is stitched into a running narrative. How can this not be helpful in understanding Jesus?
• Eusebius' Letter to Carpianus. Huh? You know, this is the one published in the front of your NA27 explaining the Eusebian Canons, in which Eusebius delimits lists based on Ammonius' sections. This is a cross-referencing system between the gospels; it also highlights material unique to each gospel. Again, very helpful if you want to work through instances that the gospels record concerning Jesus' life. Please examine Kevin P. Edgcome's very helpful page about the Canons; also see his translation of the Letter to Carpianus.
• Testimonium Flavianum. I agree with some of the commenters to this post, this is valuable even if it is a later insertion.
• Odes of Solomon. Again, this might surprise some. But these are early hymns, likely first or second century, likely Christian, and likely used in Christian worship. If early Christian hymns were good enough for Paul to use in some of his writings (e.g. 1Ti 3.16, Php 2.5-11), then I'd think hymns like some of those found in the Odes would be helpful in understanding the early church's conception of Christ (which is part of "understanding Jesus", to my mind). Charlesworth's edition actually inserts headings where the voice shifts from the Odist to that of Christ.
• Symbol of Chalcedon. Yes, this is later (circa 450 AD/CE) but it is definitive. If you want to know what the church thinks about who Jesus was (and is), then this is an important text.
• Second Clement. Ok, not really. But I had to mention it because of the agrapha it contains. I guess I'd make a catch-all category here called something like "early agrapha" and include the sayings from 2Clem and other stuff like gospels of the (Hebrews|Nazoreans|Egyptians|Ebionites) as well as some of the POxy fragments, Egerton 2, and stuff like that.

Stuff I wouldn't include because I contend that overall they would contribute to misunderstanding Jesus: Gnostic gospels and apocalypses, particularly stuff found at Nag Hammadi and also the recently found Gospel of Judas. I'd say these are very important for understanding gnosticism and for understanding the gnostic conception of Jesus; but I just don't see how that helps us understand Jesus.

Thoughts?