The Ancient Gnostic Threat to Christianity
Faith and Philosophy
| July 29, 2006
| Tim
Some comments from a pastor doing his research on the Gnostic gospels and The DaVinci Code. We had the same reaction:
This Sunday I'm preaching the second of my two anti-DaVinci Code sermons. I'll post links to relevant podcasts, etc. once they're up...
I thoroughly enjoyed doing the research, and found it to be very faith-affirming. The most fun part was reading the heresy. Last Monday I went with a couple of friends to Borders and we grabbed a copy of the Nag Hammadi Library off the shelves, and started reading large portions of the Gnostics. It was ridiculous. Clownish. Laughable. So absurd, it makes you wonder why anyone could seriously be a heretic. I think the best cure for the DaVinci Code hysteria and conspiracy theory stuff, is to have someone sit down on a morning show and read large passages of the gospel of Philip or Mary or Thomas. Or one of the Infancy gospels. Jesus shoving a playmate off the roof to his death. Great stuff. Every time I think about it, my response is somewhere between irrepressible giggles and "You've got to be kidding me."
My hunch is that the Gnostic gospels weren't cruelly suppressed by a power hungry church...they were laughed out of the church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas
The Gospel of Thomas is distinct and unrelated to other apocryphal or pseudepigraphal works, such as the Acts of Thomas or the work called the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which expands on the canonical texts to describe the miraculous childhood of Jesus. and is probably what you were refering to when you said that the gospel of thomas was laughable. When Hippolytus and Origen (ca. 233) refer to a "Gospel of Thomas" among the heterodox apocryphal gospels, it is unclear whether they mean the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or this "sayings" Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is also distinct from the Book of Thomas the Contender, a clearly Gnostic text.
In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" in his Cathechesis V: "Let none read the gospel according to Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of Mani's three wicked disciples." Very little trace of Manichaean dualism can be detected in this "sayings" Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, which is agreed to be simpler and less legend-filled than that philosophy.
While I think the Da Vinci code contains mostly fictitious nonsense, like much fiction it's successful in part because it hints at a small truth as well. Mary Magdelane was not a prostitute. That was a libel introduced by Pope Gregory the First. And while the early church was very egalitarian, perhaps one of the most egalitarian institutions in history, by the time of the Council of Constantine there was a network of lies and revisions to elevate men above women for all temporal and spiritual purposes.
Please don't post long URLs.
... and is probably what you were refering to when you said that the gospel of thomas was laughable.
I said I shared his reaction -- meaning to find most Gnostic gospels laughable. The specific reference to Thomas was his, not mine.
I've read everything named "Thomas" I could get my hands on, including secret thomas, and the infancy gospel of that name -- though I was about 12 or 13 at the time, and don't remember it specifically. And yes, most infancy gospels were quite funny -- but again, the reference you cite is his, not mine.
From Wikipedia:
Very little trace of Manichaean dualism can be detected in this "sayings" Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, which is agreed to be simpler and less legend-filled than that philosophy.
Very little trace of anything can be detected in Gospel of Thomas, since it's a bunch of sayings stated with little or no context.
From Ryan, I think:
Mary Magdelane was not a prostitute. That was a libel introduced by Pope Gregory the First.
It wasn't a libel -- he simply conflated the multiple "Marys" mentioned in the gospels. It's a common enough mistake that we probably shouldn't assume any ill intent.
Again from Ryan, I think:
And while the early church was very egalitarian, perhaps one of the most egalitarian institutions in history, by the time of the Council of Constantine there was a network of lies and revisions to elevate men above women for all temporal and spiritual purposes.
I'd love to hear about this "network of lies and revisions", since I've never seen any credible evidence for such.
Instead, I see evidence to the contrary: that we have numerous texts dating to a hundred or more years before that, which match the documents we have today.
And what is this "Council of Constantine"? Do you perhaps mean the Council of Nicea? I don't mean to disqualify anyone quite that quickly, but its kind of a significant gaffe, if so.
If I'm talking to a guy about a historical event, and he gets the name or century -- which is common knowledge -- wrong, then how apt am I going to be trust him about the allegedly more secret aspects he claims to know about? He could, of course, be right, but it's sure not an impressive start.
Nonetheless, state your evidence, if you have any.
It wasn't a libel -- he simply conflated the multiple "Marys" mentioned in the gospels. It's a common enough mistake that we probably shouldn't assume any ill intent.
Perhaps, but he was the first to do it so far as I know. Perhaps a new interpretation of old evidence after over 500 years says somthing? And it was hardly flattering. Though for all I know, he could have had some reason other than specifically trying to attack Mary M. Perhaps he was trying to reassure women that they could be saved no matter what? But if I were a person with the stature of the Pope and made the claim that you had engaged in illicit behavior that you didn't actually do. And the claim stuck. You really wouldn't take that personally or view it as an attack? You're very forgiving.
Do you perhaps mean the Council of Nicea
Yes, I meant the Council of Nicea, sorry. The Council of Constantine is a different event (same time period, though) and I was thinking about Constantine while writing. It was a mistake. I don't expect you to trust me one way or another. I've given sources.
What's this about "secret" evidence? None of my evidence is secret.
I will admit that I may possibly have given the early church a bit too much credit in terms of egalitarianism. But as regards evidence for my original point;
An NPR story about women in the early church.
He points to the presence of women priests (presbyterae) in the area of Tropea, in Calabria where there is an inscription from a sepulchre referring to Leta presbytera...
So far fifteen archeological inscriptions have been found that indicate ordained women. Rome maintains these women were ordained by heretical groups.
However, it is known that all of the geographical regions where these inscriptions are found were places with only orthodox Christian communities. None of the heretical groups existed in these areas.
(I don't know if any of these were the gnostic viper Tertulian spoke of, or what the church means when they say these groups were 'heretical.' Gnostic? Unorthodox?)
Women deacons existed up until the ninth century. As adult baptisms declined so did the demand for deacons. The important role of women deacons in the early church was gradually forgotten.
source - womensordination.org
In the New Testament, we find many women mentioned, some by name, some not.... They are named as co-workers, some of them seem to be part of missionary couples that go out and help convert others to Christianity. We find less evidence of this as you move into the 2nd century and the 3rd century; as Christianity becomes more established, and a male hierarchy of the clergy is developed, women tend to get more and more excluded....
source-pbs
Tim: Instead, I see evidence to the contrary: that we have numerous texts dating to a hundred or more years before that, which match the documents we have today.
You're saying that there weren't glosses on any of the gospel texts?
In terms of my evidence; are you asking for evidence that the church gave a lot of reasons for not ordaining women, and you want me to review those justifications one by one? You think an all-male clergy doesn't in any way seem to contradict pretty plainly the assertion that there is no male and female in God?
Or are you asking for evidence that a mainstream church ever did other than ordain male-only preists, and asserting that the later justifications were simply codifications of earlier beliefs?
The first of those two I can give you pretty easily and is essentially a matter of doctrine. Nothing secret about it. The second is more arguable.
...granted, Paul also said that women shouldn't be able to speak in church\congregation. But did he contradict himself? Was he defering to some cultural context (i.e. slaves should obey their masters, but not because their masters are truly superior)
It seems like a number of scholars have asserted the "equality" phrase Paul uses wasn't coined by him but existed earlier. Perhaps he was ambivalent about it or didn't actually believe in it? Or perhaps he meant that women should be silent in some way that doesn't contradict
Meeks said that he suspected Paul did not always accept the androgynous interpretation of the baptismal formula, and that he probably did not coin it. Further, Meeks argued, it proved too dangerously ambivalent for the emerging church and "faded into innocuous metaphor, perhaps to await the coming of its proper moment." And Hans Dieter Betz, of the University of Chicago Divinity School, agreed with Meeks that "this doctrine of an androgynous nature of the redeemed Christian seems to be pre-Pauline."
religion online
Granted, I have no pretentions of scholarship in this area. I'm just trying to make sense of what scholars have said. We have a pre-Pauline ritualistic phrase asserting a lack of division of "man and woman in Christ." Such sentiments seem rather absent in the later church. Doesn't this indicate a level of egalitarianism that faded in the later church or was suppressed? Or is there somthing here that I'm missing?
P.S. I apologize if any of my language was harsh or abrupt, or unjustly conclusive. I've written based on the knowledge that I have, and don't always qualifiy my comments, which I should particularly in regards to this issue. If I'm misreading things here, I hope you'll set me straight.
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man." 1 Corinthians 11:7.
source
To rephrase Pope Gregory's conflation of the multiple Marys; Don't you find that people who are atheistic in their bias are more likely to see Jefferson as an atheist since that's favorable to them? And people who are conservative Christians are more likely to see Jefferson as a conservative Christian? In other words, don't you find that a person's mistakes, however well intentioned, are as often as not a rorschach of their biases and beliefs?
The evidence is not conclusive on its own, but as part of a larger pattern it might be suggestive?
Pauline Christianity vs. the Jerusalem church.
Because some things which are not gnostic are sometimes called gnostic to discredit them while some things (like the Gospel of John) contain references to events which are Gnostic (like the cult of pythagorus) but are acclaimed as non-gnostic I want to make clear that I'm not defending ( or attacking ) gnosticism per se, nor do I assume that everything called gnostic is gnostic unless there's some reason to believe so.
My (weak) understanding of Pauline Christianity seems to be that it was a pretty radical break with both the Jerusalem Church and also the Jewish people, that Pauline Christianity deliberately undoes important parts of the Christian faith. Jesus says he's come to change the law. Paul calls the law a curse and blames it for his temptations. Etc. My point is more that writings like "The DaVinci Code" and "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," for all their nonsense and misdirection, also point to a pre-pauline unity or egalitarianism which I perceive as being true.
God, as I perceive him (here's my bias, perhaps) is about equality before him and the law. Paul seems a pretty strong proponent of hierarchy in general, elevating it to the level of an absolute moral good. That kind of stance I tend to see as evil.
Again, I make no claims to be knowledgeable in this area. I'm trying to make sense of what I've read.
Quite a few comments there, Ryan! Well, seeing as you've taken so much trouble, I'll try to be useful in response...
Tim: It wasn't a libel -- he simply conflated the multiple "Marys" mentioned in the gospels. It's a common enough mistake that we probably shouldn't assume any ill intent.
Ryan: ... it was hardly flattering. Though for all I know, he could have had some reason other than specifically trying to attack Mary M.
Background: All Christians believe -- or at least supposed to believe -- we are sinners. So saying Mary M was a sinner is hardly an attempt to bring her down. Jesus's top disciple (Peter) is portrayed as an egoist who betrayed him. This is an unusal aspect of Christian scripture: the ugly bits of humanity come right through.
I'm no expert in Catholic popes, but here's a thingy about what Gregory said:
It was Gregory who also associated her, again primarily through identification with Luke's unnamed sinner, as a penitent when he explained that by immolating herself at the feet of Jesus, "she turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance."
That doesn't sound like an attempt at a put-down. In Christianese, that's quite high praise.
Perhaps he was trying to reassure women that they could be saved no matter what?
That makes no sense: some of the biggest heroes in the gospels are the women. The Catholic church, for example, sometimes even elevates Virgin Mary to a functionally higher role than Jesus. And lets not even get into the scathes and scathes of female saints.
Honestly, I can't think of a sect of Christians more focused on glorifying feminine symbolism than the Catholics, Ryan.
But if I were a person with the stature of the Pope and made the claim that you had engaged in illicit behavior that you didn't actually do. And the claim stuck. You really wouldn't take that personally or view it as an attack?
Not if it happened because he got two different guys named "Tim" confused.
Don't you understand, Ryan? Paul the Apostle actually started out as a would-be murderer of Christians. Sleeping around doesn't even hold a candle to that. The key idea here is forgiveness.
The first person Jesus presented himself to in a much-hated Samaritan village was an almost-whore (John 4), who was a shunned sinner among the shunned sinners. (She was at the far-away well, at time when nobody else was there, probably becaues they didn't allow to use the one in town.) In a highly prudish society, she'd gone through a string of husbands and was now publicly shacking up with some guy.
Christians aren't supposed to judge a person by what they did before they repented. Being a sinner before knowing Jesus was hardly a black mark, as the cases of Peter and Paul -- and the Samaritan woman -- demonstrate.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
Regarding women in the early church: clearly, there have always been women leaders. Such are even mentioned in the bible, I believe -- Paul greets several women by name, many of whom are clearly important.
I'm not sure the word is "priest" though -- I'm no expert on Latin, but it seems the word means "elder", like deacon, not necessarily top dog.
The difference may be that Paul had an issue with women in direct top-dog positions of authority, but not anything below that.
Funny that you mention Tertulian -- I think the group he was involved with was actually headed by several "prophetesses." But they were generally held to be heretical by others, more for the mode of their delivery than the content.
And the Catholic church says all kinds of things, many of which I take with a grain of salt. :-) But then, I have the same scepticism towards those with certain agendas on the other side too.
You're saying that there weren't glosses on any of the gospel texts?
I'm sorry: what is a "gloss", here? The word literally means 'explanation' (among other things) but I can't get that to make sense here.
Do you mean people read or spun it one way or another? Or that the texts themselves have been changed? The "revisions".
I'm saying I'm not aware of any significant, meaningful revisions after from 100ish onward. I don't mean translations, or a few missing verses here and there, or minor differences in word choices (such do indeed exist). I mean thelogically significant revisions.
Again, if you have evidence for that, please explain. Otherwise, please de-confuse me as to what you're saying here. :-)
I wasn't really asking about women's ordination.
...granted, Paul also said that women shouldn't be able to speak in church\congregation. But did he contradict himself? Was he defering to some cultural context (i.e. slaves should obey their masters, but not because their masters are truly superior)
Great point, Ryan. This probably isn't what you're thinking. In said cultures, women were generally uneducated -- couldn't read or write, and didn't know as much about history.
As I understand it, that particular instruction is merely practical: women were now present for the kind of preaching and theological discussions they weren't usually privy to in their culture. Thus, they were asking a lot of background questions during the service. Hence the instruction to ask their husbands the questions later, at home, rather than have a running sideline conversation, as was happening.
It seems like a number of scholars have asserted the "equality" phrase Paul uses wasn't coined by him but existed earlier. Perhaps he was ambivalent about it or didn't actually believe in it? ... I'm just trying to make sense of what scholars have said. We have a pre-Pauline ritualistic phrase asserting a lack of division of "man and woman in Christ."
Great questions, Ryan. Great questions.
Personally: I don't think he was being ambivalent at all. Look at the context:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28)
He's using this in exact same manner and context as the distinction between "Jew" and "Greek" (gentile), which we know Paul was indeed passionate about.
I believe the problem for us lies in our culture, Ryan. We're steeped in it like a fish in water.
In Jesus's preaching, there is a distinction between a person's role and their worth. Jesus, for example, came as a homeless man (Luke 9:58), "in the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7), "to serve" (Mark 10:45).
So positionally, in the physical world, Jesus was the lowest of the low. But before God, he had an altogether different position.
We tend to think of role and importance in God's sight as being the same thing. But Jesus inverted this when he said:
You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10)
Likewise, Jesus told a story in which a rich man was in hell, and beggar who begged at his table was being comforted in a heavenly realm.
(As Jesus said, the least will be the greatest, and the greatest will be the least. Personally, I've always suspected the greatest in heaven would be some unknown granny (perhaps from a very poor culture) who'd lived an obscure but loving and holy life.)
Paul was fond of this also: he does the same thing with the rich and the poor (inverting material status against spiritual status) and also with "spiritual gifts" -- differing abilities.
So it was no problem to say, on the one hand, slaves obey your masters, and on the other hand, beleive that the slave would someday judge the angels while his master might possibly be consigned to hell.
And the same applied to women: their role was indeed subservient, Paul probably did have some of his own culture in him -- just as we have some of ours -- but I believe at the end of the day he understood, whatever their role and position and ability, they were the same in Christ as any man.
Recall also that Jesus taught that in the resurrection sex (and thus undoubtedly sexual distinctions which prompt) would not exist.
I apologize if any of my language was harsh or abrupt, or unjustly conclusive.
I apologize to you likewise, Ryan. Honestly, you do frustrate me at times (not now, I'm enjoying this actually) but I do think there's a nice and certainly very inquisitive guy behind the text.
And I thank you for your patience with me.
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man." 1 Corinthians 11:7.
Again, this is the whole inversion thing: When we men get old, we lose our hair. Thus our heads look like crap. So, to humble ourselves, we must expose them in worship.
(Indeed, look at old photos in the US: all the guys wore hats. My theory was that the balding old guys encouraged this so level the playing field with the younger, better-looking ones.)
Women: their hair generally looks fantastic. I've noticed that I often think a woman is beautiful, just looking at her hair from behind, and am sometimes disappointed when I see the other side.
So women, because their hair looks good, should cover it and thus humble themselves.
Some of the instructions Paul gave were personal: He would say things like "I, not the Lord, say..." And this is one of those cases where he sort of leaves it open. He doesn't say he's getting it from God, but he invokes instead persuasion based on gender differences and tradition.
I'm no authority, but I take the bit about "glory" as meaning that men give God pleasure, and women give men pleasure.
To illustrate: a common Christian image is that we are all the "bride" of Christ -- in this image, ALL believers -- men and women both -- are spritually "female" with regard to Christ.
Paul knew full well about this analogy and invoked it in several places, and I believe this would be one of them: he's comparing, as Jesus did, the happiness and pleasure that men derive from looking at women to the pleasure that God gets from spiritual union with mankind -- and yes the term "man" used there in greek ("aner") can mean a collective including men and women.
Just my take on it.
Don't you find that people who are atheistic in their bias are more likely to see Jefferson as an atheist since that's favorable to them? And people who are conservative Christians are more likely to see Jefferson as a conservative Christian?
Heh, you know full well I do, which is probably why you chose this particular example.
But I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to show about Gregory: are you saying he was sexually loose? He certainly doesn't strike me as being so -- as so many popes clearly were.
... don't you find that a person's mistakes, however well intentioned, are as often as not a rorschach of their biases and beliefs?
Sometimes, yes. But sometimes it goes the other way. Sometimes the good expect everyone to be good too, and things like that. But other times, people just get two similar names confused. :-)
Who knows, there may be some significance. It's just not leaping out at me.
My (weak) understanding of Pauline Christianity seems to be that it was a pretty radical break with both the Jerusalem Church and also the Jewish people, that Pauline Christianity deliberately undoes important parts of the Christian faith.
This is a common narrative. Having looked into it, it strikes me as badly mistaken.
If you take the bible as it is, this is not a supportable narrative. Acts 15 doesn't show Paul disagreeing with the Jerusalem church, it shows instead Peter arguing on Paul's behalf, and James and company getting on board.
Likewise, Peter's letters refer to Paul's words as "scripture."
Moreover, I don't see the theological case as making sense: I don't see the huge disconnect between Paul and Jesus that some claim. In fact, I can't even give you a simple answer as to why such a claim is wrong, because most such claims contradict each other. I'd have to go on the specifics.
Here is one such example from Peter Jennings, which fell apart under even the slightest prodding.
So another approach is to take bits one likes and doesn't like -- ala Borg & the Jesus Seminar -- and make them more or less "authentic" based on how well their confirm your pet theory.
(It's a bit like the way young-earth creationists deal with scientific evidence. Hmmm... evolutionists too, sometimes, come to think of it. :-))
God, as I perceive him (here's my bias, perhaps) is about equality before him and the law.
I agree completely. But equality of rules, not equality of results. He doesn't treat people differently because they're rich, or poor. But that doesn't mean he fails to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil.
Paul seems a pretty strong proponent of hierarchy in general...
Of course he does: he separates roles from value. In our culture, particularly the left-leaning bits of it, we've inextricably linked the two mentally.
This is how he can use to completely different and apparently exclusive analogies. He describes the chuch as a "body" with many different parts and different roles. (1 Cor 12, I think) Some parts talk, some parts will stay quiet. Some are to be seen in public, some should be kept hidden.
But then he turns it around and obliterates all distinctions before the throne of God: neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female. Nothing but what you've done.
And he also obliterates in the here and now: the body parts all need each other, and the hidden parts have a special honor, and the public parts have another one.
Up is down, down is up. Weak is strong, strength is weakness. When you're proud, you must remember your low spiritual condition. When you're poor, you must remember your spiritual riches. God shames the wise with what they discard as foolishness, and gives wisdom to the simple folk and children.
... elevating it to the level of an absolute moral good. That kind of stance I tend to see as evil.
Distinctions are good. If you believe that, then you need to believe I'm quite evil as well, as I think distinctions are very helpful and useful.
Inequality is the engine that drives the world, Ryan. Without hot and cold, there'd be no wind.
Consider: God could have made us some sort of intelligent photosynthetic bacterial colonies. We could have evolved in the cold darkness of space, soaking up everything we needed from the light of a nearby star and traces of interstellar dust.
But God is a social creature. Perhaps that sounds heretical, but I believe it. Consider the nature of goodness: What is goodness like? Doesn't love include generosity? And how can one be generous with a subject of generosity?
So we were placed on a planet where the iron was put in one country, and the copper in another, and the wheat in one region, and the bananas in another, and the gold in yet another place, and the tungsten in yet another.
I believe this is deliberate: we were created unequal and distinct so that we would need to have economic and thus social interactions. We have to trade the tungsten for the teak, and have a person who is skilled at woodwork consult with another who is skilled at mathematics. This kind of inequality has driven us to be the social animals we are.
Most people prefer a dog to a pet lizard or worm. Why? Because the dog is a social creature, it is closer to our "image". I believe that's a rough analogy.
So it's not the inequality that's the problem -- contrary to the prevailing leftist dogma of our age. It's what we do with it that matters.
One rich man in the bible -- Job -- is depicted as being righteous. Why? He treated women with respect. He cared about God. He loved his children, and seems to have frequently showed generosity and hospitality to people. He apparently was reasonbly humble. He didn't suddenly get poor -- he ended up even richer.
Another rich man -- well, he was depicted getting a long-term reservation in a warm climate. Again, why? Because a beggar sat by his table day after day, and he treated him no better than most people treat their dog.
It's what you do with it that counts. The purpose of wealth is to help others. The purpose of poverty is to be helped, and to gain spiritual riches. God isn't impressed by either -- just what one does with it.
(Also recall that Paul himself was quite poor.)
Likewise, God gave men and women distinctions, so that we would be drawn together, procreate, and also experience something that Jesus implies as a very weak analogue of the pleasure we are invited to ultimately experience in the presence of God.
He could have had us reproduce by budding off, or made us hermaphrodites. Science fiction novels are filled with such beings. But he decided sexual differences was something he wanted us to experience. If you believe in a sentient creator of some sort, then you must also necessarily believe there are reasons for the things and choices he made in creation.
Hope something in here was useful.
Regards,
- Tim
Thanks for the long reply. I appreciate the time it took to write it. One small thing where I think you've misread me;
... elevating it to the level of an absolute moral good. That kind of stance I tend to see as evil.
Distinctions are good. If you believe that, then you need to believe I'm quite evil as well, as I think distinctions are very helpful and useful.
In the sentence you quote regarding hierarchies I was refering to Paul's view of the authorities as being established by GodRomans 13 1-7
I should have given the specific quotation.
I know that the bible (OT and NT) sometimes talk about nations conquering Israel as an expression of God's will. But that capacity isn't usually used to exalt the conquering nations.
I'm sorry: what is a "gloss", here? The word literally means 'explanation' (among other things) but I can't get that to make sense here.
Do you mean people read or spun it one way or another?
Yes, I mean people mistranslated it. That translation allowed for accidental or possibly deliberate alterations to the text. I also think there may have been some deliberate interpolations (what kind of lynch mob screams "his blood be upon us and our children?")
gloss
gloss (one meanings among many)
verb - To give a false interpretation to.
noun - A purposefully misleading interpretation or explanation.
Some examples;
i.e. Almah (young woman, presumably virgin? unless it meant somthing different in the past) translated to parthenos (lit. virgin.)
Regarding revisions, what's your take on the proclamations at Nicea that Jesus was "the only Begotten son of God." Psalms 2:7 supposedly calls David a begotten son of God (based on David's revelation.) There were others besides David who were annointed (Cyrus the Great, who ended the Babylonian captivity for instance.) Was that a later development in Christianity or did the apostles say from the beginning that Jesus was the only son of God and that he was born of a virgin?
I understood some of these revisions to stand as a counterpoint to the Roman Caesar's claim to be 'Christos.'
"Clad in the shape of a deer she is worn away with death´s slavery, Now she has mastery and glimpses light: now she is plunged in misery and weeps. Now she is mourned, and her self rejoices. Now she weeps and is finally condemned. Now she is condemned and finally dies. And now she reaches the point where hemmed in by evil, she knows no way out. Misled, she has entered a labyrinth.
Then the Logos said " Behold, Father, she wanders the earth pursued by evil. Far from thy Breath she is going astray. She is trying to flee bitter Chaos, and does not know how she is to escape. Send me forth, o Father, therefore, and I, bearing the seal shall descend and wander all Aeons through, all mysteries reveal. I shall manifest the forms of the gods and teach them the secrets of the holy way which I call Gnosis"
- The Naasene Psalm
This is Wisdom, lost in the world, and the justification for Christ's mission on earth. I've always found it poignant, beatiful, and meaningful. Some pastor guffawing at this passage in a bookstore does not weaken its resonant and abiding beauty.
and this:
"And Thomas answered, "Therefore I say to you, that those who speak about things that are invisible and difficult to explain are like those who shoot their arrows at a target at night. To be sure, they shoot their arrows as anyone would - since they shoot at the target - but it is not visible. Yet when the light comes forth and hides the darkness, then the work of each will appear. And you, our light, enlighten."
The Soter said, "It is in light that light exists."
Thomas, spoke, saying, "Why does this visible light that shines on behalf of men rise and set?"
The Soter said, "O blessed Thomas, of course this visible light shines on your behalf – not in order that you remain here, but rather that you might come forth."
– The Book of Thomas the Contender
Isn't that just *hilarious*? Those crazy Gnostics, talking about light and truth and redemption, about the Fallen Word and Lost Wisdom and about intimate and immediate gnosis of the Divine. About sorrow and joy and love and the desire to know God. How ridiculous!
Ryan,
Sorry! We are carrying on so many simultaneous conversations, on so many different topics, that I sometimes lose track of them for a while.
what kind of lynch mob screams "his blood be upon us and our children?"
It makes total sense in context. Pilate has already been warned by his wife to have nothing more to do with an innocent man. He comes out and indicates clearly that he wants to release him because he has found no basis for a charge. (John 19:4)
Seeing that Pilate intended to release him, as he didn't want to be guilty of condemning and innocent man, they pull out all the stops and attack each of Pilate's pressure points with: (a) an implied threat to riot (and violate the Pax Romana, which could get Caesar axed), (b) assurances any innocent blood spilled would NOT be Pilate's responsibility (addressing Pilate's stated concern), and (c) the implication that a failure to execute the man would be a betrayal of Caesar (similar to the first threat).
If only Jesus's blood was on them and their children, Ryan: that's a symbol of being saved, not condemned, by our admitting our role in his crucifixion. Those who see it otherwise are of the same mindset as the Christians who persecuted European Jews, Ryan. Have nothing to do with them.
Was a later development in Christianity or did the apostles say from the beginning that Jesus was the only son of God and that he was born of a virgin?
I don't personally consider Jesus's virgin birth to be crucial to my own faith. (I would have no more trouble with the idea of God assuming a body conceived in the normal way... That is to say, why swallow the more shocking miracle while (God as man) while getting hung up on a much more incidental procedural detail?)
That said, I believe in it, partially for rather apocryphal reasons. (I suspect it was something that actually had (in a sense) to be done, more for "technical" reasons.)
It does seem to show up in all four gospels, so clearly it's an early belief. I'm not one of those people who just believes the bible was altered left and right in a way which changed or introduced new theological views. I find it improbable that such a thing could be pulled off without it being noticed by the other adherants. Minor "corrections" or "clarifications" which expand on accepted beliefs, sure, but nothing major.
Also, consider this, and particularly this.
Concerning Jesus as the "only" son of God, not "begotten" this seems to exist back as far back as I can see. It informs the opening to the book of John. James echoes the usage. The disciples (in a monothesitic context) clearly worship Jesus, and he clearly accepts it. In Paul's earliest letters -- believed to be some of the first written documents, he calls Jesus God's "son", in a way which clearly doesn't apply to the rest of us.
I understood some of these revisions to stand as a counterpoint to the Roman Caesar's claim to be 'Christos.'
Certainly, the choice of the Greek word was probably influenced by common use. (Same as now with English.) But let's remember that original word was Aramaic, and was "messiah" (you can even see that footnoted in most bibles), and originated long before any Caesar claimed such an office. The idea of messiah, "annointed one" exists in ancient Jewish tradition, and the Jews eagerly expected such a one. Thus, there's no reason to imagine they were answering or mirroring paganism.
Also recall that Jesus plainly stated he was not an answer or threat to Caesar, and was not in competition with Caesar. His kingdom simply was not of this world.
But: Where on earth are you getting this idea that "Caesar" (a Roman) claimed to be "Christos" (a Greek term)?
I find this highly improbable, given that the early Romans tended to be so confused about the term "Christos" (used for early Christians) that they rendered it "Chrestos", as Tertullian pointed out:
The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness.
How on earth do you claim this was a common term applied to Caesar when the Roman people themselves were utterly confused about it?
Who's been lying to ya, Sonny? ;-)
(Heh, I'm in my late thirties, but try to hear than in a lispy gramps-voice.)
There's simply no reason or evidence I've seen which indicates Jesus-as-God is some kind of later "revision". It positively permeates the earliest sources. It would have been impossible to have superimposed it, or any of the the important theological implications of it, later, without anyone noticing.
Jordan!
Welcome! And thanks for the comments!
Isn't that just *hilarious*? Those crazy Gnostics, talking about light and truth and redemption, about the Fallen Word and Lost Wisdom and about intimate and immediate gnosis of the Divine. About sorrow and joy and love and the desire to know God. How ridiculous!
No, many of those things *aren't* silly.
But that's a bit like saying Bill Clinton got in trouble because he sometimes ate at Burger King. True, he ate at Burger King, but that was hardly why he got into trouble.
The problem with ancient Gnosticism, as I see it, was not that it spoke about the universals that almost every religion addresses: love, truth, wisdom, joy, cute puppies, blah, blah, blah...
Good heavens, Scientology addresses those same issues. Does that mean Scientology fails to be silly, on some major issues? 'Course not.
What's ridiculous or unpalatable was NOT that Gnosticism addressed these issues, it was the specific answers given, and how they were packaged and communicated.
Though I laugh about some passages, like those from the Gospel of Judas, the main problem was the Gnosticism simply didn't meet people's needs. As best I can see, ancient gnosticisms tended to be highly schismatic, elitist belief systems. Saying matter was evil tended to imply one of two paradigms -- asceticism or debauchery -- neither of which work out well in the long run.
More importantly, I believe the core tenants of ancient Gnosticism are false: I don't believe all matter is evil. I don't believe all spirit is good. And I believe mankind's biggest problem is sin, meaning a penchant towards evil, not simply ignorance.
I'm sorry if that conflicts with some deeply cherished belief of yours. Join the club: I'm a Christian, and am thus used to seeing my beliefs depicted in even a satanic fashion. (Go to enemies.com for a Gnostic example.)
More importantly, I believe the core tenants of ancient Gnosticism are false: I don't believe all matter is evil. I don't believe all spirit is good. And I believe mankind's biggest problem is sin, meaning a penchant towards evil, not simply ignorance.
Howdy Tim. I was invited by your friend Ryan. I am a fellow Christian, and I am working on Coptic and Nag Hammadi graduate studies at Catholic University so perhaps I can be of a tiny bit of service to this discussion. First and foremost, I want to direct your attention to the leaps modern scholarship has made concerning Gnosticism, and particularly the difficulty in generalizing all Gnostic groups in the heresiological definition you paraphrased above. For some Gnostic groups these criticisms may have been true, but certainly not for all, and the diversity shows in the texts themselves.
I highly recommend Michael Allen Williams' pivotal book on the subject, "Rethinking Gnosticism." Rather than a biased revisionism like that from someone like Elaine Pagels, Williams employs an exhaustively thorough examination of the textual evidence to evaluate Gnostic thought and the heresiological generalizations concerning attitudes toward matter, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Gnosticism-Argument-Dismantling-Category/dp/0691005427
Williams is truly the authority on the subject at the time being. I apologize if he only makes the matter more complicated for you, but it is quite a complicated issue! I would be happy to answer any individual questions via email.
Pax,
J
How on earth do you claim this was a common term applied to Caesar when the Roman people themselves were utterly confused about it?
My mistake, it seems. I vaguely remember reading a text that said "If Jesus was Christos then Caesar wasn't." They were referring to the concept, IIRC, to try and explain why some emperors might have felt threatened by Christianity. I suppose they simply meant the concept of "a begotten son of god" rather than actually referring to the literal word "christos."
From wikipedia; Similar terms were widespread during the life of Jesus, as Roman emperor Augustus was known as the "son" of the deified Julius Caesar.
link
"Last Monday I went with a couple of friends to Borders and we grabbed a copy of the Nag Hammadi Library off the shelves, and started reading large portions of the Gnostics. It was ridiculous. Clownish. Laughable. So absurd, it makes you wonder why anyone could seriously be a heretic."
----------
Some people need to be told what to believe and others want to understand the WHY.
The first type of person usually has a very hard time dealing with the second type and of this I think your pastor friend is a good example.
To draw an analogy with cosmology, the first type of person just needs to know that reality functions in a predictable way - that gravity makes things fall, the sun rises and sets every 24 hours, etc. They DON'T need to know why!
If you tried to talk to this type of person about inflation or the idea that the big bang originated with a vacuum, they will just get upset and confused. They really don't need to think about these things, and will actually get angry that other people want to!
I would advise your pastor friend not to worry about gnosticism, he has a congregation to attend to and they don't need to understand gnosticism either.
Read
"Chapter XIII.—Summary of the Creed, or Rule of Faith. No Questions Ever Raised About It by Believers. Heretics Encourage and Perpetuate Thought Independent of Christ’s Teaching.
and
"Chapter XIV.—Curiosity Ought Not Range Beyond the Rule of Faith. Restless Curiosity, the Feature of Heresy"
by Tertullian as he explains the reasons for this quite well.
"Rev Max",
The "pastor" is not my friend. Regardless, your rebuttal is simply an ad hominem argument. It's not true that everyone who rejects your own personal belief system does so simply because they have no curiosity. Sometimes, they just find its ancient writings absurd.
Try being an orthodox Christian sometime if you're that unfamilliar with the experience. ;-) Why, just the other day, based on a few things I'd written, I was derided as "tremendously ignorant" "hard-ass literalist"...
by a Gnostic! Would you believe it? I guess some people just aren't interested in WHY I believe what I believe... they just are content to know WHAT and dismiss immediately on that basis.
And goodness, and now here's another one, implying that anyone who disagrees or finds ancient Gnostic writings a bit silly must be the kind of person who "needs to be told what to believe."
His opponent is not shown to be wrong on the facts, nor his is reaction shown to be unreasonable, mind you. But his dismissal of Gnosticism clearly shows his inferior, brain-dead, easily-controlled character.
Look, Max, honestly, I think you're a decent fellow, but I wasn't born yesterday. It's a bit rich that I'm derided by your peers as shallow for thinking perhaps Luke wasn't fabricating his material (I'm judged by my belief, at the surface alone) and then you have the nerve to get all offended at someone else deriding another's texts -- and start doing the very thing you say you hate -- to him!
And no, I have no idea who the "pastor" quoted above is. But I don't get nearly as offended as you seem to when someone reads, say, the book of Job and decides the God there has to be a pretty bad guy. I understand how someone could see it that way.
You seem to have been fed a cookie-cutter version of Christianity. I suspect you have no idea how rich this experience can be, how intellectually satisifying. From my point of view, it's far more radical than anything I've encountered. I am, after all, your heretic, poking at you with (admitted) glee!
And here you are, apparently conforming blindly to some pattern you've been shown: Explaining how modern well-fed Western Christians think by citing... an ascetic, ancient heretic who was actually rejected by the Christian mainstream!
Did you not notice the problem with that particular strategy? Or that you were plainly contradicting the evidence right in front of your face?
Max, Christianity is a subversion, an offense, one of the most radical things in existence. Why the hell do you think, for most of space and time -- except for this wonderful little piece of civilization we've built here in the west, for a brief time -- Jews and Christians have been hounded by the powers of this world?
Were some Gnostics once persecuted for their faith? Get in line: you've got nothing on us. I've already been over on the other side of the board, Max. It didn't satisfy.
But I doubt you've been to mine.
Our secrets are open secets, hidden in plain sight: right in front of your nose, but you can't see them. Our diamonds are hidden in dirt, but you are lured by dirt disguised as diamonds.
As Jesus put it:
"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
And I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but I hope you seriously consider the core of I've said. In my experience, truth offers no power, no prestige, no glamor, no elitism. And it's certainly not "cool." But to find it, we must risk all of those, and particularly our "selves", as the truth can be rather harsh towards us.
If not, then I bid you a good life, and wish you well, and hope you'll someday forgive my gross irreverence and bluntness.
"sparkwidget",
First, thanks for the book recommendation!
First and foremost, I want to direct your attention to the leaps modern scholarship has made concerning Gnosticism, and particularly the difficulty in generalizing all Gnostic groups in the heresiological definition you paraphrased above.
Are you referring to the previous comment, where I mention a few typically-associated beliefs, such as matter being evil, etc? Yes, of course such statements are generalizations -- I wouldn't think that's any more likely than claiming all "Christian" groups agree. I was hoping the "tend to" was make it clear I recognized there were variations.
But regardless -- and perhaps you didn't notice this part -- I'm also addressing a group of modern Gnostics, and thought it was important to speak in terms of ancient gnosticism as it tends to be (there I go again) presented on modern Gnostic sites, which frequently say things like this:
... what they meant by Christianity was very different from what we know of as Christianity today. For them, salvation wasn't through the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross, it was through direct, experiential divine knowledge--gnosis. The primary problem was not sin, it was ignorance, and the remedy was gnosis.
I felt statements like that needed to be addressed head on. Yes, it's a bit of generalization. And yes, so is my answer -- especially where I imply this view arose from the spirit/matter dichotomy. But generalizations are often necessary for brevity.
On an unrelated note, since you dropped by: Perhaps you'd like to give your opinion as to whether ancient Gnostics sometimes invoked familliar Christian figures to lend credibility to their writings?
Hi Tim
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It sounds like you might have misunderstood me a bit here though.
I'm really not "all offended" that your colleague derided the Nag Hammadi texts. In fact, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was angered in any way - rereading the above, it seems to me that I phrased my comments in a fairly neutral fashion.
That said, I just don't find your report on his reaction (i.e.,"ridiculous. Clownish. Laughable," etc) to be a compelling argument against the serious consideration of the perspective these texts advance - I really do think that he is probably just the sort of person who would be better off not thinking about this sort of thing too much.
"Restless curiousity" doesn't agree with everbody. In fact, it makes some people miserable - I've seen it - the safer strategy for most is simply to stick with whatever ideology has a proven track record of giving them feelings of stability and purpose.
"If not, then I bid you a good life, and wish you well, and hope you'll someday forgive my gross irreverence and bluntness."
LOL. I haven't been stung by a bee, my friend! I just responded to a post on a board.
I wish you well as well.
Max
First, thanks for the book recommendation!
You're welcome. Williams is truly an authority on the difficulty of this subject matter.
I'm also addressing a group of modern Gnostics, and thought it was important to speak in terms of ancient gnosticism as it tends to be (there I go again) presented on modern Gnostic sites
Well I wouldn't go thinking "modern Gnostics" to be THE representatives of Gnosticism, or that they "understand" Gnosticism. The problem is that people look to the text to justify the heresiological caricature rather than letting the texts speak for themselves. Scholars and "Gnostics" alike try harder and harder to cram paradigms like "world-hating elitists" onto Gnosticism in general when the group was in reality more diverse than that, and some of these guys were just barely heretics at all. Though I gripe at you about adhering to a heresiological caricature of Gnosticism, I find that many so-called modern Gnostics are attracted to the caricature, not the historical phenomena (so your contention with them understandable - in fact I share it). Sometimes when I start talking about the historical phenomena among them, they take great offense because Gnosticism is not the anti-Church anti-Jesus Jehovah-hating club that they considered it to be from reading sympathetic-but-polemically-flawed works like Kurt Rudolph's "Gnosis" (perhaps a good read if you want to know about historical Gnostics, but beware the Irenaean caricature). In the end, silly adherence to the caricature of Gnosticism espoused by Irenaeus among modern Gnostics only seems to encourage misunderstanding among modern "Gnostic critics" - "See? They DO hate the world! They ARE adherents to secret esoteric knowledge!"
If you want to trash the so-called modern Gnostics, Williams is perhaps the best avenue by which to do so. I really can't recommend his book enough, and my Coptic Professor at Catholic University insists it is the most important book written on the subject.
Just a couple examples of how the Gnostic heresiological caricature confounds scholarship:
1) Valentinian attitudes toward the world and the Demiurge are often downplayed to emphasize the early Sethian perspective that the world is the creation of an evil deity. Valentians did not necessarily believe this to be true, as the author of the Tripartite Tractate emphasizes the Creation according to John, that of Creation-by-Logos. Valentinians did not seem to endorse an "evil creator" at all in the sense that the Sethians did, but considered the literary Jehovah, IE God as depicted in literature, to be a sort of Santa-Claus-copy of the true God, and thought believers ought to know the difference. You had mentioned that Valentinians, Valentinus in particular, were "infiltrating" the early church. I stress however that in the case of Valentinians, these so-called Gnostics were already assimilated into the church and according to Irenaeus attended all the masses and confessed all the same creeds. Valentinus himself did not attempt to storm Rome with money and influence like Marcion did, but was up for election in a natural church selection process. Marcion brings me to my next point:
2) You can see by the example of the Valentinians that Gnosticism is not as easily classified as "Jehovah-hating Demiurgism." Nevertheless, Marcion gets clumped into Gnostic categories by many, and is even exalted as a Gnostic hero by certain churches that clearly have no historical knowledge about this stuff (http://www.thomasinechurch.org/content/marcionite.htm). Marcion did hate the OT Jehovah, but did so from such a rigorous literalistic perspective that the Church Fathers wrote of him that he was a country bumpkin with no sense of allegory. His argument was methodical, rigid, and most of all literalist: Jehovah orders people to die, Jesus says love all people, therefore Jesus and Jehovah are from different divine realities. This perspective was similar to some Gnostic perspectives that Jehovah was naughty (although interestingly as texts progress in time the perspective of Gnostics toward Jehovah eventually conforms to the Valentinian "Santa Claus" view). However it directly contradicts the anti-literalist attitude of Gnostics as can be inferred from texts such as Ptolemy's Letter to Flora.
3) As far as "salvation by Gnosis" goes, I don't think this paradigm is useless, but I do find it to be a semantic problem. Since Valentinian Gnostics (who were the most mainstream representatives of Gnosticism) were thoroughly established in Pauline and Johannine writings, I can't possibly agree that it was as simple as modern Gnostics make it out to be (as I said before, many modern so-called Gnostics are staunchly anti-Paul and anti-church - the idea that they considered the Gospel of John or the Epistles to the Corinthians more authoritative than say the Gospel of Philip makes most modern Gnostics gnash their teeth in discomfort). As far as Paul is concerned, real love is the highest "Gnosis." In 1 Corinthians he is explicit that true love of God and neighbor is "knowledge" of God. When you start trying to explore Gnosis as independent concept to Pauline thought, you run into the problems of its definition. This is why many simply cop out and say "Gnosis is secret esoteric information." I disagree with that. "Gnosis" as knowledge is a term that implies intimacy to the ancient world, and to Paul, and so true love in God is true "knowledge" of God.
4) The ignorance vs sin thing is also very problematic. I think that this is more of a semantic difference than anything else, and something modern Gnostics don't really grasp. The early church considered sin to be ignorance in the sense that sin was the result of alienation from God. Theologian Rob Loewe says in his Intro Christology that sin is an "expanding alienation from God." I think in light of the biblical narrative this is a good way to state it. This encompasses both realms of moral failure and intellectual failure. After all, the first step to fixing sin is KNOWING that you sin (repentance). "Sin" and "ignorance" are thefore semantically related and I think it is a false dichotomy to try and say that the human problem, or "original sin" is either moral or intellectual. It is clearly both, IMO.
In closing, I have read a good number of Gnostic texts and am sympathetic toward a good number of them. I do however agree with you that many, perhaps as much as half, are just ridiculous and somewhat "obsolete" since we have no clue what the symbolical intent was ("And gurubabel invented the left testicle... and burubabel the right testicle..."). I have to say from my own point of view that I unfortunately find "Judas" to be as silly and ridiculous as these texts can get. I think the media hype over it was a brainless mania, as there is better stuff in the NHL that came out in '72 and hardly got any attention.
You asked:
On an unrelated note, since you dropped by: Perhaps you'd like to give your opinion as to whether ancient Gnostics sometimes invoked familliar Christian figures to lend credibility to their writings?
I have read your opinion in the Judas thread on the concept of pseudepigrapha. I disagree that most biblical writings were written by their claimed (or traditional) authors, but I hope this is not enough of a difference to keep us from talking humanely, Christian-to-Christian. I do not think that this diminishes the worth of the Bible as much as it simply suggests our lack of understanding about these works. That said, I think much of Gnostic lit was produced during a sort of "second tier" of New Testament writings that included a number of other apocryphal writings both orthodox and heterodox. It falls in the same category as the Gospel of Nicodemus and numerous Acts stories, and even the later Protoevangelion of James reflects this "second-tier tendency." These works were not, to my understanding, meant to supplant the canonical Gospels and epistles as much as they were intended to comment on them in a sort of Midrashic (creative, playful) fashion. I hesitate to label Gnostic apocrypha as "sillier" than orthodox works because orthodox works written in the same period tended to be equally as silly (you'd mentioned the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which was a very popular orthodox work, not a Gnostic work - also see the wacky adventures of John in the Acts of John). Being produced in this second tier, as you said a whole hundred years after the 4 Gospels and the Epistles, I doubt many thought them authoritative per-se but it is possible that some laypeople thought they were authoritative (we know the Church rejected Thomas' "Infancy Gospel" as fantasy, but nevertheless someone somewhere probably thought it was true - people are stupid, what can I say?). It is possible that the Revelation of John represents the exception, a second-tier writing being incorporated as canonical, but I have only heard this theory thrown around and haven't investigated it myself (so don't sick the dogs on me). With this in mind I don't think this was any sort of "hijacking" of biblical characters to produce more biblical literature as much as it was commentary on established biblical works. Here's a modern example: we know Tolkien wrote the canonical Lord of the Rings. If a hundred years in the future someone writes a LOTR story to better explain some problem in LOTR, would people consider that writing "canonical" or speculative? Nobody would consider the musings of a commenter to be canonical additions to the story. In short, I disagree with the modern Gnostic assertion that "Philip was just as canonical as Mark" as the writings of the Gnostics themselves show that they consider the NT canon to be THE authority. The fact that these second-tier "Gospels" refer to them as such is a dead giveaway. The ancient Church was not some Dan Brown-esque fantasy where evil Romans excluded Philip and Thomas just becuase they were conspiratorial jerks. The Canonical Gospels were simply most highly regarded as authoritative of all NT-era works (1st and 2nd tier).
It's been a long ramble, but I hope I have illuminated some of the problems of both modern Gnosticism and Gnostic scholarship for you. I again want to plug Williams' book, as it will clear up this complicated mess for you and may perhaps show you the difficulty in generalizing "Gnosticism" in both scholarly and "modern Gnostic" contexts. I imagine that some net-Gnostics my rail against my use of Valentinians as Gnostic exemplars as Sethians tend to be more popular on the net, but historically (and I am trying to get at this stuff historically) the Valentinians were more numerous and prominent in the Church. If you disagree with any of my interpretive matrices I hope you can find it in your heart to do so charitably (I've seen you totally a ream a few people on your site since I got here a couple days ago and humbly request to be spared the reaming).
Yours in Christ,
Jesse Christopher
I imagine that some net-Gnostics my rail against my use of Valentinians as Gnostic exemplars as Sethians tend to be more popular on the net,
---------------
Whaaaa? Over on PTG its nothing but Valentinus, GoP, GoT...
If anything I would say the reverse is true.
Howdy Max.
The PTG is fulla' ecclesiastic types, and you're right that they are all "GoP, GoTh, GoTr" etc. However I think the Apocryphon of John at least initially got the most airtime and though Valentinus is hyped a lot, attitudes toward church, the New Testament, and Theology tend to be more Sethian. Nothing wrong with that - just my observation. Maybe we should take a survey?
I've noticed that some more liberal groups air Thomasine literature the most, which confuses me to no end, since they're vehemently anti-sexuality and sexist. Cafeteria Thomasines?
Tim, I think the best thing about your site is that no matter how many differing opinions you dredge up, I'm sure we can all agree that Quixtar is Satan.
Cheers,
J
Hiya Rev Max!
It seems you have misunderstood my response...
I'm really not "all offended" that your colleague derided the Nag Hammadi texts...
Err, um, he's not my colleague. As I've said repeatedly.
That said, I just don't find your report on his reaction (i.e.,"ridiculous. Clownish. Laughable," etc) to be a compelling argument against the serious consideration of the perspective these texts advance...
It's not meant as a compelling argument against "the perspective these texts advance." It's meant, as stated when I introduced it, as a reaction to Dan Brown's claims regarding the "danger" of reading these documents, and the "Threat" (see title!) "to Christianity" Brown imputes.
And yes, in my view, many of said documents ARE deeply amusing. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the underlying ideas, mind you. You're talking about underlying philosophy; I'm talking about packaging.
I'd be more than glad to consider the underlying ideas; in fact, I'd ask you to respond to this question.
"Restless curiousity" doesn't agree with everbody. In fact, it makes some people miserable - I've seen it - the safer strategy for most is simply to stick with whatever ideology has a proven track record of giving them feelings of stability and purpose.
As I said above, many people confuse "curiosity" and open-mindedness with holding certain positions.
I have an open mind about the material world, for example. If someone would claim to me that perpetual motion devices exist, I'd gladly examine the evidence. Just because I judged it lacking wouldn't mean I was closed minded: I might simply have some reasonable criteria which wasn't being met.
It's odd you've attributed a lack of curiosity to the position in the quote above. He's doing research, he examines something, he finds it amusing, and you say he has no curiosity! :-)
Regardless, thanks for the friendly banter!
- Tim
Sparkwidget,
First, thanks for the thoughtful reply! And sorry for the delay in my own reply -- had company this weekend and didn't do the normal blogging.
Well I wouldn't go thinking "modern Gnostics" to be THE representatives of Gnosticism, or that they "understand" Gnosticism... Though I gripe at you about adhering to a heresiological caricature of Gnosticism, I find that many so-called modern Gnostics are attracted to the caricature, not the historical phenomena...
Yes. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be embroiled in the current debate.
(My experience has been that most "trendy" religious beliefs have very little to do with their purported origins. Consider Buddhism: Know any Zen Buddhists who've had a good beating lately? Me neither.)
If you want to trash the so-called modern Gnostics...
Actually, I don't really want to "trash" anyone's belief system. I'd rather take their as seriously as I hope they'll take mine.
In fact, this wasn't really meant as an all-out attack on anybody's current ("Gnostic") beliefs, but rather simply a reaction to the nutiness being pushed by Dan Brown and the media, regarding ancient texts as Christianity-killers.
Particularly "this oinker", I as I called it. (And you seem to agree.)
Mind you, I don't shy away from a good debate. But this wasn't really meant as an attack on modern Gnostics, as some seem to have taken it as.
You also mention the Infancy Gospel of Thomas -- I first read that when I was just a kid and kept hearing about all these "other gospels" which were rejected from the bible. Wanting to know, I read many, including that one, and just about died laughing.
[And no (Rev Max and others) because I found the gospel absurd doesn't mean I also rejected the underlying ideas absurd -- which were probably fairly orthodox.]
I've only read a bit of Valentinus and Marcion -- thanks for the overview and perspective.
And thanks for the repeated book plug. I'm studying the rise of early Christianity (as per sociologist Rodney Stark at the moment), so I'll put Williams somewhere in the queue behind that.
And I'm laughing aloud about your Quixtar comment... :-)
Thanks mucho, Jesse!
- Tim
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Two or Three Observations on Homosexuality and Christianity |
Front Page |
Page Two
| In Seach of ... Theocratic Motives! »
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas
The Gospel of Thomas is distinct and unrelated to other apocryphal or pseudepigraphal works, such as the Acts of Thomas or the work called the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which expands on the canonical texts to describe the miraculous childhood of Jesus. and is probably what you were refering to when you said that the gospel of thomas was laughable. When Hippolytus and Origen (ca. 233) refer to a "Gospel of Thomas" among the heterodox apocryphal gospels, it is unclear whether they mean the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or this "sayings" Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is also distinct from the Book of Thomas the Contender, a clearly Gnostic text.
In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" in his Cathechesis V: "Let none read the gospel according to Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of Mani's three wicked disciples." Very little trace of Manichaean dualism can be detected in this "sayings" Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, which is agreed to be simpler and less legend-filled than that philosophy.
While I think the Da Vinci code contains mostly fictitious nonsense, like much fiction it's successful in part because it hints at a small truth as well. Mary Magdelane was not a prostitute. That was a libel introduced by Pope Gregory the First. And while the early church was very egalitarian, perhaps one of the most egalitarian institutions in history, by the time of the Council of Constantine there was a network of lies and revisions to elevate men above women for all temporal and spiritual purposes.
Posted by: Ryan on July 31, 2006 12:27 AM