Loading...A lot of people over the years have told me they are drawn to the Gnostic way of looking at things, but it’s pretty clear they’ve never actually read any Gnostic texts. Gnosticism is a lot easier to like in the abstract than in the on-the-ground (or out-of-this-world) reality.
When scholars typically describe Gnosticism to general audiences (at least when I do), it usually sounds very weird, rather fascinating, and more-or-less sensible. When people actually read the Gnostic texts, some of them are like that too (weird/fascinating/sensible) – but lots of the texts seem anything but sensible. They are (or seem to be) completely incomprehensible.
I thought I’d illustrate the point by giving one form of the Gnostic myth as found in a relatively small but rather dense portion of the Gospel of Judas.
Some people find that if they have a basic explanation/sense of Gnostic thought (a weird, fascinating, but sensible one as I tried to several posts ago), it is often possible to get the gist of this kind of myth (although parts still seem incomprehensible to mere mortals). But even getting the gist can take some work, or possibly a lot of work. Other people give up before they get very far into it.
Again, this is the translation of my colleague Zlatko Pleše in our book The Other Gospels (Oxford University Press). Give it a shot. How’d you do?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hey Dr. Ehrman, I have to agree with your initial statement. I am drawn to these writings, but really diving deep into them is a different ballgame. It reminds me of how people often claim to read the Bible for daily guidance, but in reality, they might just skim through or not read it in its entirety. After reading your piece, one thing that resonated with me was [a simple revelation, e.g., “how textual variations can profoundly impact our understanding of historical events”]. Grappling with these complexities requires more practice on my end. Your work provides valuable insights, and I appreciate you sharing them with us.
I believe you’ve said that, prior to his own preaching, the historical Jesus was in some way a follower of John the Baptist. From a historical standpoint, what do we know about why Jesus “left” John and starting proclaiming the kingdom of God on his own?
Might it have been John’s death, presumably at the hands of Herod? Do we have corroboration, and a probable date/year, perhaps from Josephus, that Herod did this and when he did this?
It may have been his death, though we do have traditions of John sending followers to query Jesus while he (John) was in prison. My sense (a widely held one, I think?) is that Jesus split off from John to spread his message with his own unique twists on it, after being with John for a time but before his arrest.
I’m beginning to see why they buried these writings in the desert.
Are you aware of any Christian writers, especially from early Christianity, who tried to say that one valid way (not the only valid way) of looking at the Trinity might be as a family, ie, father, mother, and child/son?
Wouldn’t that have been a neat way of packaging the idea? I know that the Holy Spirit is sometimes thought of as female, ie, Spirit is a “female” word in Hebrew and might be derived in part from the Hebrew concept of (Lady) Wisdom.
Also Augustine, I believe, thought of the Holy Spirit as “proceeding”(?) from the love between the Father and the Son. That might have developed instead as the Son “proceeding” from the love (including something like conjugal love) between the Father and the Holy Spirit/Mother. That would be a very natural and easily understood metaphor.
And of course Catholics are sometimes criticized for in effect trying to make Mary a fourth member of the Trinity. Even that could work, eg, the Father and Mary could have two children, one male (Jesus) and one female (the Holy Spirit)—like the ideal American nuclear family.
There were some Christians that understood the Spirit to be a feminine element within the godhead (some Gnostic groups), but they did not have a docrine of the Trinity. Once the doctrine was developed, it was Father, Son, Spirit. The latter would have had difficulty qualifying as a mother since the Greek word for spirit is neuter (not feminine or masculine).
It seems if the church wanted to make Jesus consubstantial with the Divine Father to be borne on earth, they could have also made his Mother Mary consubstantial with the Divine Mother in order to bear him into the world. Although in truth, if truly consubstantial, he should have been able to come to this world without any help. The church didn’t want to elevate women in any way and it’s very sad.
I don’t find Gnosticism peculiar or lacking in reason. In fact, I believe it’s not “otherworldly” at all but rather deeply rooted in the “inner world.” It seems to me that it can be interpreted from two (compatible) perspectives.
From one angle, the psychological aspect, Carl Jung was significantly influenced by Gnostic thought, which he considered a precursor to his own psychological theories. For instance, didn’t see the story of the divine realm’s emanations and the creation and fall of Sophia as a literal account of cosmological history but as a symbolic depiction of the unfolding of psychological realities within the individual and/or part of ones “Self”. . The strange symbols and figures of Gnosticism are expressions emerging from our subconscious. Various scholars, like for example the late professor, John D Turner would be open to use of or been influenced by visjonary journes out of rites and baptism rituals which could give rise to these views of this transcendent realm(s).
The other angle and in my mind largely a parallel angle is the spiritual framework, which has parallels in several world religions. This includes the jewish mystical tradition, Kabbalah, which was finalized centuries later, as well as (in my mind) in aspects of Christianity, especially in the Book of Revelation which I read and understand from the same perspective.
From my perspective, I would say that many of the Gnostic scriptures are neither incomprehensible nor insensible and I might get an understanding of even the wird symbology
An interesting added detail re-write of Genesis creation. My first impression was that the depliction of the Heavens was from some sort of astrological chart. It seems to me that Christianity has downplayed the prevalence of Astrology in those centuries, even though its inclusion in the birth narratives was substantial to the birth story of Jesus. Was the “heavenly hosts” of Luke 2 an astrological grouping of stars? I’m leaning towards astrology playing a significant role in gnosticism. Astrology could be the “gnosis” but probably a different astrology than the western form that we are familier with (greek astrology).
I was very intregued with the “quotations” given to Jesus. Not unlike something he could have said. Do you think they were just “made up” or that they were taken from other sources? Are the 4 canonical gospels believed to have the only authentic sayings of Jesus? I have a hard time thinking that Q source was only used for 4 gospels..
Yes, intriguing discourses of Jesus. None of them is probably authentic, but I wouldn’t say that there are only two choices, “from sources” or “made up,” since the sources that report them could have made them up, or be based on other sources that made them up, if you see what I mean.
Off Topic Questions:
The eminent coming kingdom”.
Gospel writers deplict Jusus speaking of coming kingdom.
John the Baptist preaches coming kingdom
Paul preaches a coming kingdom in Corinthians and Thessalonians.
However Paul in his letter to the Romans does not speak of any “eminent” coming kingdom but just a “future glory” in chapter 8. Given that Paul must have packed his “gospel” into Romans, then why would he leave the eminent future kingdom out of it, if it was such a part of his belief? Did Paul by that time change his view on “eminent”? Did he change his view on the coming Kingdom?
Somewhat related to above:
One reason I was in favor of the new book you are writing is to see what you come up with in if/how the “world” change because of Jesus. Did Jesus create a New Kingdom (New Jerusalem) on earth? If the coming of Jesus changed the definition of “morality” in the world, then Jeremiah 31-34 would have significance. Pauls Romans 2 14-16 seems to go back to Jeremiah 31-34 being the New Kingdom. So I’m anxious to hear/read if you found evidence of such. Jesus’s morality stemmed from Judism, but Jesus took it way past Judea..
Paul in Romans is not focusing on the timing of the end, and so doesn’t talk about it as imminent. The places he does want to talk about it’s coming are 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Cor. 15: 50-52; in both places (esp. the first) he suggests that he will be one of the ones still alive when it comes.
What about Rom. 13:11-12 – “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near” ? Paul may not be focusing on the eschaton in Romans, but I read this as at least a passing reference to it as imminent.disabledupes{9a4609ffc03a5515db82ee099ca9660b}disabledupes
Yes, I think Paul continued to think it wouldn’t be long, so I’m not denying that. And you’re right, 13:11-12 would be an indication of imminentce. My bad. My main point was that the imminent return is not a major focus on Romans, the way it is for 1 Thessalonians (Paul rings it up in each of the five chapters!) and 1 Corinthians (ch. 15 is probalby the key to the entire book). Romans 8, of course, is also directed to what will be happening (the world is groaning for its redemption)…
Wow. I’d love to say without the missing words I was able to follow along pretty well, but honestly speaking, quite a bit went over my head.
There is something of the Gnostic texts that are reminiscent of psychosis. So, for example, there is the renowned Daniel Schreber case commented on by Sigmund Freud. In his memoirs, he populated heaven with “forecourts of heaven” and splits God into two parts, one kind and one persecuting. The marking element is the creation of mythological beings and concepts without obvious referents. It is something of this sort that the Gnostic writings impress upon me with its esotericism. There is a host of imagery without manifest referent.
I think you may be onto something