davy_cko said
Hi all,Are there any reliable historical sources indicating that Gnostics were persecuted by Orthodoxy in early Christianity?
Your thoughts, please.
Thanks.
Paul seems to disagree with what may have been proto-Gnostics early on in one of his letters.
As for Orthodoxy, it didn’t exist in early Christianity. It’s an anachronism. Early Christianity was ridiculous diverse.
Source: Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman
MMahmud said
Paul seems to disagree with what may have been proto-Gnostics early on in one of his letters.
As for Orthodoxy, it didn’t exist in early Christianity. It’s an anachronism. Early Christianity was ridiculous diverse.
Source: Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman
Not sure I follow you M. The question might be better answered by talking about when Orthodoxy became dominant and defining Early Christianity (First 300 years? Everything prior to the conversion of Constantine?) There were certainly disputes among early Christians and we know that orthodoxy eventually won out. So maybe the question is at what point, if any, did the disputes lead to some form of persecution?
I
spiker said
MMahmud said
Paul seems to disagree with what may have been proto-Gnostics early on in one of his letters.
As for Orthodoxy, it didn’t exist in early Christianity. It’s an anachronism. Early Christianity was ridiculous diverse.
Source: Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman
Not sure I follow you M. The question might be better answered by talking about when Orthodoxy became dominant and defining Early Christianity (First 300 years? Everything prior to the conversion of Constantine?) There were certainly disputes among early Christians and we know that orthodoxy eventually won out. So maybe the question is at what point, if any, did the disputes lead to some form of persecution?
I realize that now. In my head I was thinking “early Chrisitanity=first century Christianity”. My bad. Now that I see that I have no idea at all whether Orthodox writers ever persecuted Gnostics(I’m a super-layman-read a bit, talk a lot) In the book, Bart says these religious battles (proto-orthodox vs. gnostic) weren’t fought physically but with words. I don’t know that he means to say there wasn’t any physical persecution of Gnostics.
MMahmud said
I realize that now. In my head I was thinking “early Chrisitanity=first century Christianity”. My bad. Now that I see that I have no idea at all whether Orthodox writers ever persecuted Gnostics(I’m a super-layman-read a bit, talk a lot) In the book, Bart says these religious battles (proto-orthodox vs. gnostic) weren’t fought physically but with words. I don’t know that he means to say there wasn’t any physical persecution of Gnostics.
Could the persecution be a distorted memory?
spiker said
MMahmud said
I realize that now. In my head I was thinking “early Chrisitanity=first century Christianity”. My bad. Now that I see that I have no idea at all whether Orthodox writers ever persecuted Gnostics(I’m a super-layman-read a bit, talk a lot) In the book, Bart says these religious battles (proto-orthodox vs. gnostic) weren’t fought physically but with words. I don’t know that he means to say there wasn’t any physical persecution of Gnostics.Could the persecution be a distorted memory?
Absolutely no clue myself. Candida Moss has a whole book on how orthodox Christians exaggerated stories of persecution and martyrdom and passed those down to further their cause.
But as for Gnostics getting persecuted, my guess(as a layman) is that the proto-Orthodox and Orthodox writers would be as keen to wipe away any stories(true or false) about them getting persecuted.
1)There are Roman pagans who wrote about persecuting Christians (like Pliny the Younger, and let’s not forget what Tacitus said about Nero blaming Christians for the great fire), so yes, that happened. Many individual stories of martyrdom got dressed up later on, some martyrs are closer to being mythic figures, and that’s something you have to allow for in general with accounts from ancient history, not just with Christians. Persecution would start up, then stop, then start again. There is no chance it was all made up. It wasn’t always that dangerous to be a Christian, but it could easily mean death at certain times.
2)Other Christians didn’t have any secular power to persecute Gnostics when they were all being persecuted too (like the Romans would know the difference?), and by the time Christianity became a majority religion in the Empire, the Gnostic movement had pretty much died out, though its ideas lived on. There were definitely rivalries and grudges between different sects, and for that matter, there are rivalries and grudges between different types of atheism–so?
3)’Gnostism’? Nobody else noticed that? 🙄
Orthodox is anachronistic, but we don’t really have a better term that I know of for the Christians who ended up forming the basis of the later unified church. Early Christianity was very diverse, because there was no authority structure with any real power over the various groups. But once Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire, Popes and bishops had a great deal of power, and none of them were Gnostics. Gnostics were so devoted to personal spiritual development, they tended not to excel at politics. And politics, sadly, is part of any organization, large or small, religious or secular.
As Pagels wrote, the Gnostics were too disorganized and heterodox (disagreeing with each other as much as the Non-Gnostic) to serve as the basis for a lasting widespread institution.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert