(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...Now that I’ve discussed the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, I can move into the kinds of religion found among these books, popularly known as the “Gnostic Gospels.” And that will involve laying out the views found among the various Christian groups of the second and third century (principally) that scholars call Gnostic. Gnosticism is a fascinating topic, but it is also widely misunderstood, in no small part because scholarship on Gnosticism over the past twenty or thirty years ago has shown that the widely held views of earlier generations of scholars were based more on assumption than on evidence.
There have long been heated debates over even how to define Gnosticism. Until about a hundred years ago, just about the only sources scholars used for understanding Gnosticism were the writings of its most vocal opponents, the proto-orthodox church fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries. The problem is, as we all know so well (think: American politics!) you can’t really rely on what a group’s enemies say if you want to know their actual views.
With regard to Gnosticism the problems were always particularly severe. Proto-orthodox church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian saw Gnosticism as a major threat to the success and unity of Christianity and pulled out all the stops in their assaults on it. Many of their charges—for example, their claim that certain groups of Gnostics engaged in wild sexual orgies and bizarre nocturnal rituals that involved eating babies—must be scrutinized with care.
With the Nag Hammadi library we suddenly have an entire cache of books,
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!
To what extent, if any, do you think the Gospel of John reflects some gnostic elements? I have always thought the philosophical nature of this gospel sounds like it was influenced to some degree by gnostic-like ideas. But now that I read some of the Nag Hammadi actual gnostic texts, I am no longer certain about that view of John. It is certainly very philosophical and somewhat mystical in nature when describing the relationship of God and Jesus, but I can’t decide if that is reflective of early gnosticism. Your thoughts?
For a long time that was a common view among scholars, but over the past 30-40 years scholars have increasingly realized that what we call “Gnosticism” is difficult to date prior to the second century. There certainly were philosophical and religious traditoins earlier than that that were amenable to the later Gnostics, but it’s more likely that the similarities between John and later Gnostics is because some Gnostics were quite taken with John rather than the other way around.
Bart,
Yes! “…appears to have read Gnostic poetry that celebrated the mysteries of creation. Instead of allowing for poetic license however, he interpreted the texts literally…”
This flip-flopping between literal and poetic (or metaphorical/analogical) interpretation drives me crazy. The Jewish rabbinic traditions seemed to of had less difficulty staying clear of overly literal interpretations of their bible, but many of the early Christian church fathers seemed to invoke literal views whenever possible, even when writings are clearly laid out as parables. Origen seems to have been one of the few to of maintained a reasonable balance of (many) perspectives in his numerous commentaries. Was there too much of a ‘war’ mentality from the church fathers and bishops trying to defend against ‘heretical’ invasions of thought? How were these defenses kept in some type of alignment with James, Peter or Paul, especially since Paul appears to be the only one of the three that actively tried to hold theological lines via his letters?
It’s a bit hard to say if the opposition to heresy is simply prominent in a lot of our literature or wsa indeed a dominant feature of early Christianity. But my sense is that the “heresiologists” were pretty sure that Peter, James, and the others were indeed intensely interested in theology. Hey, if *I* am they must have been too, right?
In the same way I understand the Book of Revelation, its concepts, and its symbolism, I do so through a Vedic lens, and in the same way I understand and read gnostic scriptures. Without using this perspective, I feel very confined. On the other hand, would that even surprise me,,,,,not at all,,, given that most of the world’s population in the early centuries CE was influenced by such concepts. Similarly, As I read the gnostic texts, I find they share so many fundamental similarities with concepts found in Vedism, leads me to suspect that Gnostic thought may draw (some at least) its inspiration from there.
Even Carl Jung saw similarities between his understanding of the ‘Self’—referring to the human psyche—and the ideas present in Gnostic literature, as well as in Eastern and Vedic philosophies.
I look forward to your coming posts in this interesting tread, I hope you “somewhere” would adress your thoughts about more or less eastern influences.
Bart, when you say “Gnostic poetry that celebrated the mysteries of creation,” what are you referring to? Can you point us to an example? I’m under the impression that one thing the Gnostics were fairly united on was the idea that creation was not to be celebrated – at least if we are talking about the creation of the physical universe.
Ah, sorry, right, that does sound confusing. What I meant is that they celebrated the mysterious myths that explain how the divine realm and the world and humans came into being. I didn’t mean that they were overly joyful about the material world or living in it.disabledupes{7b64637426d9e82299df50fa8bd58c90}disabledupes
1) I think this may well be another debated issue but what is our earliest textual or archeological evidence for any kind of Gnostic or Gnostic-like Christian group or thought? 2) Do we know anything about when or how or under what circumstances or influences Gnosticism emerged? To me many writings in the NHL seem, in their core, like a way how a curious Platonist would have understood the basics of Christianity or an attempt at integrating Christianity into the world view of hellenistic dualism (I’ve heard about this last phrase and phenomenon in one of Dr. Tabor’s yt videos).
It’s a much debated point. I’m afraid archaeology doesn’t help much, except insofar as texts have been discovered that we can certainly date back to the second century CE, in the second half of which, as well, we have strong objections to these groups, their views, and their practices.. Before that we don’t have any indication of anything like our full-blown Gnosticism, though we certainly have similar kinds of views among various groups. Today it is usually thought that Middle Platonic thought played a strong role in forming Gnostic views, and in Christain Gnostic groups the Old Testament and traditions about Jesus as well. Most scholars today are putting the “beginning” in the second century after the NT writings.
When did we have our full-blown Christianity? It’s natural to expect that Gnostic philosophy developed and synchretized ideas from various sources (including probably Zoroastrianism) in a manner similar to how Christian philosophy developed. Think of your own Lost Christianities.
You introduce Walter Bauer’s refutation of the Eusebian view that Christianity began with Jesus and his direct apostles and diverged from there. I think the truth probably goes even further than that. I think it originated in Greek religious thought, especially the Greek mystery religions, and only later attached itself to Judaism, perhaps to gain respect as an ancient religion or even gain Roman religio licita legal protection. I suspect the lines between this body of religious thought and Gnostic (proto-Gnostic?) religious thought were blurry indeed. Elaine Pagels makes part of this case in Gnostic Paul.
Your email subject “Gnosticism…Can We Even Understand It?” would apply equally to Christianity if the literature wasn’t pre-filtered as the proto-orthodox worked to eliminate the writings of their competition.
It depends what “full-blown Christianity” is. Does it involve priests? A closed canon of Scripture? A pope? The Mother of God? The Trinity? An infallible Bible? etc….
Clearly certain proto-orthodox Christians were waging ideological war against the Gnostics. Do we know of cases where actual military actions were taken against them?
No. At this point Christians didn’t have any military forces.
The Nag Hammadi texts, being written for internal community consumption, may actually offer a form of ‘Gnostic vernacular’ that scholars haven’t considered. It’s almost like eavesdropping on a private conversation.
Could the inconsistencies among the Nag Hammadi texts actually be intentional, serving as a form of esoteric coding or puzzle that initiates had to solve to truly understand Gnostic teachings?
I’m not sure why you’re saying scholars haven’t considered this?
Thank goodness for the Nag Hammadi discoveries! 🙂
A long time ago, I read a book whose name has long since deserted me concerning the Gospel of John and Gnostic beliefs. This author tried to make the point that John was an answer to the early development of Gnosticism because of the first chapter of the gospel. In the beginning was the word and the word was God and…
Since Gnosticism in its various forms seems to imply that the old testament God (the god of the Jews) was actually more of a negative–almost Satanic being, this first chapter of John which categorically states that Jesus was there at the very beginning and that he was in fact the author of all things would seem to support the anti Gnostic position. This would seem to lend credence to the idea that John was actually anti Gnostic–not pro or proto Gnostic.
What do you think Dr. Ehrman?
It’s been argued both ways, ats it turns out. In any event, we do know that John was a favorite writing among some Gnostic group; in fact, our very first commentary on John was written by a Valentinian Gnostic named Heracleon. We don’t have it, but we do have a response to it by the church father Origen, who understood John *anti*-gnostically. John, though, was almost certaily written before Valentinus or the other Christian gnostics developed their views.
Dr. Ehrman,
Did the Stoics believe in resurrection? It’s interesting that some want to link Paul to the Stoic culture, but it seems they don’t put a high regard on an afterlife at all.
Definitely not. Resurrection was a Jewish idea repulsive to most Greek thinkers, and Stoics were most definitely serious Greek thinkers.
I appreciate your response and should have been more thorough in my research before making such a statement. My intention was to explore the idea that the Nag Hammadi texts might be a form of esoteric coding. I’d genuinely like to understand more and ensure I’m better informed in the future. I promise to be more thoughtful with my comments and questions in the future. Thank you Dr. Erhman. – Wes
You might want to read Nicola Denzey Lewis’s book What Is Gnosticism for further enlightenment.
I might read it one day!
Thank-you Sir. I just ordered this book.
Why would there be “heated debates over even how to define Gnosticism”? Weren’t its apologists (not to mention the very label itself) completely unambiguous?
Gnosticism had an axiomatically different understanding of salvation from that of (and in 325 CE formally propounded by) the mainstream church.
Orthodoxy — going all the way back to it’s founder, Saul of Tarsus — holds that salvation comes from believing that Yahweh made a human sacrifice of his own son (as foreshadowed by the Abraham and Isaac myth) in retaliation for the insolence of the first man.
Gnosticism — going all the way back to ITS founder, Jesus of Nazareth — holds that salvation comes from knowing and living a righteous life of love for God and neighbor.
Scholars seem obsessed with flyspecking relatively inconsequential differences within the Gnostic movement (e.g., variations in creation mythology, particular hierarchies of archons attempting to block our return to the Pleroma, etc.) while ignoring its *foundational* plank — that salvation comes from knowing and following “the Way” taught by Jesus in substantial detail over his entire ministry.
In fact why do orthodox scholars even bother trying to identify the authentic words of the Word? Doesn’t their soteriology render the entire endeavor moot?
The problem is that so many things come to be called “Gnostic” that the term has lost its meaing. Was Marcion a Gnostic? Was Valentinus? Was the Gospel of Thomas? Was Hermes Trimegistus? Was John? etc. etc….
Unfortunately, my familiarity with the apologists you mention could fill a post-it note. Regardless, it depends on their soteriology.
If salvation comes from believing Jesus to have been the Incarnate “WORD” of the Father and following the “Way” he taught (essentially love of God and neighbor), I’d consider them Gnostic. Salvation comes from acquiring and living by the correct *knowledge* imparted by — and personified in — Jesus. Theological differences among them (even over the correct interpretations of Jesus’ teachings, much less the details of arcane mythologies) merely subdivides Gnostics into alternative sects.
If salvation comes from believing that Jesus was the human sacrifice Yahweh made to himself to avenge the offense given by the first man, thereby absolving all of his progeny of their inherited guilt, I’d regard as being Orthodox. Jesus’ teachings are moot “for by grace you have been saved…and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God not the result of works.”
From my meager knowledge of them, I’d say Marcion was Orthodox, Valentinus Gnostic. The Gospel of Thomas was Gnostic, the Gospel of John Orthodox. (Frankly, I’d have to consult Wikipedia to even hazard a guess about Hermes Trimegistus. 🤭)
I don’t think Dr. Ehrman addressed your points. As with earliest Christianity, each Gnostic apologist presents his own view as truth. Constantine forced Christianity to narrow its field to a single orthodoxy so Constantine could unify his empire under a single religion. I don’t know of any such pressure among Gnostic philosophers. That’s a reason we have more writings among competing Gnostic ideas than among competing Christian ideas. Victorious Christian orthodoxy worked to destroy competing writings. I don’t know that Gnostics ever did that.
Based on his writings, Paul wasn’t the founder of proto-orthodox Christianity. But his are the earliest surviving Christian writings.
I’ve never heard any credible claim that Jesus was the founder of Gnosticism. Paul expressed many Gnostic ideas. I don’t see any attributed to Jesus. Gnosis wasn’t what we call knowledge. It could be received by a person only if God transmitted it directly to the person.
I agree that scholarly efforts to discern which of the sayings attributed to Jesus are ones he plausibly could have said to be a circular effort. Those portrayals are consistent with the sayings of Hillel and Shammai, an accurate portrayal because that’s why they were chosen.
I think you are spot-on about the mutually beneficial, unholy church-state alliance between Constantine and the Christian movement — that soon devolved into the dictatorial RCC.
It’s unsurprising that the orthodox winners — who, naturally, wrote the history (and burned the rest) — would resort to slanders and misrepresentations of Gnostics. For “We’re on a mission from God” crusaders (“Don’t you blaspheme in here!” shouts Mrs. Murphy 😉) there *are* no limits. Especially when you have both God and Caesar on your side!
Gnosticism’s individual, mystical soteriology allows no popes or bishops between God and man — an obvious and imminent threat to the aborning RCC’s monopoly say over salvation.
Prof. Ehrman’s parenthetical suggestion to “(think: American politics!)” is insightful and well-advised. Perhaps my familiarity with that world has made me cynical. But I suspect the emperor wouldn’t have recognized and empowered a monotheistic church that lacked diktat authority over religious governance to complement his own over the secular.
WRT Paul, by “founder” I meant “prime mover” rather than “originator” — the Guiding Light who attributed very little, Gnostic or otherwise, to Jesus.
The larger point is that IMHO parsing differences among particular sects is straining out Gnostic gnats while swallowing an Orthodox camel. 😏
Paul wouldn’t care much about Jesus’s life, nor would the first disciples bother to relate much to new converts since the end of the world was imminent. All that mattered was repentance and preparing for the end.
I’d think the only reason Paul wrote is that he was obsessed with converting people and keeping them on the correct path. He established, then moved on, writing to maintain control.
By the time of the letter to the Romans, Christianity appears already to be an institution. Weren’t the writings more to justify the leader’s authority than to relate history? Even Paul was establishing his authority.
Is there any reason to believe the Gospel writers had a shred of evidence about Jesus’s life and its end? Wasn’t it all legend by 70+ CE when those who would know were dead? Why would people have bothered to pass on oral knowledge? It’s the end!
Did the converts not really believe the end would come in their lifetimes? Did that change so early on that people scrambled to remember and write down what they recalled?
Bart, when did Gnosticism as a movement die out in late antiquity?
It was pretty well crushed by the fourth century, though pockets lived on. And still do!
Yes, a lesson on knowing and unknowability. You can never rightly understand a man from his rivals or other detractors. Or hearing him only in a rival language.
A young Lutheran minister told me that the Latin is deemed authoritative for all scriptures, whatever their original language, because Latin is more reliable and precise.
Meaning what? More useful to bureaucrats? More regimented? And therefore less useful to poets, prophets, storytellers, teachers, advisors? Of little use to Yeshua, for instance, in his parables, or the God of Job in his glorious poetry?
Couldn’t you almost read the God of Job as a repudiation of such Latin? The legalities, false certainties, false precision, false knowing? The pretense and illusion of control?
More precise than what? Right question. Not than Greek! Ask the Roman philosophers!
Worse, any biblical text in Latin (or English) is a translation and an interpretation. The best guide to the meaning intended by each author is the text in his own words, in his own language. That doesn’t mean it’s easy. Understanding also requires knowing the meanings of the words and phrases, each in its own context, at the time of writing, or sometimes at the time of the setting of the story.
I don’t think we should ever confuse the unknown with the unknowable. Whatever the language, it scares me when people seem to gloss over that approach. Facts are still facts and falsehoods still falsehood.
One of the scariest statements in the early history of Christianity was made by Origin who said: “The light of faith makes us see what we believe.” That sounds as if you believe something long enough and strongly enough, you will delude yourself into seeing it–whether it really exists or not.
A complete understanding of all Gnostic ideas of the first century is unknown but not unknowable. We could find a huge trove of Gnostic writings of that era. Gnostic ideas, along with all other religious ideas, are unknowable in the sense that they are not testable by methods of science. Thus none of the ideas qualify as either fact or falsehood. The only religious facts we have are, for example, that Paul believed abc about xyz because we have enough of his writings to make that clear. That doesn’t tell us whether those beliefs were true or false. The ancients believed earth was flat or the center of the universe. That didn’t make it true. With evidence, we now know those beliefs were false.