Loading...As I was indicating last week, I have rewritten the section in my New Testament textbook that discusses early Christian Gnostics. I have already devoted two posts on the matter, and here will be my third and final one. This one deals with another famous group of Gnostics, the Valentinians; it also gives two of the “boxes” that I will be including in the chapter, taken over from the earlier edition, on interesting side issues (my view in general is that the “boxes” in my chapters are the most interesting parts!)
******************************************************************
Valentinian Gnostics
A second group that was very important in the history of early Christianity is known as the Valentinian Gnostics. Unlike the Sethians, the Valentinians were named after an actual person, Valentinus, the founder and original leader of the group. We know about the Valentinians from the writings of their proto-orthodox opponents beginning with Irenaeus and by some of the writings discovered among the Nag Hammadi Library that almost certainly derive from Valentinian authors, including one book that may actually have been written by Valentinus himself (The Gospel of Truth).
Valentinus was born around 100 CE and was raised in Alexandria Egypt. He allegedly was a student of the Christian teacher Theudas, who was in turn said to have been a disciple of the apostle Paul. Valentinus moved to Rome in the late 130s and there became an influential speaker and teacher. According to some of our early reports he very nearly was elected to be the bishop of Rome. Despite his distinctive views – which for the proto-orthodox seemed completely aberrant – he and his followers continued on in the Roman church. There is nothing to suggest that he or his followers started their own churches; they worshiped with proto-orthodox Christians and were in outer appearance very difficult to tell apart from them (see box 12.6).
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
Dr. Ehrman, I can identify myself in the above article, for it is very close in describing my Christian existence. I have suffered rejections and have been considered even dangerous to the faith, I was looked upon as having some kind of leprosy, I left some churches and some asked me to leave. All I wonted to do was to give them some true understanding of the New Testament. Apparently most of the pastors considers the faith based on understanding something to be feared and evil. I find myself as one crying out in the wilderness, no one wonts to hear. Dr. Ehrman, two or three years ago I did sent you my book; “The Way God Told It” did you received it?
Is there any source/compiler that puts all the Biblical and non-canonical texts, orthodox or heterodox , in sequence, in entirety, where a person can read through all the early Christian texts in order and completely? That would be an extensive but important work, I would think. I’d invest in it.
The problem is that there is no way of knowing when some of the books were written, especially in relation to one another. But Borg does something like this recently in his book that came out this past year (jsut the NT texts).
The boxes are indeed the best part of your textbook. The diversity of the Gnostics and the difficulty recognizing them is quite interesting. Thanks for teaching me this. It reminds me of the difficulty in the Iraq War of telling Shite from Sunni. In other words, how does either side know whom to shoot?
Only in he way they pray would they be able to distinguish between Sunni and Shia
Off-topic, re something I just saw online… CBS News was reporting on a new book called “The Lost Gospel,” by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson, which claims Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (her again?!?) and they had two children. Supposedly, this “Gospel” – which they found in a library somewhere? – had never been recognized as important because it used “code names” for the characters. “Joseph” for Jesus, “Manassah” and “Ephraim” (the names of the Old Testament Joseph’s sons) for the children.
Is there a big flap about this? (For me, any mention of the done-to-death Mary Magdalene is an instant turnoff.)
No flap among scholars. See today’s post.
I keep wondering how did individuals (leaders) arrive at their gnostic beliefs? Are these intellectually derived? Is there a mystical foundation? I’m reading a lot of Tibetan Buddhist theology at the moment and have an understanding how and why the various schools in Buddhism were founded. But I don’t get the same sense when reading about the various gnostic groups.
There were ideas like this floating around in a number of circles. In part they sound so weird to us because they are no longer part of the intellectual environment.
Yes I understand this but HOW did those ideas come about? What prompted someone(s) to decide that there were two Gods and one inferior to the other etc. for example and so profoundly that a cult (is it fair to describe gnosticism as a cult?) formed?
Well, that’s an even more complicated question. But the basic answer, in my opinion, is this: look around this world, with its horrors. Famine, starvation, drought, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, epidemics, wars — a cesspool of misery and suffering. Gnostics, and otehrs like them, simply did not believe the ultimate true God was responsible for creating this mess. And so the true God must be above it all, and lower divinities created this world. Our goal is to escape it.
You just gave me chills because before reading your answer and having devised my own rational (which I was about to post right now) came up with a similar yet more simplistic answer and definitely not as eloquent as yours! I realize I’m diverging from the topic(s) but I keep coming back to your thoughts including video on suffering. In addition to Tibetan Buddhism, I’m reading about the lives of Saints and those considered to be mystics or Self Realized. I mean true Spiritual Geniuses. Their disciplines regardless of the lineage includes suffering and in some cases a great deal of it. What I don’t understand (again wrapping my mind into the psychology) is why does suffering have to be part of the package? (Sorry if I’m taking too much time and blog space but I’m sincerely searching for rationals).
How far off would I be in thinking that one of the major reasons among others that you’ve chosen to be agnostic is that the problem of suffering goes plausibly unaddressed in Christianity?
… I’m also wondering if “suffering” is the lynch pin in a number of mystical traditions. It certainly is the centerpiece in Buddhism … most of the practices address suffering and how to end it personally as well as globally. Sorry again if I’m taking up too much time and blog space. After viewing your video too, I’m really wrestling with answers.)
I think it is fully addressed in Christianity. I just don’t find the explanations convincing. But it’s a problem I have not just with Christianity! (Judaism and Islam are no better, I think)
It’s not for everyone always. But religions that claim that God created this world have to make sense of why it is such a miserable place for so many people.
I’m elated to read that you’ve separated religions by Creator God(s) and Those that do not have Creator Gods. I recently watched a video of the Dalai Lama and he did the same :). Yes and then as I’ve learned from reading your blogs/books although rooted in Judaism, Christianity’s necessary explanation of Christ’s suffering. What I’m gathering from reading your painstaking blog explanations that this need to skew events in order to fit a narrative has really convoluted the story. It’s enlightening Dr. Ehrman. Thank you for you time. I’ll get busy with your more recent blogs.
Gnosticism is what you get when Philo of Alexandria goes through a Bart Ehrman conflict of theodicy.