Loading...In my previous post discussing Valentinian Gnosticism I mentioned an intriguing Valentinian text, the Gospel of Philip. Now I’d like to explain what it is and give you a bit of the opening section in translation so you can get a taste of it yourself. I’ve taken all this from the second edition of my book After the New Testament; the introduction is mine but the translation comes from Marvin Meyer, referenced below
****************************
INTRODUCTION
Even though the Gospel of Philip, also discovered at Nag Hammadi, is easily recognized as Valentinian, the book is notoriously difficult to understand in its details. In part this is due to the form of its composition. It is not a narrative Gospel of the type found in the New Testament or a group of self-contained sayings like the Gospel of Thomas (see Chapter 8). It is instead a collection of mystical reflections that have evidently been excerpted from previously existing sermons, treatises, and theological meditations, brought together here under the name of Philip — presumably Jesus’ own disciple. Since they are given in relative isolation, without any real narrative context, the reflections are difficult to interpret. There are, at any rate, extensive uses of catchwords to organize some of the material, and several principal themes emerge upon a careful reading.
Among the clearest emphases is
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!
Maybe the Gnostics are more Orthodox than they look.
Accounts of Gnosticism usually start with cosmology which makes them look weird. But the ideas of secret doctrine, two gods, a spiritual elect, and even a multi-layered creation with demonic powers, are present in the canonical texts.
Mark portrays Jesus as giving special instruction to Peter, James and John (eg: Mark 13) who also perceive his transfiguration (9.2-8), Paul says that the Law “creates” sin, that the experience of Moses was mediated by angels (demiurges?) (Galatians 3.19) while God spoke to Abraham directly. He characterises God’s chosen as being “called” (Romans 8.28). He says that we are fighting against principalities and powers (demons) and he, himself, ascends to the “seventh heaven”. Paul may not be a Gnostic but he is surely standing in the next room!
And the hostile god then returns, especially in the fourth century, as Satan in the “fish hook” theory of the atonement, where sinners “belong” to Satan but are freed by “Christus Victor” (following Gustaf Aulen).
But you could also say that the Gnostic account and the believer’s expected behaviour is conservative and static, the Orthodox, as it develops, nuanced and dynamic.
Hello Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering if you could tell me about some material I could use to learn. I want to learn more the oldest manuscripts of the new testament and their reliability, and possibly the history of the manuscripts that were used to make the oldest manuscripts that are currently available. I understand that there are probably many books, courses, videos, and other things I could use to learn more about this topic, but I have a hard time navigating and finding which materials will help me learn about these things.
I’ll be talking about a good bit of that in my course this coming weekend, The Scribal Corruption of Scripture, and people who attend will have the recording for life other written materials. If you prefer going to a book, do you know my book Misquoting Jesus? If you want something more in depth, try Bruce Metzger The Text of the New Testament (I helped him produce the fourth edition, which is the most recent)
Dr. Ehrman, what did most Christians think about the gnostics at the time (loaded question, I know)? So much of the writing seems ripe for satire as complete nonsense- is there any record of people perceiving gnosticism with contempt? Or did people envy them?
The non-Gnostics on the whole thought they were confused, confusing, and blowing smoke. Or so it appears. We only have the literary Christian responses to them by authors like Irenaeus and Tertullian, and they despised them. It’s an assumptino that most of their own followers agreed.
Al mujizat qantarat al hakekat. A Sufi saying meaning ‘the phenomenal is the bridge to the real’. Seems to correspond to ‘Whoever hears the word “god” thinks not of what is real but rather of what is unreal. So also with the words “father,” “son,” “holy spirit,” “life,” “light,” “resurrection,” “church,” and all the rest’.
I was curious about the list of sacraments you mentioned. Baptism, eucharist, anointing, and (to some extent) bridal chamber make sense to me as sacramental rites. But what does salvation mean as a sacrament?
I wish I knew. Then again I wish I knew what the bridal chamber entailed. YOu can imagine what the opponents of the Valentinians claimed it entailed!
Lengthy, boring babble, although perhaps some influence from Plato’s world of ideas.
Boring babble is in the eye of the beholder! (alliterated: boring-babble-be-beholder-based)
Didn’t anyone in the Antiquity or Middle Ages point out the obvious truth you mentioned: Hey, you call the ideas YOU like orthodox and the ideas YOU don’t like heretic!
Not that I know of. The arguments were always more about substance than terms.