A number of readers have asked the same question based on my posts on Marcion: Was Marcion a Gnostic? Here’s one reader’s way of asking it, and my response.
QUESTION:
Marcion’s “previously unknown God” of Jesus vs Israel’s creator sounds a bit like some of the gnostic beliefs, particularly Jesus coming from the realm of Barbelo in the gospel of Judas. Was Marion an early Christian Gnostic?
RESPONSE:
Marcion was sometimes considered a Gnostic by ancient heresiologists (“heresy-hunters”), such as Irenaeus; and in modern times scholars used to consider him a Gnostic, or at least Gnostic-like. And one can see why. Like Gnostics, Marcion had more than one God, the Creator was not good, and part of the goal of the religion was to escape his clutches. But there are a lot more differences than similarities between them; the differences are so numerous and deep, that scholars simply don’t think of Marcion as a Gnostic these days.
Was Marcion a Gnostic?
I won’t review Marcion’s teachings at length here: for more information see these earlier posts: More on Marcion’s Theology and A Phantom Jesus: The Teachings of the Second-Century Marcion; for the teachings of Gnosticism, see the video on March 30.
I’m giving these brief assessments with the understanding that “Gnosticism” was not a single thing, but a group of religions with broad similarities to one another. But even in these broad terms, Marcion is quite different. I should also stress that I’m simplifying things here through broad generalizations to provide some pegs to hang your thoughts on.
Want to keep reading? Members of the blog can! Why not join? It costs little, gives a lot, and every penny of hour small membership fee goes to help those in need! Click here for membership options
Sorry, I meant to vote five.
A great post!
In my mind, the Gnostic ideas are similar to other religious views on and before Jesus, and even well included in the religion that covered most people in the world, namely Hinduism. This is just one example.
These thoughts seemes to me to have continued in a fairly broad way, throughout the ages up to present time , for example (to name a few) in the early phase of Islam (the early philosophical assessment of Islam, as in the concept of “Unity of Being”, the current Sufism who early on had a rather dominant place in their religion, as in Jewish Kabbalah compiled around 1200CE, and even into analytical psycological scholarship to the prominent Dr. Carl Gustav Jung, whose ideas from a life long study were in many ways VERY similar to the images found in these thoughts when he elaborated his psycological understanding of humans in particular about the “Self” and the “evolution of concioussness”.
From all these approaches, even to the approximately 3,000-year-old concept of Alman (the “Self” of man, which are defined as identical with the creator god Brahman “), but covered by layers of illusion, knowledge is not only a kind of ” secret knowledge “, but rather ” knowledge” on a much deeper level, more into deep rooted understanding / awareness of our own being, our origin and more consciouss of our unconsciouss.
Would such view be similar to your understanding of when you write “secret knowledge” ?
My sense is that many cultures have developed the idea of “secret knowledge” yes. I doubt if most of them are related to one another, bbut yes, there maybe be psychological (based on physiological) grounds for finding the similarities.
My sense is that many cultures have developed the idea of “secret knowledge” yes. I doubt if most of them are related to one another, bbut yes, there maybe be psychological (based on physiological) grounds for finding the similarities.
Was Marcion then a kind of literalist “Pauline” Christian, since “Paul” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 writes wbout the evil God of this world?
Yes, he took his inspiration from Paul, absolutely, and saw him as the one who understood.
I certainly know a lot of evangelicals who ~think~ they believe the Old Testament is scripture and Yahweh-the-Canaanite-smiter is God, but it’s clearly of much lower-tier importance in their philosophy and practice of their faith. And they didn’t steal points from either Marcion or the gnostics! It seems like downgrading the God of the Tanakh is a common response to the radical novelty of the gospel.
But I also have to wonder if antisemitism doesn’t play some part in all this… Gentiles seem to find it real easy to cut out a couple millennia of their religious history, especially when it becomes even slightly politically inconvenient.
Dr. Ehrman- Fantastic side-by-side comparison! Hard to quibble about anything you’ve essayed in your usual erudite manner. Just one further expansion, if you would. You state, “The Gnostics we best know about …saw themselves as elites with deeper knowledge of the Christian tradition than regular ole Christian hoi polloi” Agreed based on my reading. But Pagels appears to also see them in her work as congregational leaders not in some official church office/title/capacity, but who were drawing away the faithful because of their learning, individual charisma, and ability to persuade. A real threat in other words. They held an “open canon” that extended beyond the first Pentecost and could inspire new revelation to anyone anytime if the Holy Spirit so moved them. Please comment, as you wish, on how dangerous these unofficial but effective leaders were. And how eastern orthodoxy, even today, honors these early heretics more favorably in some sects than the western tradition. Thanks again for your expanded Sunday curriculum!
In Colossians 2:2 “… της συνεσεως εις επιγνωσιν του μυστηριου του θεου χριστου”
shouldn’t the translation be
“… of the understanding to the knowledge of the mystery of the God Christ” or “… of the mystery of Christ the God”
rather than most translations
“… the mystery of God – (namely) Christ” or “… mystery of God – (which is) Christ”?
Probably not. If the two were being equated in that way they both would have the definite article.
I think if colossians 2:2 said “… του μυστηριου του κυριου χριστου” it would always get translated as “… the mystery of the lord christ”
colossians 3:24 says “τω κυριω χριστω δουλευετε”, “the lord christ you serve”.
I think col 2:2 should be translated with this same sense – “of the god christ”.
It’s a good question. The problem is that TOU THEOU is tied directly to the preceding substantive by the article so that it is directly modifying it: “the mystery of God.” If CHRISTOS were being tied directly to the phrase in the same way it too would have the article. To put it otherwise: That is to say, THEOS is modifying MYSTERION, possible a genitive of source or origin?, and CHRISTOS is standing in *apposition* to the entire phrase. So that means “The mystery of God — that is, Christ.”
ok yeah – thanks
What is your opinion as to whether these Middle-Platonic ideas floating around at the time perhaps also influenced later Jewish Kabbalistic notions? In Kabbalistic thought, there was some sort of “cosmic catastrophe” that led to the creation of the material world and humans’ entrapment here – very similar to Gnostic notions. I’m thinking here of Philo of Alexandria maybe being the most obvious influence on later Medieval Jewish mystical thought. Any thoughts on this?
I don’t know, but it’s a great question.
gnṓsis (a feminine noun derived from 1097 /ginṓskō, “experientially know”) – functional (“working”) knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience, connecting theory to application; “application-knowledge,” gained in (by) a direct relationship. See 1097 (ginōskō).
https://biblehub.com/greek/1108.htm
If we use the “healed” or “made whole” sense of sozo, we get something like “you will be made whole by directly making the acquaintance of God.” Seems pretty innocuous. But leaves out the requirement for theologians (!) perhaps upsetting them.
Then there was someone (Cynthia Bourgeoult?) who if I recall correctly said that the word for secret could also be translated as “hidden.” Which again has a little different connotation in English.. their work as spiritual leaders perhaps was to help people find and explore the non-obvious meanings of scripture.
As to “saw themselves as elites” could this be something Irenaeus exaggerated or made up.. to make them seem worse than they really were as part of his customary polemical nature?
It’s possible. I suppose we can’t really know what was driving them personally or psychologically.
If “ Gnostics generally accepted the Old Testament as containing deep revelatory truths”, is it possible that some of them were influenced by the early/emerging Kabbala, though Gnosticism reached significantly different conclusions about the God of the Hebrew Bible?
I think kabbala came later, so if anything the influence would have gone the other direction. More likely, I suppose, is that they had similar influences acting on them.
Do we know how Gnostics viewed Marcionites or vice versa?
Nope, we have no record.
Of all the Christian viewpoints that differed with the ideas expressed in the Nicene Creed, which one had the best chance of becoming the dominant Christian belief system if things had gone its way?
That Christ was “very God of very God, of the same substance with the Father”
Professor, thanx for the very thorough explanation.The diversity of early Christianity is really amazing in … I guess I would say in how .. broad the various beliefs were.