I have been talking about how I came to learn about the Gnostic Gospel of Judas, the most significant Christian document discovered in modern times (since the 1940s). Now I want to explain what the Gospel is. I have just called it a “Gnostic” Gospel, and so to begin I need to say something about what Christian Gnosticism was. It is a fascinating topic, but widely misunderstood.
The reading-public-at-large was *somewhat* introduced to it in the 1950s with the publication of the Gospel of Thomas (which scholars today are reluctant to label “Gnostic,” as it turns out); but it became much more widely known in the 1970s when Elaine Pagels published her blockbuster, The Gnostic Gospels. She too has changed her views on lots of things (including the Gospel of Thomas), but her book is still a terrific read. I assign it to my undergrads.
I talk about Gnosticism in a number of my books. The following is some of the basic information from my textbook on the New Testament. In the next post I’ll get a bit more into the weeds to talk about the major views of a dominant form of Gnosticism, the one that the Gospel of Judas is related to and derives from.
Gnosticism: Problems of Definitions, Sources, and Dating
Over the past fifty years scholars have engaged in heated debates over how to define Gnosticism. These debates are intimately related to the problems that we have with the ancient sources that describe Gnostics or were written by Gnostics. Until about a hundred years ago, our only sources for understanding Gnosticism were the writings of its most vocal opponents, the proto-orthodox church fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries. In our discussion of the Johannine epistles, we have already seen some of the problems with reconstructing a group’s beliefs and activities on the basis of an attack by its enemies. With regard to Gnosticism the problems are even more 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.
One of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the twentieth century provided us with an entirely new source of information about Gnostics, a source not produced by its opponents but by Gnostic Christians themselves. In 1945, just over a year before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some Egyptian peasants stumbled upon a jar containing thirteen ancient books. These books contained some fifty-two literary works, most of them previously unknown. When they finally made their way through antiquities dealers into the hands of competent scholars, it became clear what they were. These peasants had accidentally unearthed a collection of ancient Gnostic texts written in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language.
The books themselves were manufactured in …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE! Join! It costs little and gives a great deal; and every penny of the small membership fee goes to helping those in need in our time of crisis. So you win, they win, the world wins!
“The anti-Gnostic church fathers maintained that Gnosticism was a Christian heresy invented by evil persons”. Was this a common view of early Christian writers – If you disagree with my Christian beliefs, you are evil ?
yes indeed!
Dr. Ehrman, on an unrelated note (sorry not to adress the subject of the post), I have been looking into the debate surrounding the beloved disciple. The most persuasive argument yet for me is the idea that Lazarus seems to be this disciple in the eyes of the author(s) of the gospel of John. This at least can be derived from the text itself, as opposed to the idea of John as the BD, which seems to start with tradition and then makes its way into the text in rather violent and artificial ways.
Assuming that one calls Lazarus the beloved disciple (possibly you disagree with that), doesn’t that reframe the notion of authorship of the gospel? After all, 21:24 suggests that, although the final redaction of the gospel falls into the hands of third parties, the tradition behind it goes back to Lazarus. I wouldn’t say this makes the gospel automatically pseudoepigraphy as opposed to an anonymous work, but it does seem to suggest the idea of a pseudoepigraphic tradition surrounding the main source of information (according to the authors).
Yes, some have thought that, and I see the logic of it. But John 12:10 appears to suggest that the Jewish authorities executed Lazarus. It gets translated in various ways, but the Greek appears to say “So the Chief Priests held a council so they could put Lazarus to death.” Apart from that the BD appears to be a member of the twelve (he’s at the last supper with the other disciples, sitting right next to Jesus in 13:23; and is said to be one of “the” disciples (21:1, 20); and there aren’t any traditions that make Lazarus one of the twelve. When he first get introduced in 11:1, it’s pretty clear he’s not one of those going around with Jesus and the other disciples.
It struck me that your recent post (Protogospel of James) re the baby Jesus had a heavy flavor of Gnostism. A newborn walking around and performing miracles doesn’t strike me as “fully human”.
No he doesn’t! But there were lots of non-Gnostic groups that also thoguht Jesus was so divine he wasn’t really human.
Essential. Thank you.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for another interesting post!
I am always thankful to you when you invite your readers to not take your word on a topic, but to look for themselves and make an informed decision. For a layperson not familiar with languages other than English, and like most who are fluent in English, not particularly good at it, is there a point where we must listen to scholarly debate and choose which side to accept based upon another’s research and argumentation? I’ve listened to several of your debates with theists who, using the same source material, have radically different opinions about what conclusions we could and should draw. In the end, are we left with the option to either go further down the proverbial rabbit hole and continue to expand our capabilities until we can digest the original source material for ourselves, or make a choice based upon another’s interpretations?
We’re all in the same boat. Outside of my own field of expertise, I have the same problem! All you can do is read a various “authorities” who are accepted as “authorities” by the major scholars in a field, and make a decision. When I want to know about cosmology (the Big Bang!), biology (evolution!), or … well, anytyhing else, that’s all I can do. I don’t think a fundamentalist Christian who believes the Bible is inerrant is as useful to me when it comes to determining how old the earth is or whether there was a world-wide flood as those who are reputable scientists with advanced expertise in, say, cosmology and geology, especially when all of them are in agreement.
Did the gnostics call themselves “gnostics”?
Apparently not!
Is there a special reason why you don’t mention the earlier Gnostic manusicipts, Askew, Bruce and Berlin Codexes?
Just tryin’ to make things simple here. The most amazing thing about those codexes in relation to scholarship is that even though they were produced by Gnostics embracing Gnostic views, scholars ignored them when trying to explain Gnosticism, since the views they embraced were different from what the orthodox church father said *about* Gnosticism!! So the enemies’ reports were more reliable than what the Gnostics said about themselves, when talking among themselves. Ai yai yai. It wasn’t until Nag Hammadi thaat scholars realized that didn’t make any sense and was just a pro-orthodox bias.
Bart,
In 1 Samuel, the ark gets taken for 7 months by the Philistines. They experience terrible things due to it. They ask the diviners for advice. They tell them to send the ark back with an offering. They mention to not harden their hearts like the Egyptians and Pharaoh. How do you think the Philistines learned about what took place in Egypt? How would that story make its way to Philistine territory?
I think it’s unlikely, but I suppose if you want to affirm they did hear, you would say they learned it from merchants who had been there.
This is a test comment, because a couple of my comments aren’t getting posted since I opted to pick “send notification when new comment or answer to question” below. So maybe that’s what’s causing it or I might be typing something silly or offensive, for which I doubt.
Dr. Ehrman
I came across a youtube video of Bishop Spong saying that he suspects Judas Iscariot is not a person of history but a composite figure. Please comment
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UdDUkkX6PNA
I hope I got that link right. You may not have time to watch the video it’s more than an hour long. But I thought to still put the link here in case you’d like to check ????
Thank you
Sorry your comments are showing up. I believe I’m posting everything I get. The only exceptions is if they are wildly irrelevant to anything on the blog or snarky or offensive, and I doubt if yours fall into that camp!
Yes, that theory has been around for a long time, and Bishop Spong is simply reiterating it. I’ve considered it seriously, but I don’t think it can be right. If you look up Judas Iscariot by doing a word search on the blog, you’ll find a post (maybe more) why I explain why I think he had to be a historical figure.
Mr ehrman is it true most of bible artifact end up in trash can or garbage ? Because our prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said if you didn’t use a quran because you have mistake or you make mistake scribe in it you should burn it not just keep it or thrown it or buried it because it’s might end up in trash heap in the future when people found it , that’s why many quran artifact found in a good place
Yes, I don’t know of Christian scribes burning their Bibles.
Interesting!
I’m sure there are ideas from, Hellenistic-Platon / Neoplatonism (i.e soul descend and ascend, upper / lower world ) and Aristotle – i.e. 4 elements, in addition to possible ancient Babylonian, Egyptian and definitely about Judaism, as to finally refined this ideology.
I find this early christian cosmology interesting, in the middle of its colorful imaginary, an ideology where the soul originates from God, and descends through “phases” / consciousnesses, to matter and return back to unity with God. And, in my mind, at least, there are a lot of similarities with the Judaistic esoteric thoughts that some claim was the basis of the Hebrew Bible.
An intriguing thought for me is if there were some ideologic relationship to the Johannine community / Gospel of John, in relation to the divinity of Christ, the use of “I am” sayings. Some even claim the Odes of Solomon which has at least some Gnostic related views (perhaps also Essene thoughts), which (perhaps) can be dated back to when the Gospel of John was written and even influenced the Revelation (which I suspect uses symbology of the soul ascend, not (only)refering to the Roman empire) and the Gospel of John.
Do you think there are gnostic influences in the Johannine “community” and in the authorship of the Gospel/Revelation ?
None in Revelation. With the Gospel of John the influence went the other way: the views found in John were amenable to Gnostics (who came along only later.
One link to parallels in the Revelation:
https://theaeoneye.com/2015/05/04/gnostic-exegesis-in-revelations-12/
,,,a link which deals with a whole lot of possible similarities, primarely in the ch.12 in the Revelation and a few others. And this article just deal with some of the possible paralells I have in mind.
John D. Turner, Cotner Professor of Religious Studies and Charles J. Mach University Professor of Classics and History Classics & Religious Studies at the University of Nebraska (translators of the Nag Hammadi library) also point to the idea that Gnosticism had a pre-christian origin, particular the Barbeloites in the Gnostics Sethian branch.
It is so difficult for me not to see that the Revelation is about the story of the ascending soul, not too different from what the Gnostics intended to tell (both descending and ascending of the soul) in the in the Gnostic scriptures. The symbolic paralels of different symbols which seems to be in their texts, weigh in on my conviction that the purpose of the Revelation might have been to tell the same type of story as the Gnostic did, with similar and sometime same very strange and colorful images and symbols.
Very interesting post. I first ‘discovered’ Gnosticism when reading books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Templar Revelation back in the 80s and 90s. Those books mainly considered the Cathars (medieval gnostics) who were effectively wiped out during the Albigensian crusade, which goes to show how much gnosticism really upset the regular Church, even into more recent times.
mr. Ehrman.
I know that you have a deep understanding of the Book of Job, and I therefore want to point out something that can give a (gnostic) understanding of the baptism of Jesus under John the Baptist.
God shows himself to Job in a whirlwind and asks, “Where was you when I created the world?” Implied: I was there long before you was created!
What is then interesting is that God points out, for Job, a “being” which in the Hebrew text is called Behemoth. This name of the “being” is omitted in the Greek Septuagint, where the “being” is almost portrayed as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!»
It may seem that a theological connection is made here between Isaiah 53 and the Book of Job 40ff. The connection will be clarified in my next post.
I know that this is a very creative reading of the text, but is not theological creativity precisely something we read page after page in Christian texts?
Job 40:15 But now look at the wild beasts with thee(…)19 This is the chief of the creation of the Lord; made to be played with by his angels(…) 24 [Yet one] shall take him in his sight; [one] shall catch [him] with a cord, and pierce his nose(…) 29 And wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or bind him as a sparrow(…) 30 And do the nations feed upon him?(…) 32 But thou shalt lay thy hand upon him.
Job 41:1 Hast thou not seen him? and hast thou not wondered at the things said [of him]? 2 Dost thou not fear because preparation has been made by me?(…) 23 he regards the sea as a pot of ointment, 24 and the lowest part of the deep as a captive.
Mark 1:4 «And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins». As Job did for his four friends (possibly except for Elihu).
But Job and his friends still had something to learn, and that doctrine was symbolized by a dove.
Matt 10:16 «Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves».
According to the biblical story, a dove was released by Noah after the flood in order to find land; it came back carrying a freshly plucked olive leaf, a sign of life after the Flood and of God’s bringing Noah, his family and the animals to land. Rabbinic literature interpreted the olive leaf as “the dove’s preference for bitter food in God’s service, rather than sweet food in the service of men.
The dove was a picture of what Job had to learn from his sufferings.
The Talmud (Bava Batra 74b) understands the Behemoth to be a creature unknown to man today, but one which will play a role in the Messianic Era. Classic works also refer to this beast as the “wild ox” (“shor ha’bar”).
In this regard, the Behemoth relates closely to the Leviathan. That too is a fearsome beast – a water creature too huge and powerful for man to control, and which too will be served to the righteous at the Messianic feast.
The Midrash likewise talks of a colossal battle between the Behemoth and Leviathan at the End of Days, in which they will kill each other in preparation for the final feast (Vayikra Rabbah 13).
Some explain that the flesh of these animals represents the spiritual food the righteous will consume at the End of Days, and which will nourish their bodies to live eternally with their souls.
There Were Two Embassies to John the Baptist;
The first embassie were Eliphaz, Baldad and Sophar(the priest and Temple assistants). The second Elihu(the Pharisees)
The first Embassie:
John 1:19 «the Jewish leaders sent priests and Temple assistants from Jerusalem to ask John, “Who are you?”»
Job 2:11-12 «Now Eliphaz, Baldad, Sophar: and they came to him(…) 12 And when they saw him from a distance they did not know him».
The second Embassie:
John 1:24-25 «Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25 asked him, “If you aren’t the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet, what right do you have to baptize?”
Job 35:1-2 «And Elius resumed and said, 2 What is this that thou thinkest to be according to right? who art thou that thou hast said, I am righteous before the Lord?»
Do you think gnostics used that word to describe themselves and it always meant secret knowledge for the initiated?
Probably not.
In general, do you think the proto-orthodox thinkers in the early church took the stories in their Scriptures literally, like today’s fundamentalists, or did they sometimes or often interpret them as allegories and symbolic tales? I think of the Epistle of Barnabas, which took the Law of Moses as highly symbolic, not literal. Do you think the desire to develop one “true” Christianity forced the proto-orthodox into a narrow interpretation of the Scriptures, rather than allowing more free thought?
My sense is that most took the stories literally; I would say Barnabas took the *laws* figuratively, but he still thought Moses really smashed the ten commandments.
Hi Bart, I have a question as it might relate to “Gnosticism”.
What is the etymology of “bridegroom” and why did the authors of the Bible mention the bridegroom and what has caused its modern day mysticism?
For example, Matthew 9:15 “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” and also in Isaiah 62:5 “For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.”
I guess the etymology is simply that this is the husband (groom) of the bride. At a wedding everyone is happy about the new husband and he tends to be very happy to. At the wedding feast everyone eats and drinks and has a good time. Christ is the “bridegroom” who is married to the church “the bride.” While he was in the world, everyone wsa to be happy, and go into mourning only when he went away.
Most of what I see on Christian Gnostics seems to focus on their creation mythology and/or rituals. Notwithstanding any disagreement they had on those details, isn’t the far more crucial issue the difference between the gnostic and orthodox conceptions of salvation?
The Rich Young Ruler asked the $64,000 question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
It seems to me that the gnostic answer underlies and justifies all that Jesus taught throughout his ministry; whereas the orthodox answer renders it all academic. If salvation comes from merely accepting Jesus as the substitute-sacrifice to appease the wrath of Yahweh for Adam’s disobedience, thereby reconciling all mankind, why all the preachy talk about loving and forgiving, the primacy of substance over form, eschewing worldly entanglements, etc.? What’s the point?
BTW your textbook on the New Testament sounds like it is a bit more in-depth than your popular works. If it’s for your Intro course, I assume it’s not so advanced that an interested amateur would become “It’s all Greek to me” lost in the details (the way some books on Copenhagen vs. Many Worlds have left me.) What is the title and is it available for purchase at Amazon, etc.?
I think descriptions focus on the creation myths since most of the texts that explain the various kind of gnostics tend to be about or based on the myths (cosmologies; theogonies), rather than on understandings of salvation.
A logical corollary. But salvation — and how to attain it — is ALWAYS the overarching issue. Paul’s substitute-sacrifice theology is the camel in the room here — the big, hairy beast the orthodox church has always been “on a mission from God” to thread through a needle.
Yesterday’s WSJ reviewed a book whose author attributes the growing secularization of 21st-century America to a contemporary wont to “prioritize intuitional spirituality over institutional religion.” That cleverly expressed assessment just as succinctly characterizes 2nd and 3rd century gnostics.
If salvation comes from having particular knowledge, whether it is passwords to circumvent archons or prioritizing devotion to God and love of neighbor, is academic. When individual, personal insight and the behavior it inspires as the narrow path to heaven are jettisoned, the baby goes out with the bathwater.
The orthodox decree that the torture and death of Jesus had finally sated Yahweh’s thirst for revenge and cleared the way to heaven for all of Adam’s progeny established an ill-defined path to salvation — an amorphous standard of belief that only a pope can clearly see. One that reserves to the church the authority to declare what splinters impair the vision of everyone else.
The AMORC Rosicrucian Digest published my article on the Gospel of Thomas in 2011. In the article I mention that Marvin Meyer, a professor of religion and leading expert of Gnosticism suggests that the Thomas gospel (quoting from my article) “may be one of the oldest recorded gospels of Jesus”.
Based on evidence from earlier-found page fragments of the Thomas Gospel, this gospel may be from a very early date. Meyer cites the work of leading papyrologist Soren Giversen. Meyer concluding it may rival “that of any of the New Testament gospels,” in regard to how soon the gospel was recorded in writing after the ministry of Jesus was done. And “in literary genre and content” the gospel is consistent with some earliest known texts.
He mentions that Thomas parables of Jesus appear simply as stories, yet New Testament gospels often have “allegorical interpretations” appended to them that appear to reflect “new situations” experienced by Jesus followers, that is, narratives useful to later authors tend to be added to the base phrases as time passes.
He concludes that the early written Thomas Gospel may be more reliably closer to what Jesus thought.
Link:
http://arthurtelling.com/Articles/04_telling_112311%5B1%5D.pdf
Marvin Meyer was a superb scholar and an even more superb human being. On this point I disagree with him; the view had more popularity at one time, but almost no one holds it today to my knowledge.
I do realize that’s the view today, but he did have leading experts on three distinct elements. Your view as I understand from reading your books is you get around this problem on the idea that some of the phrases appear to be very early but there were “Gnostic” phrases added later. And I think as I understand (please correct me if I’m wrong) is you reject the Gnostic phrases as being first century on the idea that there is no evidence of such “Gnostic” mindset during the first century.
I have to wonder though, might historians be attributing to the first century the ideas found in the canonical gospels because the canonical texts ARE the surviving preserved ideas? How do we know there were no Gnostic ideas in the first century that the Pauline church rejected and thus destroyed or failed to transcribe?
No, I don’t think Gnostic phrases were add to the text later. But yes, one way to know if ideas make sense at one time or another is to see if there are other texts at the time express them. For example, you wouldn’t expect to find discussions about Black Lives Matter (using that phrase) in, say, the 1950s.
It was a Great Courses Video, probably “Lost Christianities” with a 2002 copyright date on the DVD.
I recall well, although it was nearly a decade ago when I watched it. In this video you said (as I recollect) there was good reason to believe it was an early gospel, mentioning same Meyer’s points, but you thought it a later gospel due to Gnostic content, reconciling these differences on the Gnostic phrases having maybe been added later. But it’s a moot point. My interest is your evidence-based opinion today.
Favoring an early date (per Meyer):
1. Page fragments earlier found are of very early dating per leading papyrologist Soren Giversen.
2. “in literary genre and content” the gospel is consistent with some earliest known texts.
3. Thomas parables of Jesus appear as simple stories, yet New Testament gospels often have “allegorical interpretations” appended to them that appear to reflect “new situations” experienced by Jesus followers.
I personally don’t see any “Gnostic” influence that wouldn’t be around in 1st century. Mysticism has been around forever.
So I have trouble buying the Gnostic content idea. Interested in your thoughts and opinions as always.
1. The fragments are from the early cneturies, yes, but they are not earlier than fragments of the other Gospels.
2. No, not true. We don’t have any surviving Gospels filled only with sayings befoer Thomas.
3. Yes indeed, that is true. That shows that the traditions behind some of Thomas’s sayings may predate the forms of the sayings as found in the NT Gospels (as many scholars have said). But it doesn’t mean that hte *Gospel* itself is earlier than the other Gospels.
I appreciate your time, Bart.
I remain confused as to why you believe the Gospel of Thomas is second century.
Your answer to #1 is neutral regarding Thomas and the other gospels.
I’m not sure what you mean by your #2 answer. My understanding is Meyer was saying the style and structure is consistent with some earliest known texts.
And #3, you agree (it seems) that Thomas sayings are often simpler than same sayings in other gospels. Scholars, as I understand, believe the simpler version is likely to be the original one, not having “allegorical interpretations” appended to them that appear to reflect “new situations” experienced by Jesus followers.
I don’t see anywhere in these three points suggesting the Thomas Gospel is second century. It appears evidence points the other way. Can you clarify?
The reason for thinking it is second century is because some of the verses attest views that otherwise are found nowhere in any surviving Christian writing until the second century; other verses are like what you can find in first century sources. Everything in the Gospels of the NT makes perfect sense in the first century. Not many of the sayings of Thomas. So many of the sayings *are* from the first century; but the Gospel as a whole does not appear to be that early, since it contains later materials.
You said: “Everything in the Gospels of the NT makes perfect sense in the first century, not many of the sayings of Thomas.”
I believe historians have created a cyclic redundancy: Everything in the NT is first century because it is a first century book, and we know it is a first century book because everything in it is first century.
Thomas contains phrases that are not first century because they are not in the “first century” NT, thus Thomas is not first century.
Seems a classic case of the victors writing the history.
Otherwise, what “first century” ideas exist outside of the NT and the resulting “orthodox” Church fathers?
We have about thirty or forty Christian writings (depending on how you count) from about 120 CE or before, and none of them has these views in them.
I have been fascinated by the more mystical Gospel of Thomas since first hearing of its (re)discovery and reading the lost teachings of Jesus it contains. This assumes, of course, that these sayings are authentic. But the fact that at least half of them are independently attested — in whole or in part — in the canonical gospels IMHO provides a good deal of validation for the rest.
I was especially intrigued by the “Parable of the Broken Jar.” This pericope, that is, unfortunately, preserved nowhere else, seems to me to have a clear ring of authenticity. It makes one wonder about the erstwhile existence of other teachings that were declared heretical and then lost — probably forever.
Perhaps we can prevail on Prof. Ehrman to comment on this unique parable and/or start a thread on the topic. I have my own assessment of its meaning and import. However, I would very much like to see analyses by scholars who are better equipped than I am for the task. I have never come across any — undoubtedly because only a heretic would attempt to interpret a heretical teaching.
In any case thanks for sharing this excellent article.
That works. I guess when I picked the “send email notification…” under the add comment button creates a glitch on my end here. Maybe I will just write the title of the post I commented on so I can keep track as I go jump from a random topics to another.
Anyways, I will check Judas Iscariot post that you suggested. Thank you Dr. Ehrman ????
Do you consider The Odes of Solomon belonging into Gnostic or maybe into Johannine tradition?
They are related to both but there is not necesssarily any literary dependence either way.
Dr ehrman how to have dinner with you as I heard ? Also how you interpret in how Jesus will be in the tomb for three days and three night , but only there for 3 days two nights ? How it actually mean in their original language can you explain?
These days I’m having dinner with my wife alone! The normal theory is that any part of a day counts as a 24 hour day, in this reckonin.
Dr ehrman can you see this video of Zakir Naik and what you think about it
https://youtu.be/fby2LV0bavE
Sorry, I’m afraid I don’t have the time.
Prof Ehrman,
Thanks again for the time.
Coincidentally, I just finished episode 11 of the History of the Bible (by the Great Course) where you treated Gnosticism.
It looks like the Gnostics appeared in a way quite similar to the Marcionite in the sense of seeing the Creator God (Demiurge) as not good.
1. Would that be a fair statement?
2. Did the Gnostics perceive the OT as a Holy writ/ inspired/ scripture?
3. What eventually became the faith of the Gnostics and their writings in the early periods after being declared heretical by the Orthodox Group who won?
They are similiar to *that* extent, though for most Gnostics he was ignorant rather than evil. yes, Gnostics used the OT as Scripture, but it had to be interpreted in secret ways. By the end of the third century they were very much on the margins en route to disappearing, for the most part.
Prof Ehrman,
Your ‘autodidact student’ here.
On an unrelated subject, I have just ordered a copy of ‘Misquoting Jesus’. As I await its arrival, I have been watching lectures and debates you offered on the subject. I have taken great interest in the subject of Textural Criticism and try to follow your courses and lectures on that as well.
You have always pointed out how the majority of errors don’t matter for a thing. My difficulty there is this – how exactly do you mean. Are we dead sure that these majority of errors in no way affect contest or meaning or intent of the scribe? I ask because sometimes an error may alter the meaning of a text in significant to slightly significant ways.
Or is it that the majority of these errors that do not matter may impact meaning but not so significant. Hence there may be some degree of significance but not so much?
Most of them don’t affect anything. If I misspell a wrod it doesn’t affect the meaning much. So to if I change the word order or, instead, the order of words change.
Prof Ehrman,
I noted from one of your lectures that Athanasius first gave us the list of books in the NT Canon. This was later ratified by the Catholic Church in the mid 16th century.
1. Pending the ratification in the mid 16th century and after Athanasius’s list in 367 AD; did churches still hold to varying lists of scripture?
2. At what point were the criteria for determining canonicity (Antiquity, Orthodoxy, Catholicity & Apostolicity) become established? Was it employed by Athanasius or by the later Church during the ratification?
3. Were the four selection criteria firmly established or documented in the writings of the church fathers or scholars simply established that from studying the history?
1. Most churches simply agreed on the 27 books we have, but some varied here and there.
2. They were never official criteria. We deduce them simply by seeing what kinds of arguments were used.
3. The latter
Prof Ehrman,
An unrelated subject and a baffling one at that, on the subject of ‘tongues speaking’ (1 Corinthians 14) – as addressed by Paul in his letter to the church of Corinth. Was Paul’ reference to ‘a tongue’ in the chapter a humanly language; or it was a strange unearthly language (mysterious language/ tongues of angels)?
Some pastors and evangelist seems to portray it as a strange, heavenly and unearthly language which seems to contradict what takes place on the day of Pentecost?
Based on your study of the New Testament in terms of its contests, what was it that Paul spoke of – A strange heavenly language or an earthly tongue of man???
In Paul it appears to be an angelic language for the most part (though there is some ambiguity in place). In Acts 2, of course, it is human languages.
Prof Ehrman,
Deuteronomy 18:15 – “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your midst, from your brothers” .
This verse is attributed to Joshua, Jesus and Muhammed by Jews, Christians and Muslims respectively?
Please which of them is being spoken of in this verse? Any additional references for further reading on your position, please?
Thank you
The author was not speaking of the distant future, but about his own narrative and its own time. And so if he’s talking about anyone, it would be Joshua.
Thanks Bart. Very interesting and informative presentation.
Mr Ehrman,
As I was just watching one of Michel Deseille’s conference on Youtube about “La Gnose” and as he started it saying that “La Gnose” means “La Connaissance” / The Knowing … I had a flash about you saying that you are now Agnostic… and in that perspective, I understood as it is obvious that you are on the look out for the facts, the history etc
It is much different than being on the look out for relationships… religion, religare, relationships…
No wonder the gnostics (what ever their origins or knowings) and religious (what ever their religions or relationships) clashed in the past, and still do!
I’m not saying one is better than the other, as I love to know and relationships…
But It was once said not to eat the tree of knowing… to eat the tree of life… It is also thought that it would have been ok to eat the tree of knowing, if we would have been patient enough to take the time for relationships first (shabbat)!
I don’t know about you, but I’m still working on that!
Dr. Ehrman,
I have recently read that the Apocryphon of John is essentially a “preexisting mythological book that was not Christian at all… [but] mythologized Middle Platonism combined with a Jewish inversion of the Genesis story and a Gnostic theory of fall and salvation” (Davies, S., 2005, p. xii) sandwiched between a set of beginning and concluding passages which give the impression that the ascended Jesus has presented this information as a revelation to John, thus misrepresenting the entire work as a Christian text.
Would you agree it is confirmed that the Apocryphon of John is universally discredited among Christians? Is there any hope for Christians of today to take seriously any Gnostic Christian texts or narratives, with gaffes like these in mind?
In particular, I am curious whether the notion that God/Yahweh as an ignorant/cruel Demiurge can hold water in scholarly debate, today, or if all contemporary works of this portrayal have been discredited as fraudulent similarly to that of the Apocryphon of John.
Thanks in advance!
It is certainly a form of mytholgized Middle Platonism, I should think. But I disagree that it was produced as a non-CHristian text. I think it’s a CHristianized version of a middle-platonic view, expressing a strictly Sethian perspective. It’s not *universally* discredited among Christians, but it is certainly discredited by *virtually* all CHristians if by “discredited” you mean “not accepted as true or authoritative.” Read it and see — it simply is not at all what most Christians think. (
I should have avoided the two-part question as I know I am supposed to keep things brief… I guess my broader question is really just whether there is ANY text today that Christians have had trouble with arguing against, when it comes to the notion that Yahweh is a Demiurge/ignorant/cruel/etc. The Apocryphon of John was an example of one that, I think, is easily discredited since we have preceding Middle Platonic texts from which it was (as I understand) almost a direct copy-paste job, sandwiched between the suggestion that it was all a revelation from Jesus…
This book aside, are there any other Gnostic Christian texts that carry more weight toward suggesting Yahweh is not the respectable deity that he is now widely believed to be (other than the Bible, itself)?
I don’t think the Apocryphon of John was simply a CHristianized version of a non-Christian platonic text (where a Xn framing was added (i.e., a direct copy-paste job). But I”m not sure I understand your questions. Most Christians argue against *every* text that portrays God as an ignorant/cruel Demiurge; no Gnostic texts carry weight with (non-Gnostic) Christians.
Dr. Ehrman, post this one for fun! It’s mainly so others can see too. I’m curious to see what others get. Kinda like flipping the Bible to a random page, and point with eyes closed to a random verse. They get a sign from it.
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
“These secret the spoke Didymos wrote
Wrote Didymos spoke the secret these”
(The twin wrote and spoke the secret)
(30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.”
Jesus, there! gods!
gods are one with
With one are gods
gods, There! Jesus!
(Someone telling Jesus to look there is gods. Someone telling the gods to look there is Jesus)
70. Jesus said, “If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you.”
Jesus
You
What
You have
You do that what not you
You
Not what that do
You have
You
What
You
Jesus
(This one says to me, don’t be someone your not)
I know this one is pretty famous.
Hold hold the phone. After your meeting yesterday, this is actually a powerful saying. Actually so powerful its saying someone is telling the gods where Jesus is. I remember what you said about paganism and Christianity. It’s just my saying but imagine someone telling the gods there is Jesus. What would that mean. My name is 1OfZeus as in a son of Zeus. I say that for fun. Thanks again Bart. Sorry my mic didn’t work. I brought someone along as well. Thanks.
(30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.”
Jesus, there! gods!
gods are one with
With one are gods
gods, There! Jesus!
Nice to see you. Srorry the mic didn’t work!
Dr. Ehrman has anyone else got this? Just curious. It’s fun for me, as you know. Maybe post so others can see?
(44) Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.”
Jesus
Blasphemes
Father forgiven
Blasphemes
Son forgiven
Blasphemes
holy not either or
Or either not holy
Blasphemes forgiven
Son
Blasphemes forgiven
Father
Blasphemes
Jesus
“Someone telling Jesus
Holy
Or not holy
Blasphemes forgiven”
Dr. Ehrman, can you post this one as well so others can see. I like your post on people people read the bible differently.
(31) Jesus said, “No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him.”
Jesus
Prophet in village
Heals
Know
Know heals
Village in Prophet
Jesus
“Someone telling Jesus that there is a prophet in the village. Or, Someone saying that Jesus is a prophet in the village. Know what is healing”. Village in prophet, is the same as saying the prophet is like the people.
Healing can mean a lot of things. Prophet in the village, now that is really something.
Duly noting the ironic clichés about all generalizations and exceptional proofs, I am, nevertheless, surprised this issue could have incited half a century of “heated debates over how to define Gnosticism.” It seems fairly clear and straightforward to this amateur observer.
A Gnostic umbrella that must surely cover the overwhelming majority of varietals — notwithstanding disputes over the details — is that salvation comes from having the correct *knowledge* of how it may be obtained. It’s right in the name! 😯
Orthodox Christianity holds that salvation comes by embracing the death and resurrection of Jesus as “substitutionary atonement” for the apple-filching “sin” originally committed by the first man — for which transgression (the bizarrely vindictive) Yahweh continues to hold a grudge against all of his unoffending progeny.
Wouldn’t that difference also be sufficiently axiomatic to explain the intractable hostility between the two collectives?
Are (or were) there any denominations scholarship inclines to put under either rubric that held to the soteriology of the other? If not — or even if there are (or were) a few such — would that disqualify the utility of this as the generally distinguishing/defining characteristic of each?
Ah, read some of the books by experts ad you’ll see it’s not clear and straightforward at ALL. Start with the Michael Williams Rethinking Gnosticism and Karen King What Is Gnosticism. and these are *older* It’s gotten worse!
Many thanks for the recommendations, professor. 🙂 If scholarship did recognize the Orthodox-Gnostic divide I hypothesized, I’m guessing I would fall into the latter category. So I look forward to reading both books.
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was — for want of any better descriptor — the “Son of God.” But no one was saved by his horrific (though sadly predictable) murder.
The bizarre idea of “Substitutionary Atonement” not only demolishes any remotely defensible conception of divine justice, but from my best deconstruction of the surviving record, directly contradicts *everything* Jesus taught during his tragically brief ministry (copious citations omitted.) Where did he even insinuate that “Salvation” comes from anything other than hearing and heeding the words of the “Word”?
Personally, I find far better clarification/affirmation of his spiritual insights in the teachings of the culturally-geographically-historically disconnected Buddha than in anything in the (dubious) NT record of his purported followers.
That starts with the simple fact that NO sage — in any place or time — can possibly save anyone else! The one and only thing the few Anointed/Awakened Ones among us can do is offer the *knowledge* of how we can save ourselves.
Wouldn’t that make me a Gnostic?
Depends how you define Gnostic. If you mean someone who subscribes to the salvific importance of knowledge, then yes you are. So am I. So are most university professors I know. If you mean someone who subscribes ot the views of the ancient Christian Gnostics, nope, you’re nowhere close! Read the Apocryphon of John!
Depends how you define Gnostic. If you mean someone who subscribes to the salvific importance of knowledge, then yes you are. So am I. So are most university professors I know. If you mean someone who subscribes ot the views of the ancient Christian Gnostics, nope, you’re nowhere close! Read the Apocryphon of John!
Well, at least my amateur (and unwarranted) supposition — that the defining characteristic of gnosticism is a soteriology wherein salvation depends on having and acting upon the correct knowledge of how it can be attained — puts me in estimable company. 😎
Mistaken or not, this certainly stands in sharp contradistinction with the orthodox “Substitutionary Atonement” assertion that salvation depends — *entirely* and *exclusively* — on the horrific death Jesus intentionally embraced as the only way to sate the bloodlust of the aggrieved, vengeance-seeking Yahweh.
The bizarre and inescapable corollary of this progression by the Jewish god from demanding animal to human sacrifice perforce makes knowing and acting upon the teachings of Jesus completely irrelevant. Indeed, it renders his entire ministry moot! 😨
The difference may be too simplistic. But it is certainly crystal clear.
Perhaps confusion arises because the question entangles history with theology, while scholarship only addresses the history OF theology. I’m sure the books you recommended will help clarify.
Meanwhile, I reread the very intriguing Apocryphon of John — a work that (to my limited understanding, at least) is widely recognized as indisputably Gnostic.
[But wait. There’s more…]
Though John cleverly interweaves his own creation myth with major elements of the Jewish one, his Apocryphon is primarily an extended roll call of lesser divinities and the saga of the roles they play.
The paradoxical “Trinity” rationalization, propounded by the mainstream church in 325 CE, may have gone unchallenged ever since. But formally pronouncing that “It’s three! Three! Three gods in one!” (my paean to an ancient breath-mint ad 😉) doesn’t make the non sequitur of polytheistic monotheism go away. The dismissive “It’s a mystery” canard, unblushingly proffered by apologists, is an evasion so blatant it would embarrass a junior high debate team.
Even leaving that can of worms unopened, the official canon of scripture has its OWN roster of lesser divinities!
Though the Biblical pantheon is smaller, its divine ranks mostly anonymous choir members, Michael and Gabriel are explicitly identified in the OT (with Tobit, perhaps, earning an honorable mention for Raphael.)
Even within the NT gospels there are two appearances by Gabriel in one of them. And Satan is surely worthy of a best supporting actor nomination for his role in all FOUR!
Orthodoxy unsurprisingly rejects John’s interpolation. But are his Gnostic interjections sufficient to adjudge the amalgam *categorically* different?
Doesn’t fact that “we have no assurance that all of these texts were ever seen as authoritative by any one community, in the way the texts of the New Testament later came to be for orthodox Christians” underscore the distinction that arises from the irreconcilability of their antagonistic soteriologies?
If salvation comes from having the correct *knowledge* of how it may be obtained, disagreements over the particulars of that knowledge would undoubtedly be fatal to ecumenical Gnosticism. Similarly, while the very definition of Orthodoxy — adherence to the correct *beliefs* as decreed by church authority — would undoubtedly include “the texts of the New Testament,” wouldn’t the “substitutionary atonement” nature of salvation be first and foremost among required avowals? It certainly wasn’t dissent over this (or any other tenet propounded at Nicaea) that provoked the “Reformation.”
Also, isn’t it fair to say that not only “Gnosticism originated apart from Christianity” to be “later merged with it in some religious groups, forming a kind of synthesis,” but, likewise, Orthodoxy — which (as you have often noted) evolved from a conflation of Judaism and the teachings of Jesus with the Platonic precepts that gentiles brought with them into the movement?
Individual texts (as opposed to “all of them”) were of course seen as authoritative. And yes, all forms of Christianity are ultimately connected closely with non-Christian traditoins, including Greek philosophical traditions.
There is, to be sure, nothing in the Apocryphon of John to suggest that soteriology could provide a useful orthodox-gnostic touchstone. In fact it seems to simply be an extended, abstruse cosmogony — without ANY kind of unique, theological essence.
Indeed, if not for the peculiar names of the divinities listed by the author, would we even know that this is part of a Judeo-Christian corpus?
Thought experiment: Recast John’s “Inexpressible One, Barbēlō, and Christ,” as “Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.” Relabel the litany of lesser deities he calls “Harmozel, Oriel, Daveithai, Eleleth,” etc. as “Saraswati, Lakshmi, Kartikeya, Ayyappan,” etc. Would there be anything to betray this as NOT being an authentic, Hindu text?
For a work so unswervingly devoted to reciting divine names and roles, one is glaringly conspicuous by its absence — Jesus of Nazareth!
Further, it is utterly silent on the crucial HOW of the salvation the Christ actually brought into its misbegotten creation. It is merely extensive stage-setting for a drama that never opens.
The Apocryphon would not have the fabled “Rich Young Ruler” walking away daunted and dejected, but simply scratching his head… and still wondering: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” 🤔
Aren’t the Gnostics just the Christians that continued prophesizing as part of their worship routine unlike the proto-orthodox? It looks like the Gnostics – both Gentile and Hebrew – continued to seek out gnosis – prophetic “wisdom that is from above” (James 3:17). Aren’t the Gnostics just Christians who continued to “strive eagerly for spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1) believing that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelations 19:10)?
Paul did say “For you can all prophesy one by one” (1 Corinthians 14:31) and that he himself was “exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations” (2 Corinthians 2:7). Paul’s teachings may have been a core reason why Gentile “Gnostic writers…claim his (Paul’s) letters as the primary source of gnostic theology” (Elaine Pagels. The Gnostic Paul. Pg. 1). Just as the “man in Christ…was caught up to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2), the gnostic disciple in the Discourse on the Eighth and the Ninth sought to train “my mind into (the) eight (heaven) and afterwards you would bring me into the ninth.”
No, the Gnostic Christians were not simply prophecying Christians. As usually defined today they were groups of Christians with far more distinctive characteristics and striking ideas.
So I am using the word ‘Christian’ with the widest possible interpretation, including all who considered themselves followers of Jesus and not just those who followed the Nicene Creed, with no specificity as to which holy texts they considered sacrosanct and which interpretation of the divinity and resurrection of Jesus they followed. Insomuch as there’s not much uniformity to begin with among the Gnostics, I argue only that the content of their theology was obtained via prophecy with some sects more heavily influenced by Paul than others.
The author of the Apocryphon of John clearly obtained the material of his composition while in a prophetic trance after the “heavens opened and the whole of creation shone with a light from above and the world quaked”. The Gnostics just tended to prophesize on more theologically sensitive topics such as the inhabitation of the heavenly realms by celestial beings, the nature of Godhead (expanding beyond just the Word, Power, and Wisdom (as the Holy Spirit) traditionally found in the New & Old Testament), the creation narrative (as the author of the Christ-Poem in John did), and the earthly ministry of Jesus (much as Paul did with the last supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23).
What does it matter if Philo and Paul refer to their emanations of aspects of God as angels while the Gnostics preferentially used the term aeons? So what if the gospel of John refers to the Word as the maker of the universe (instead of God directly) while later Gnostics used the Platonic loan term demiurge and re-prophecized their own versions of Genesis, as the author of the poem in John did?
Looking at the language already in Ephesians 6:12, why is it so surprising that Simon Magus takes it a step further and “supposes names for the Dominions and Principalities…says there are different heavens… sets forth Powers for each firmament and heaven, and tricks them out with barbarous names” (Epiphanius. Contra Hæreses,ii.4)?
The “Jesus whom Paul preaches” (Acts 19:13) seeded all who offered up their “bodies as a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1) with the Holy Spirit and became a bodily “temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:16), reanimating and dwelling within all those who were baptized. So what if some Gnostics called this transdimensional spirit body of Christ that extended itself from heaven to fill the mortal shells of worshippers as the Pleroma (Ephesians 1:23)?
Dr. Ehrman, I would like to ask two things: Elaine Pagels claims that Paul of Tarsus was also influenced by Gnosticism and, indeed, was a source of inspiration for its development. Do you agree with this theory?
How did Gnosticism manage to survive the daanatio memoraiae, given that it was still alive in the Middle Ages and we find it incarnated in Catharism?
Are you sure she claims that? Where would that be? Almost all scholars of Gnosticism today think it did not arise until many decades after Paul’s death, and I don’t know of any Pauline scholars today who think Paul was influenced by it. As to how it periodically reappeared — I dn’t believe there’s any evidence to suggest that later religoius groups with views similar to Gnosticism had access to any of the texts that we today think of as the oldest forms of the religion(s).