What evidence is there that gnostic views were original to apostolic Christianity?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: What evidence is there that gnostic views were original to apostolic Christianity?

Post by MrMacSon »

rakovsky wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:36 am In Acts, I think the orthodox apostles evangelize the gnostic Simon Magus and then he goes off on his own thing.
I think that scenario is likely to be one of several ways that gnostic sects would have started. I think scenarios like that could well be a re-writing of history ie. the 'orthodox' apostles were later narrated as having evanglised before the likes of Simon Magus, whereas, in reality, Simon Magus could well have been a member of many different types of early Christian sects. See what Clement of Alexandria said - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 614#p91614
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: What evidence is there that gnostic views were original to apostolic Christianity?

Post by rakovsky »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:32 pm
rakovsky wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:36 am In Acts, I think the orthodox apostles evangelize the gnostic Simon Magus and then he goes off on his own thing.
I think that scenario is likely to be one of several ways that gnostic sects would have started. I think scenarios like that could well be a re-writing of history ie. the 'orthodox' apostles were later narrated as having evanglised before the likes of Simon Magus, whereas, in reality, Simon Magus could well have been a member of many different types of early Christian sects. See what Clement of Alexandria said - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 614#p91614
Peter Kirby also suggested that gnostics may have better represented Jesus' desired community. This also seems to be an idea among some writers like Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code, whereby the gnostic Cathars and their idea of Mary Magdalene best represented the ideology that Jesus wanted.

In reality, it is hard for me to accept this theory, because gnosticism was in opposition to worship of Jehovah, seeing him only as the demiurge, whereas I think that Jesus was dedicated to the Hebrew scriptures and their idea of the Messiah. Tertullian made the anti-gnostic argument that the disposal of the Old Testament and the institution of the New Covenant was at the disposition of the Creator, thus showing that the God of the Old Testament was the true God. This argument makes sense to me. Jesus, coming as a Messianic "Son of David" prophesied in the Old Testament would be loyal to the God of the Old Testament, the God that David worshiped. The fact that Jesus instituted a New Testament predicted in the Old Testament (eg. Jeremiah 31) is itself proof of loyalty to the God that made that prediction in Jeremiah 31.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: What evidence is there that gnostic views were original to apostolic Christianity?

Post by MrMacSon »

rakovsky wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:23 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:32 pm
rakovsky wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:36 am In Acts, I think the orthodox apostles evangelize the gnostic Simon Magus and then he goes off on his own thing.
I think that scenario is likely to be one of several ways that gnostic sects would have started. I think scenarios like that could well be a re-writing of history ie. the 'orthodox' apostles were later narrated as having evanglised before the likes of Simon Magus, whereas, in reality, Simon Magus could well have been a member of many different types of early Christian sects. See what Clement of Alexandria said - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 614#p91614
Peter Kirby also suggested that gnostics may have better represented Jesus' desired community. This also seems to be an idea among some writers like Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code, whereby the gnostic Cathars and their idea of Mary Magdalene best represented the ideology that Jesus wanted.

In reality, it is hard for me to accept this theory, because gnosticism was in opposition to worship of Jehovah, seeing him only as the demiurge, whereas I think that Jesus was dedicated to the Hebrew scriptures and their idea of the Messiah.
Well, the commentary by R.A. Gilbert that I cited previously (about what Clement wrote), and the previous commentary by David Brakke (about Valentinianism), both strongly suggest most early Christian and gnostic sects -and possibly also Jewish messianic sects- had different views and theologies, more than being 'opposed' to what later became orthodox Christianity.

ie. I think you might be putting the cart before the horse, or at least some of them, and interestingly Brakke cites church historian Philip Rousseau, who wrote that modern narratives about proto-orthodoxy and then rival Christian groups is "like watching the re-run of a [horse] race while fixing your eyes confidently on the outsider you know to have won as he inches unexpectedly forward along the fence".* Rousseau goes on to offer his own helpful critique of this way of thinking.
  • Rousseau P., Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth- Century Egypt, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 19.
Brakke goes on -

Following his [Rousseau's] lead, we can think of the 'varieties-of-early-Christianity' model as something like a horse race. In this model, we cannot really see the starting gate, but around the year 100 CE, numerous independent Christian communities come into view, none with a fully convincing claim to exclusive authenticity as "true Christianity." They jostle for position and argue with one another about which of them are the true Christians. In hindsight we can identify the "horse" that will emerge as the dominant orthodoxy by the end of the third century: it is represented by Irenaeus and other early Christians such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian (before he "became a Montanist"), and others. We call this form of Christianity "proto-orthodoxy," because there is not yet an orthodoxy, but it will grow into it. - David Brakke. The Gnostics (Kindle Locations 142-149).

Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: What evidence is there that gnostic views were original to apostolic Christianity?

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:34 pm The current view is a "varieties of early Christianity" model with people like Walter Bauer having argued that "in some locations, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, forms of Christianity that would later be deemed heretical actually predated what would later emerge as orthodox."

.
Subsequent studies have called into question nearly all of Bauer's specific historical reconstructions. For example, while Bauer thought that the earliest Christians in Egypt were Gnostics, evidence now suggests that they were Jews from Palestine who did not hold beliefs that anyone would call Gnostic.4 Still, Bauer's central insights --that [i.] Christianity was diverse from the get-go, that [ii] it developed in different ways in different regions, and that [iii] the emergence of orthodoxy was the result of real struggle-- are now accepted as the basis for understanding Christianity in the early centuries.

These ideas form the fundamental principles of a new model of early Christian development, the "varieties of early Christianity" model. In this view, there never was a single Christianity; rather, a variety of Christian groups competed with one another in the early years. One form of Christianity eventually came to dominate in several regions of the ancient Mediterranean world, but only after a period of struggle. Although it became the basis for what later Christians would understand to be orthodox Christianity, before the fourth century its eventual triumph was not ensured, and so it is best to call it "proto-orthodoxy" during the period before Constantine.

David Brakke. The Gnostics (Kindle Locations 135-141). Kindle Edition.

4. Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1977).

[Walter Bauer's book is Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934) (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).]
.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: What evidence is there that gnostic views were original to apostolic Christianity?

Post by rakovsky »

Let's think about this.
1. How do we define gnosticism to distinguish it from orthodoxy?
The gnostic view saw Jehovah and the Old Testament as the bad demiurge and his book to be bad. They believed, I think, in one whom they considered to be an even higher deity. They also had a dualistic viewpoint that took a very negative view of the physical body and material world. What else distinguishes them?
As Mr. Macson I think noted, both the gnostics and the orthodox respected what they considered to be the right "knowledge" and the wisdom (sophia) that comes from what they considered to be Jesus' gospel.

2. What did Jesus teach?
A large majority of the first century writings about Jesus and Christianity (eg. 1 and 2 Clement, the Didache, Mark's gospel) suggest that he taught that Jehovah was the true God and that the Old Testament was legitimate and to be respected, even if the New Testament somehow took higher authority or in some ways replaced it. I put a long list of them here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2786&p=62053#p62053

Peter Kirby responded to me that perhaps the scholars generally don't classify the many gnostic works (like the Gospel of Mary) as first century works because the scholars themselves are biased against the view that the gnostic works were original and earlier in Christianity.

3. What did the leaders that Jesus appointed and who were close to Jesus teach?
A. James in his epistle seems to teach a conservative Judaic view of Christian practice. In Josephus and Hegesippus we read about his reverence for the Jewish Temple. In Acts and the Epistles we see him taking a more conservative Judaic view on practice than Paul. This conflicts with the gnostic approach to the Old Testament.

B. John in Revelation conflicts with Christian sects and writes to the mainstream churches. His associates included Polycarp and Papias, supposedly. He was in conflict with the gnostic leader Cerinthus, as in one story, he fled the bathouse when Cerinthus tried to befriend him there. In what is likely Cerinthus' apocryphon of James, Cerinthus takes a very hostile view of the Church leaders like Peter and John, iirc. John's Gospel also worships Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament and its prophets.

C. Peter's epistles also take a positive view of the OT God, and 2 Peter I think takes a negative view of docetism or gnosticism, although 2 Peter by some scholars isn't considered to be written genuinely by Peter.

D. Thomas and Mary Magdalene could be deep into mystical or hermetic views of Jesus, considering the hermetic style of the Gospel of Thomas, and the supernatural strange aspects of the Acts of Thomas (written maybe 200 AD), and considering Mary's visions of Jesus at the tomb and her 7 demons. Thomas' desire to touch Jesus in order to believe could reflect a docetist polemic or issue with Thomas. But unless one accepts the Gospel of Mary and the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas, it's hard to pinpoint them as definitely gnostic.

4. What was the status of the known, clearly identifiable, gnostic leaders within the early Christian movement? Were they ever close associates of Jesus or did they stay in touch with the apostles on good terms?
Cerinthus seems to have been in conflict with the apostles. Simon Magus was baptised by the apostles but them came into harsh conflict with them according to Acts. Marcion came into the church from outside, from the pagan world, and his own invented gospel was rejected. One of the leaders of Simon Magus' followers after Simon's death was Menander, and Menander didn't become orthodox, but rather declared himself the Messiah which would be in conflict with him being Christian.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Post Reply