CX

I'm not sure that's the case. Firstly it could be (and I would say it likely is) that both traditions are the product of theological accretion and that perhaps neither is a terribly faithful representation of the foundations of Xianity. Secondly I'm not sure it's a settled question that "Jesus did teach something". The mythicists would certainly disagree and in any event the paucity of contemporaneous sources would make it extremely difficult to say what, if anything, this Jesus actually taught.

True, but they could both be false.

The problem is more related to the paucity of reliable historical sources at the earliest stages of Xian development. And given the demonstrated propensity of the early church to vociferously comabt and extinguish competing views the argument that the orthodox view has largely blotted out other competing traditions is not without merit.

cyclone

Just want to let everyone know, Mike Decock in particular, that I will not be posting again until Wednesday. I apologize for my departure, since this new thread was created mostly because of my own initial comments. But I have a research paper due in a few days that I need to focus on. Afterwards, I will attempt to (finally) make a case for a late development for Gnosticism, and maybe even the historicity of the four Gospels. This has been real enjoyable so far. Thanks for everyone's involvement.

-David

Mageth

I think cyclone has overlooked or avoided this very critical point. Not only Paul, but other authors in the NT cautioned against false teachings that were in the early church.

See:

1 Timothy 4

2 John 1:7:
For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 Peter 2 (phrases in italics appear to me to be references to Gnostic teachings; much of the other claims are obviously exaggerations of Gnostic beliefs and practices - some on both sides tended to demonize the other):

1: But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2: And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
3: And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.

10: and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority [NOTE: Gnostics denied the authority structure (bishop/priest/deacon/laity) of the "orthodox" church]. Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones,

17: These are waterless springs [NOTE: interesting because some Gnostic writers referred to the Orthodox bishops and priests as "waterless canals"] and mists driven by a storm; for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved.

Perhaps most damning of all, 1 Timothy 1:18-20 and 2 Timothy 2:15-18, where the author (presumably Paul) mentions some early "false teachers" (of Gnostic beliefs) by name - Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus. You can read about them here.

These scriptures place the roots of Christian Gnosticism (gnosticism appeared as a philosophical movement before Christianity) long before the date cyclone appears to be arguing for - unless you argue that the epistles were written much later.

Toto

This is apparently what some do:

Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 71

cyclone

OK, my paper is done so I'm ready to resume this discussion. During some downtime yesterday I did some research at the library on the topic of Gnosticism and came to discover that there's actually very little consensus as to whether the implicit Gnosticism that we see the New Testament authors interacting with is actually full-blown Gnosticism or simply the undeveloped seeds of a later Gnosticism (and just to clarify, by Gnosticism I mean "the christian form of Gnosticism, since as someone pointed out, the philosophy of Gnosticism predates Christianity). So I'm not sure what can be concluded at this point. At some level, it almost seems like a person's position will be justified by which scholar he or she chooses to quote from.

Any thoughts?

Mageth

If you look at the 2 Peter passage above:

...even denying the Master who bought them...
...despise authority...

And the 2 John passage:

...that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh...

These passages specifically mention the essential differences between Christian Gnosticism and Orthodoxy - teaching that Christ didn't come in the flesh, and "despising authority" (arguing against the Apostolic authority taught by the Orthodox). This, plus the fact that several NT authors took the time to strongly argue against these "false" teachings, and specifically name several "false" teachers of this belief, would seem to counter your claim that they viewed what was happening as "undeveloped seeds".

cyclone

Originally posted by Mageth
I never claimed in the previous post that what the NT authors were interacting with was an undeveloped form of Gnosticism; rather, I simply pointed out that there is significant scholarly disagreement on this point. In fact, I never even said that I preferred one view over the other.

However, I will need to retract one statement in that post regarding whether non-christian Gnosticism predates Christianity. I took it for granted that it did. However, I just finished a cursory reading of Edwin Yamauchi's "Pre-Christian Gnosticism" which cites a number of scholars that challenge this point. Again, this certainly doesn't settle this issue, but it at least raises questions as to the origins of Gnosticism.

The question was raised earlier as to whether there ever existed a consistent system of Gnostic belief in the first place. I think this may be a point that would be worthwhile to address. Yamauchi argues that Gnosticism always appeared as a parasite, and quoting from Drijvers, "Nowhere do we find a pure form of Gnosticism, always it is built on earlier, pre-existing religions or on their traditions." (p. 185). The possibility that it consistently exhibited such "parasitic" tendencies raises serious questions as to whether it can actually be understood as a legitimate expression of Christian faith. It might make more sense to infer that it infiltrated Christianity in some sense, rather than co-existed with Orthodoxy from the beginning, as has been suggested by some previous posts.

Another issue is the late dating of those Gnostic resources that have been found. I know the response is that the earlier writings were destroyed by Catholic leaders, but I'm curious to know if there is any evidence for this accusation. And what I need, specifically, is evidence of a systematic attempt to destroy such writings, because this seems to be the claim of Pagels and others. If no such evidence exists, then the claim these writings would have existed in other circumstances, is clearly an argument from silence. But again, even if that can be shown, I'm not sure that it makes the case because, as mentioned above, one still needs to explain the non-Christian origin of Gnosticism and its "parasitic" tendency.

Mageth

Originally posted by cyclone
I never claimed in the previous post that what the NT authors were interacting with was an undeveloped form of Gnosticism; rather, I simply pointed out that there is significant scholarly disagreement on this point. In fact, I never even said that I preferred one view over the other.

You are correct. Instead of saying "to counter your claim" I should have said "to counter the argument" or "the view".

However, I will need to retract one statement in that post regarding whether non-christian Gnosticism predates Christianity. I took it for granted that it did. However, I just finished a cursory reading of Edwin Yamauchi's "Pre-Christian Gnosticism" which cites a number of scholars that challenge this point. Again, this certainly doesn't settle this issue, but it at least raises questions as to the origins of Gnosticism.

The question was raised earlier as to whether there ever existed a consistent system of Gnostic belief in the first place. I think this may be a point that would be worthwhile to address. Yamauchi argues that Gnosticism always appeared as a parasite, and quoting from Drijvers, "Nowhere do we find a pure form of Gnosticism, always it is built on earlier, pre-existing religions or on their traditions." (p. 185). The possibility that it consistently exhibited such "parasitic" tendencies raises serious questions as to whether it can actually be understood as a legitimate expression of Christian faith. It might make more sense to infer that it infiltrated Christianity in some sense, rather than co-existed with Orthodoxy from the beginning, as has been suggested by some previous posts.

This confuses me a bit - first you (or Yamauchi) argues that gnosticism didn't arise until after Christianity, and now you seem to be arguing that Gnosticism was a parasitic belief that opportunistically latched on to Christianity after it appeared. I'm having a hard time reconciling the two views.

And note that Christianity itself is "built on earlier, pre-existing religions or on their traditions." Darn parasites!

And, while not wanting to raise an ad hom argument against Yamauchi's conclusions, I do question Yamauchi's motives. He seems to be a staunch defender of Orthodox Christianity. In an article titled Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?, he defends a literal, historical interpretation of the Resurrection account. He concludes the article with the following paragraph:

That sounds more like an apologetic sermon with an altar call than an historical analysis of the Resurrection.

That said, I'm not saying that disproves his conclusions. I'd be interested in seeing what other historians have to say on the subject, and if there are any that have countered his assertions.

Another issue is the late dating of those Gnostic resources that have been found. I know the response is that the earlier writings were destroyed by Catholic leaders, but I'm curious to know if there is any evidence for this accusation. And what I need, specifically, is evidence of a systematic attempt to destroy such writings, because this seems to be the claim of Pagels and others. If no such evidence exists, then the claim these writings would have existed in other circumstances, is clearly an argument from silence.

If someone else doesn't get back to you on this, I may have an opportunity to work on it some. Though I must say, from reading Pagels, many of the early Orthodox writers she quotes seem to make it pretty clear that they were doing their best to quash the "heretics" and their writings.

But again, even if that can be shown, I'm not sure that it makes the case because, as mentioned above, one still needs to explain the non-Christian origin of Gnosticism and its "parasitic" tendency.

Once again, in my opinion, there are difficulties with trying to argue both that Gnosticism didn't arise until after "Orthodox" Christianity and that Gnosticism was an apparently preexisting "parasitic" belief that opportunistically latched on to Christianity after it appeared.

In any case, I don't see how Gnosticism having a non-Christian origin and/or Gnosticism merely being a "parasitic" belief would directly discredit Gnostic beliefs. The beliefs are either true or they're not, despite Gnosticism's origins or mechanism of proliferation.

And note that I'm not really here to defend Gnosticism as a belief system, though I admit I do find aspects of it (Christian Gnosticism) to be more interesting and appealing than the "orthodox" Christian beliefs (and I'm fascinated that Gnostic beliefs have popped up in various religions, and have even independently arisen in Christianity on more than one occasion).

Amaleq13

I'm pretty sure there is a papal order for such things to be systematically destroyed and an earlier charge along those same lines from Church Father. I'll have to look through my disorganized collection of notes for specifics but that might help in a search.

IMHO, I think the fact that Christians destroyed pagan temples and built churches on top of them is sufficient to warrant the assumption that heretical texts would be destroyed as well.

Mageth

I also wonder how and why those scrolls ended up buried in a jar at Nag Hammadi if the Orthodox Church wasn't systematically destroying Gnostic Texts.