CX

I don't think that's what most scholars are saying. Certainly that's not Elaine Pagels position who is perhaps the foremost authority on Gnostic Xianity. Rather I think scholars suggest that there were competing traditions in the early Xian period only one of which is recognized as orthodoxy today. This is not a postive argument that therefore orthodoxy is "less authentic". In fact I'd say the argument is more about there not being any one "authentic" xianity at first despite modern Christendom's tendancy to say the Xianity of Jesus and his disciples was the Xianity of today and that all other competing forms early or otherwise were and are corruptions of the "One True Faith".
The most reasonable conclusion seems to be that different groups interpreted Jesus' programs differently such that there were many different competing traditions early on. Furthermore because history is written by the winners, there is a lot we do not know about those competing traditions since the majority of "evidence" we have in the modern era comes from only one viewpoint (i.e. that of the so-called "orthodoxy")

mike_decock

Since I'm neither a Gnostic nor an orthodox Christian, I don't care to make judgements in terms of which is more legitimate or preferable.

The late heretical development of Gnosticism is a Christian myth, as far as I can see it. It's a simplistic way of dismissing it as a corruption. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't support that claim:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

When Gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity into Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the world with aprocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim.

If you can see through the polemic, there's an admission there that Gnostic Christianity did not rise up as a late, corrupting heresy, but developed parallel to orthodox Christianity. Which one is more "authentic" depends on who you talk to. The Gnostics will claim that Jesus was a teacher of gnosis which the orthodox Christians didn't have the maturity to understand.

I would need a much clearer picture of the historical Jesus (if indeed there was one) to decide if the Gnostics are closer to the truth or not.

Besides that New Advent link, I don't remember any specific websites, I just spent a few days googling and reading what various websites were saying.

-Mike...

Amaleq13

Paul cautions his readers against accepting "another gospel" and "another Jesus".

If that isn't very early evidence of competing belief systems, I would be interested in why not.

cyclone

The question I'm asking is whether historical precedence matters in determining whether Gnosticism or Orthodoxy is a more legitimate expression of Christian faith. At some level, it must be relevant since it has been claimed that Gnostic teachings developed alongside Orthodox teachings. The obvious implication here is that there are no defining characteristics of Christianity that can be known for certain, and thus it is unwarranted to claim that someone who rejects the incarnation (and other doctrines) is not a Christian.

Now I think it can be shown that Gnosticism did not arise simultaneously with Orthodox teaching, but rather, it was not even on the scene until a good hundred years later. And if historical precedence is relevant, then this would lend credibility to the claim that Orthodox teaching is a purer expression of Christian faith. Of course, I'm writing to folks who, as Mike Decock pointed out, are neither Gnostic or Christian, and would ultimately find both options equally illegitimate perhaps. But my point is not whether Christian Orthodoxy is true, but whether it best represents the original teaching of Jesus and his disciples. And that really seems to be the rub, because one reason that skeptics feel justified in rejecting Christianity is because of this diversity in early Christian belief that allegedly makes it quite difficult to determine what Christianity is in the first place . There would be no reason to consider the claims of Christianity if there was no way to know what those claims are .

By the way, I found some interesting quotations in Habermas of scholars who have serious reservations with Pagels' conclusion in "The Gnostic Gospels." For example, Joseph Fitzmyer writes: "Time and time again, she is blind to the fact that she is ignoring a good century of Christian existence in which those 'Gnostic Christians' were simply not around." Even Pheme Perkins, a scholar who appreciates some of Pagels' work, wrote that "the whole is so flawed by hasty generalization, over interpretation of texts to fit a predetermined scheme, and lack of sympathetic balance that this reviewer found herself constantly wishing that the whole could have been redone with more care." Of course, simply quoting various scholarly opinion doesn't settle the issue, but it is telling that some of her own colleagues find her work to be somewhat unimpressive. Perhaps we should not lend so much credibility to Pagel's conclusions in "The Gnostic Gospels."

Again, the key question is: Does historical precedence matter?

cyclone

Originally posted by CX

But certainly one of these traditions more faithfully represented the teaching of Jesus and his disciples. Jesus did teach something, afterall. And both traditions cannot be true since they are mutually exclusive in their claims about Jesus (eg he is God in the flesh vs. he is not God in the flesh).

Certainly the discovery of the Gnostic texts in Nag Hammadi in 1945 tells us something significant about a "competing tradition." But more importantly, I'm not impressed with this ongoing argument that says because orthodoxy won this religious debate, it is therefore impossible to know what is true in the first place. At some level, I understand the uncertainty it produces for people, but I don't think it follows that nothing can be known about what was original to Christianity, and more importantly, to the teaching of Jesus.

Amaleq13

I realize this is just a very brief summary of the viewpoints but is "Jesus is not God in the flesh" an accurate depiction of gnostic belief?

I used to think I understood it but the more I read, the more it seems every scholar has a different take on what it is the gnostics believed. Could early gnostic belief have been as diverse as early Christianity, in general?

For example, two apparently different conceptions of gnosticism of which I am aware are:

1) The incarnation of Jesus was ultimately an illusion. These folks took Paul literally when he describd Jesus as taking on the appearance of flesh. This created controversy with soon-to-be-orthodox views when it came time to talk about the suffering of Christ. The orthodox position was "absolutely" while the gnostic position was "not really, he only appeared to suffer". One problem with accepting this description of gnosticism, in my view, is that I think it comes almost entirely from Christian arguments against them rather than from gnostics, themselves.

2) Gnosticism = mystery religion with levels of knowledge corresponding to levels of initiation which means all bets are off in knowing what the "true" story is because only the inner circle would know. Again, there are clearly things in Paul that obviously appealed to this sort of thinking.

So, is there any reason to consider either of these or some other entirely or even some combination to represent "true" gnosticism? Was there a "true" gnostism or was the term more fluid like "new age"?

I think it has more to do with what the winners did after they won (i.e. systematically destroyed any and all texts, temples, etc. considered "heretical") that makes it difficult to figure out what actually happened. There is no better example of the victor getting to write the history than the rise of Christianity. Consider how long it took and how lucky it was to discover the Nag Hammadi cache. Most of what we know about the gnostics, even that discovery, depends on what early Church Fathers said against them and what they quoted from subsequently lost texts.

Toto

This was split off from 'Bible Verses to use against the Fundies."

Carry on.

mike_decock

It may or may not be. How much did Orthodoxy change during the centuries before certain doctrines were declared as orthodox?

It seems to me most relevant to those who claim the Gnostic teachings developed later than Orthodox teachings .

Do you have any evidence to support this view?

I don't think it works to establish credibility since orthodoxy had centuries of opportunity to change before it was stabilized.

I'll admit that it's one of the many reasons I ended up rejecting Christianity. I'm pretty indifferent about it now and I wouldn't resist being convinced that orthodoxy had it "right". I don't really have a personal agenda in learning about the roots of Christianity.

Perhaps. As far as I know, Pagels has devoted a lot of time studying the Nag Hammadi library and Gnostic Christianity and I don't know if those other scholars have focused their efforts elsewhere.

The Catholic Encyclopedia still didn't support your position that Gnostic Christianity came much later. If anyone would argue for a late development, I think they would if they could.

In my opinion, it doesn't mean much unless it can be demonstrated that it reflects the teachings of Jesus and his disciples (which we have no first hand record of).

-Mike...

mike_decock

Exactly. I suspect that the other early Christian churches were just as varied in their beliefs until Orthodoxy was established.

-Mike...

beastmaster

What you are describing is called Docetism, which was a heresy adopted by some Gnostics, but not all.

On the question of Jesus as God in the flesh, AFAIK, the basic Gnostic view is that *all* humans are "gods in the flesh" waiting to be resurrected. So, Gnostics would tend to say that, yes, Jesus was a "god in the flesh" in the same sense you and I are "gods in the flesh."