spin

Normally, categorizing people as heretics (or even atheists, etc.) has been a method employed to ignore the views of such people,... but, working on the assumption that early heretics such as the ebionites and the docetists were sincere believers as any other christian of the time, how can we account for their "heresies" if the gospels were available to christians at the time of the heresies? The gospels gave birth narratives and Jesus eating food and bleeding wounds and various other signs that Jesus was tangible, solid, human. Why do we get sincere believers believing things that are contrary?

And why do we get early gnostic christians if gospel christianity was what first sprang up?

Evangelical christians might disagree with catholics over things such as transubstantiation, but they wouldn't doubt their religious sincerity, so let's give the "heretics" a bit of respect and contemplate what their existence really implies.


spin

No Robots

Great idea. But I'm suspicious that you will simply dismiss the fruits of contemplation as lacking in evidence. But, in the spirit of your post, let's proceed.

The Ebionites did believe in the fleshly man, and were considered heretics by the orthodox for denying his divinity. The simple explanation of this is that the Ebionites preserved the memory of the original Palestinian followers of Christ, whereas the Gentile Church was firmly set on establishing Christ as divine. The Church based its position on certain theomorphic aspects of the NT. This brings forward the fascinating question of man's theomorphic tendencies. Essentially, man has a very difficult time with the relationship of spirit and matter, and sees the former as imbued with magical properties. Thus, Christ, who emphasizes the primacy of spirit over matter, is made over into a magical being. The Gnostics sought a rational understanding of the relationship between spirit and matter, and Docetism seems to be an extreme form of Gnosticism.

The very early development of divergent opinion is a natural consequence of Christ and his teaching. It is very difficult to arrive at a firm, dispassionate understanding of this phenomenon.

spin

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The OP involved relating early heretics to the gospel tradition. Could sincere believers of later considered heresies have held their ideals if there was a gospel tradition to provide clear contrary information to those ideals?


spin

No Robots

What is the Gospel tradition? That defined by the Trinitarian Church? Or that of the Ebionites? Or that of the Gnostics? These are three different interpretations of the Gospels, three different Gospel traditions.

aa5874

All Christian beliefs were heresies to each other until the 4th century. It was anachronistic to claim orthodoxy before Constantine. Christianity was extremely diversified with numerous sects with doctrines and Christ-like figures, whether idealogical, spiritual or human, and no Christian sect had any inherent legitimate claim to orthodoxy before the collusion of Constantine and Eusebius in the 4th century.

spin

Wasn't Jn the last of the gospels written of those we use today? Wasn't that written by the apostle on the island of Patmos before the end of the first century? Mk, as is often claimed, was written before the fall of the temple, wasn't it? If these are the case, when did those heretics produce their gospels?

(And yes, your questions seeking clarification are needed to be asked here. Hopefully, they'll be discussed. )


spin

No Robots

I don't really know when the Gospels as we have them were composed. The Gnostic Gospels that we have are usually dated to the second century. I don't know of any Ebionite documents.

Yesterday, I made mention of Birger Gerhardsson's The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. Gerhardsson's main argument is that the words of Christ as we have them are drawn from the same kind of transmittal processes as the Talmud, and that therefore they are largely authentic. Naturally, he acknowledges that the Gospels include mythological elements as well. It seems that all early Christian movements drew from essentially the same transmissions, with each movement adding its own interpretative flavour. All the Gospels bear witness to the same genial personality at their core. It seems that the wisest course of action for the dispassionate interpreter is to assume at the outset the exceptional nature of the personality under discussion, and then to examine each of the attempts to portray this personality.

Ben C Smith

I think it depends on which tradition is being considered.

Could sincere believers have read of the death of Jesus in the gospels and simultaneously held that his death was a docetic illusion of some kind? Yes, I certainly think so. In fact, it would seem almost useless to argue that the death only seemed real if there existed at the time no tradition of the death at all. Similarly, those gnostics who thought that Jesus had passed through Mary like water through a tube were clearly reacting to a birth tradition or narrative of some kind.

We see this kind of thing in Josephus, who clearly knows the scriptural account of the death of Moses, yet chooses to say that Moses did not really die.

But other traditions may be more questionable. Which do you have in mind, in particular?

BTW, I have recently wondered at something of this kind with relation to Justin Martyr. Some on this board have made some pretty good points about the exact nature of the gospel traditions that he knew. Most could easily come from the synoptics (and a couple from John), but those that seem to parallel the apocryphal accounts make one wonder exactly what set of gospels (memoirs) he had in his possession.

Similarly, how could the gospel of Peter presume 12 disciples after the death of Jesus if the gospels already portrayed Judas as having defected? This is a very good question whose answer I do not yet have.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Is not the story of Doubting Thomas in reaction to a heresy? Are there not other examples?

Has anyone looked at the possible interactions? Such and such was asserted by some group, such and such comment or story is the response.

Vivisector

Why couldn't the canonical gospels have postdated the origins of some of the "heresies," with portions written specifically to combat the heretical beliefs?

Cheers,

V.