Mageth

Originally posted by cyclone
My original assumption was that the philosophy of Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity, whereas the Christian expression of Gnosticism came onto the scene after Orthodox Christianity. After reading Yamauchi, however, I'm finding that the first assumption is not really accepted by all scholars, and that arguments have been made that even philosophical Gnosticism came after Orthodox Christianity.

OK, when do you think "Orthodox Christianity" as you see it appeared? Evidence (even the Biblical evidence) strongly indicates that it took some time to gel, and really wasn't settled until the 4th Century or so. (Before that, there were apparently a lot of competing interpretations and even "canons", and after that the consensus "orthodoxy" successfully quashed most of these, including expunging most of the texts that were not considered "canonical").

And the evidence (even Biblical evidence) clearly indicates that (at least nascent) gnostic interpretations of Xianity were around in Paul's time. No doubt the core of "Orthodoxy" was as well. But they apparently arose almost simultaneously in the First Century.

I had a feeling someone would be unable to resist that analogy, but I think it's a false one. The quote from Yamauchi is referring to the syncretic tendencies of Gnosticism (which actually has its origins in Oriental Philosophy) to borrow from other systems in the development of its own system.

So were these origins pre-1st Century, or did gnostic beliefs bud off of Oriental Philosophy opportunistically just after "Orthodox" Christianity budded of Judaism? You (and Yamauchi) still seem to be making conflicting arguments here - that gnostic beliefs did and did not predate Orthodox Christianity.

This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, with the former merely claiming to be the fulfillment of the latter.

Well, of course it would claim that to give itself "credibility", so that's not much of a support for your argument. Of course, most Jews would disagree with that assertion.

I understand your concern here. But the sub-title of his book is: "A Survey of the Proposed Evidence," and so he is merely chronicling the opinions of various scholars on this subject (both conservative and liberal). Having read the book, I can say there are very few times when he actually asserts his own opinion. In fact, in one chapter there are over four-hundred footnotes of references. So I don't think there should be any doubt as to whether he is taking an objective approach to the topic.

The quote I provided from him above as to the resurrection gives me much doubt of his "objectivity."

I agree. But I'm not questioning the truthfulness of Gnostic beliefs; rather, I'm questioning whether they represent a legitimate expression of Christian faith.

Well, obviously not of Orthodoxy, and another major point of this thread is that "Orthodox Christianity" is considered orthodox precicely because it emerged as the "orthodox" belief system from an early virtual soup including a variety of conflicting interpretations of the teachings and actions of Jesus

That was one of the first questions that started this dialogue, and it's a very different question from whether Gnosticism is true. And I think the origin of philosophical Gnosticism is relevant for the discussion, because if it is primarily a "parasitic" system, then this raises questions as to whether it did in fact pre-date Orthodox Christianity.

I assume the "it" you're referring to is Gnostic Christianity. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Gnostic Christianity (or the roots thereof) necessarily predates Orthodox Christianity (or the roots thereof). The Biblical references I gave illustrate, to me, that both had their roots in the First Century. I really don't think that's deniable, given the Biblical (and other) evidence.

mike_decock

Speaking out, yes. Mageth already provided you examples from within the NT of this happening early on. To inspire a five volume set would take time.

I supplied that quote from Pagels to show the references to Irenaeus and Hippolytus and didn't have anything else handy. I did a little googling to find a few primary sources for the Nicean council:

Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21.

And:

Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch. 64-66.

-Mike...

cyclone

Originally posted by Mageth


The claim that Orthodox Christianity wasn't settled until the fourth century is one position that I've challenged in previous posts. Again, there is a difference between official codification of doctrine and the grass-roots acceptance of said doctrine. Habermas makes a good case (by appealing to ancient hymns and non-Christian sources) that important doctrines (like the incarnation) were believed very early in Christian history. Ironically, this is a point that not even Mike Decock has challenged.



That's highly questionable whether Gnostic interpretations were around in Paul's time. I might be willing to grant that the Apostle John interacted with some type of proto-Gnosticism, but it's not clear as to whether this could be considered a fully developed movement.



The claim that Yamauchi makes is that some scholars think it's likely that philosphical Gnosticism didn't arise until after Orthodox Christianity. To be honest, I'm not sure how this conflicts with anything Yamauchi writes in his book.



Again, in this discussion I'm not assuming the truthfulness of any Christian claims. If I've been inconsistent on this point, then please let me know. My only purpose in that statement was to show (perhaps unsuccesfully) that it's a false analogy to point to Orthodox Christianity's relationship to Judaism as identical to Gnosticism's relationship to other worldviews.



I find it interesting that you are so quick to question the motivations of a more conservative scholar and ignore the possibility that someone like Pagels is totally biased in her own methodology. Could it be that it is more desirable for you to believe that Yamauchi is biased in his research because it allows you to continue in your assumption that only the work of Pagels and others represents the best scholarship?



You seem to be assuming the very point that is being argued, that is, whether this "virtual soup" was indeed early.

Sorry, I mispoke in saying that your claim is that Gnostic Christianity pre-dates Orthodoxy. Your point all along is that it both had their roots in the first century. But again, I don't think appeal to those NT passages necessarily proves that point. All this shows is that the NT authors were concerned about some kind of teaching. It is less than clear that this was a fully-developed system that was actually competing with Orthodoxy in a significant way.

cyclone

Originally posted by mike_decock


Why should I accept the conclusion that the inspiration of a five-volume set would take that much time?

As for your primary resources, the quotation from Nicea doesn't even remotely prove the point. What we've been trying to determine is whether Gnostic Christianity was around as early as Orthodoxy. How does a reference to a council that took place in AD 325 prove this? Moreover, this council wasn't even addressing the problem of Gnosticism.

What I'm finding in this discussion is that there is very little evidence to determine that the roots of Gnostic Christianity are as early as people would like to believe. And it seems that any alleged evidence that is provided usually assumes the very point under consideration.

cyclone

Originally posted by Mageth

Here's what you asked for:



I find it remarkable that you can admit this and not recognize the implications for our discussion. How does the destruction of Gnostic texts in the third or fourth century prove that Gnosticism existed as a religious system as early as Orthodox Christianity? In order for this to make sense, you would need to assume that Orthodoxy was completely in flux up until that time. But the problem here is that the historical evidence simply doesn't support such an assumption.

Moreover, where is the evidence that these earlier texts were "no doubt" lost or destroyed? This is the classic argument from silence. And you can't assume the very point that is being argued.

Don't even try to compare the textual evidence for Gnosticism with that of Orthodox Christianity. There is simply no argument here.

mike_decock

Because, just like Orthodox Christianity, Gnostic Christianity would have had to have gone through a "grass roots" development, gain a following and develop enough texts to warrant five volumes of refutation.

Let me quote your words to restate what you were asking for (emphasis mine):

I think an edict that "their books should be destroyed" and "whoever should be found secreting his writings and who should not burn them immediately on the accusation, should undergo the penalty of death, and suffer capital punishment" certainly qualifies as evidence of the systematic attempt to destroy such writings. If that doesn't look like evidence to you, there really doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this any further.

-Mike...

mike_decock

Iraneus attributes the roots of Gnostic Christianity to Simon Magus who is Mentioned in Acts 8:9-24 (which you previously argued should be dated before 70):

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I

This implies that these non-Orthodox teachings and competing doctrines were already present during the time of Peter and Philip. It appears that the "grass roots" of Gnosticism are right next to the "grass roots" of Orthodoxy.

The evidence presented on this thread and the opinions of the Church Fathers seem to disagree with your assertion that Gnostic teachings didn't come onto the scene "until a good hundred years later."

-Mike...

Mageth

Originally posted by cyclone
The claim that Orthodox Christianity wasn't settled until the fourth century is one position that I've challenged in previous posts. Again, there is a difference between official codification of doctrine and the grass-roots acceptance of said doctrine.

The primary reason for the codification of the "orthodox" doctrine in the 4th Century, and the canonization of the bible including the "four square Gospels", was to create an "orthodox" set of beliefs and scriptures for use in solidifying the universal "catholic" church, and in so doing making the many competing interpretations into "heresy" that could thus be quashed. There was a perceived need to bring the many various "doctrines" and interpretations that were widespread in the church under control.

Note that it wasn't until the 4th Century that the four Gospels on which the "orthodox" beliefs are based were established as the official "canonical" gospels of the Church.

That Orthodox Christianity wasn't settled until the 4th Century is a position that I consider incontrovertible. I have not and am not arguing that interpretations that are now considered "orthodox" (thanks to the events of the 4th Century) did not prior to the 4th Century.

Habermas makes a good case (by appealing to ancient hymns and non-Christian sources) that important doctrines (like the incarnation) were believed very early in Christian history. Ironically, this is a point that not even Mike Decock has challenged.

Nor should he, so your irony is misguided. Neither I nor he are challenging that the roots of what are now considered "orthodox" beliefs were early interpretations nor that they were widespread interpretations. But with a little serious research into the early history of Christianity (not limited to those authors with an Orthodox agenda ) it becomes obvious that they were not the only interpretations that were early and widespread.

That's highly questionable whether Gnostic interpretations were around in Paul's time.

Hardly, since Paul argued against them in some of his letters.

I might be willing to grant that the Apostle John interacted with some type of proto-Gnosticism, but it's not clear as to whether this could be considered a fully developed movement.

If you want irony, consider your comment "it's not clear as to whether this could be considered a fully developed movement" and compare it to your comments above about the "grass roots" nature of "orthodox" interpretations prior to the 4th Century establishment of Orthodox Christianity.

The claim that Yamauchi makes is that some scholars think it's likely that philosphical Gnosticism didn't arise until after Orthodox Christianity.

What you (and Yamauchi) appear to be claiming is that what is now considered the "orthodox" interpretation of Christ's life appeared before the "gnostic" (and other) interpretations. I don't think the evidence clearly indicates which interpreation truly appeared first, but both seem to have appeared very early (1st Century). Orthodox Christianity was not a "fully developed movement" until the 4th Century.

Again, in this discussion I'm not assuming the truthfulness of any Christian claims. If I've been inconsistent on this point, then please let me know. My only purpose in that statement was to show (perhaps unsuccesfully) that it's a false analogy to point to Orthodox Christianity's relationship to Judaism as identical to Gnosticism's relationship to other worldviews.

I don't recall claiming the relationships as "identical". But Chrisitanity undeniably does "bud off" of Judaism.

I find it interesting that you are so quick to question the motivations of a more conservative scholar and ignore the possibility that someone like Pagels is totally biased in her own methodology.

Well, I don't ignore the possibility that Pagels is "biased" in her methodology. Where did you get that idea? And I haven't claimed that Yamauchi is "totally biased", BTW.

I do try to consider such motivations in all scholars I read, as should you. Indeed, if you read the first chapter of Pagel's new book, Beyond Belief, some such motivations on her part that should be considered are made evident by her own admission that she personally finds many doctrines of Orthodox Christianity as distasteful.

I respect such honesty from a writer.

Could it be that it is more desirable for you to believe that Yamauchi is biased in his research because it allows you to continue in your assumption that only the work of Pagels and others represents the best scholarship?

I don't make that assumption. So ask yourself why you've made that assumption about me.

One must consider the possible sources of bias in any scholarly work one reads.

You seem to be assuming the very point that is being argued, that is, whether this "virtual soup" was indeed early.

I think ample evidence (including, and especially, the Biblical evidence) clearly points to an early origin of a variety of conflicting interpretations. Heck, even the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, if examined objectively, can be seen to indicate different interpretations (see below).

Sorry, I mispoke in saying that your claim is that Gnostic Christianity pre-dates Orthodoxy. Your point all along is that it both had their roots in the first century. But again, I don't think appeal to those NT passages necessarily proves that point. All this shows is that the NT authors were concerned about some kind of teaching.

Various kinds of teachings, including Gnostic teachings (references to which are indicated in the quoted scriptures as I described).

It is less than clear that this was a fully-developed system that was actually competing with Orthodoxy in a significant way.

Neither Gnostic nor "Orthodox" Christianity can really be claimed to be "fully developed systems" in the First Century, IMO. But both interpretations of the life, purpose, and essence of Jesus clearly existed in the First Century.

The Gospel of Thomas is dated to have been written in 90-100 CE, in about the same time period as the Gospel of John. Now, John is the Gospel on which the "orthodox" interpretation of Jesus (as the Son of God) is most clearly based. The Synoptic Gospels simply do not make this "orthodox" point clearly; they tend to refer to Jesus as the "son of man" or the "son of God" (as in the King of Israel) and/or as the Messiah, in other words human views of Jesus. Only in John is the "mystery" of Jesus' true nature more clearly revealed to the Apostles.

Now, there are strong indications that John is written in response to the Gospel of Thomas, or at least to Thomist/Gnostic interpretations of Jesus. Three times in John is Thomas directly criticized; indeed, when Jesus appears to the disciples after the crucifixion, in John, and only in John, is Thomas excluded from the event; Jesus appears to him later in the famous "doubting Thomas" scene. In other words, part of John's intent appears to have been to discredit the Apostolic authority of Thomas.

If you haven't read Pagels' books The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief, I'd recommend that you do. Pagels makes what is in my opinion a strong case from the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels, and the writings of the early Church Fathers to support the points I and others have made on this thread. And yes, I'll try to find a copy of Yamauchi to read. I strongly support researching alternative scholarly conclusions.

mike_decock

In doing research for this thread, I ran across this quote on Peter Kirby's page on John:

Early Christian Writings

-Mike...

Mageth

Excellent. BTW, Pagels discusses the relationship and contrast between the Gospels of Thomas and John at length in her new book, Beyond Belief.