It is true that there are certain folks who have a special interest in the "Gnostic gospels" who believe that the viewpoint they express is not THE viewpoint of the 'early church,' but expresses a view that WAS found in the early church. I do not believe many in this camp who have any real knowledge of the documents in involved would argue that writings like the "Gospel of Thomas" (one of the earliest, it seems) or the "Gospel of Judas" (clearly much later) preceded the canonical gospels, though they may now believe that some core Gnostic IDEAS were very early. (Note, saying the basic ideas are OLD, even older than what is found in the canonical gospels is NOT the same as saying that the ideas are originally Christian!).
At any rate, there are a handful of historical issues that people are very confused about that ought to be cleared up to understand what the issues ARE.
1) the famous "Gnostic gospels" that we've heard a lot about in the past generation are from Nag Hammadi. They are NOT the same as the Dead Sea Scrolls -- Nag Hammadi is a different location, represents a different group and is MUCH later. Dead Sea Scrolls are basically from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD... and are the writings of a PRE-Christian JEWISH community. So while these documents include many copies of OT books - in Hebrew- there are NO 'gospels' among them.
2) "Gnostic gospels" is a recently invented term which can be quite misleading, because these writings are hardly at all like the canonical gospels. The gospels in the NT are focused on telling the STORY of Jesus' life, with special focus on the last week ('passion'/crucifixion) and resurrection. The Gnostic writings are presented NOT as stories, but as special revelations by Jesus of the 'hidden (spiritual) knowledge' (or "gnosis) communicated by him secretly to one specially chosen person (Thomas, Judas, etc). In fact, a major POINT of Gnosticism is the idea that the "real" revelation is actually HIDDEN from most/ordinary people, and offered only to a special, spiritual elite.
3) If you accept that Jesus was a JEW and/or that the earliest Christians were Jewish, there is a major problem with thinking of Gnosticism as the (even as an) 'original form'. CENTRAL to Gnosticism is a very NEGATIVE view of the physical world. For this reason, Gnostics tended to minimize or even deny the idea that Jesus was a true flesh-and-blood man (that is, the 'orthodox' teaching of the Incarnation), as well as the declaration that this Jesus had died and been raised (physically!!) to life (another central Christian teaching). The Gnostic view is akin to that of Eastern religions and certain Greek thought in which the material world is by its very nature defective, even sinful, and the great goal is to ESCAPE from it into the real 'spiritual' word. This view has no use for a founder, or even Savior, with a risen, physical body.
BUT, on the other hand, a HIGH view of the material world, including the human body, and the hope of a PHYSICAL resurrection is very consistent with Hebrew/Jewish views out of which the earliest forms of Christianity have generally been understood to have grown.
This is NOT to say that a Gnostic type of Christianity may not have begun to develop very early in Christian history, so that such teachings MAY have been found very early. But it DOES undermine the notion some now seem to have that 'orthodoxy', with its Hebraic/Jewish view of the material world, is somehow a later add-on.
4) In fact, there ARE reflections of something like "Gnostic" thought in the New Testament -- not as something taught by the writers, but rather as a heresy to be corrected. This is seen in some of the letters of Paul --above all in the letter to the Colossians-- and in the first letter of John. We can't tell every detail or variation (the writers weren't trying to write textbooks about views they rejected!), but there are clear "Gnostic" elements -- including the idea of a "special wisdom" somehow BEYOND what was found in the 'simple' message of Christ, and the rejection of the teaching that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh". Note that the teaching Paul and John are responding need not be fully developed "Gnosticism" as a movement. They seem more like trends or ways of thinking that eventually found a more developed expression in Gnosticism.
Note that whatever you think the date of some NT books might be, the letter to the Colossians --in which we find a response to one of the CLEAREST NT expressions of '(incipient) Gnosticism'-- is EARLY.
5) It's interesting, even sadly humorous, that some moderns think of Gnosticism as more appealing. For some this is because they are already attracted to Eastern religions, which share key elements. For many, though, I'm afraid it's because they have been given a FALSE idea of what Gnosticism teaches.... not helped by the misrepresentations of folks like Dan Brown.
But in fact, Gnosticism had a very LOW view of women, a very low view of the PHYSICAL world (as seen above), and was extremely ELITIST, boasting of a 'hidden' knowledge that most folks were too simple and common to be able to grasp. The version represented in the NT, on the other hand, is openly offered to ALL, and 'boasts' that it does NOT distinguish -- ALL who believe have the same status and privileges ('there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free' [Galatians 3 - ALSO in the midst of a response to an elitist teaching, this time based more on law-keeping]). Note: there have indeed been OTHER elitist trends in the history of Christianity, sometimes seen in 'monastic orders' vs. 'common Christians' or 'clergy vs. laity', but what we have in view here is the viewpoint explicitly taught in the WRITINGS of the New Testament vs. the Gnostic writings. It is the LATTER that are esoteric and elitist.
6) More basically. The central ideas of "Gnosticism" -- anti-physical, special spiritual enlightenment as 'salvation' -- may well pre-date NT Christianity. But that is because they are ideas from OUTSIDE Christianity. At root, in fact, the Christ (certainly the man Jesus of Nazareth) is not terribly critical to Gnosticism in general. He is at most someone who tells the truth; it could as well have been told by another.
The basic understanding of orthodox Christianity --which stands or falls with the Person of Jesus Christ.. his Incarnation, death and resurrection-- is that Gnosticism is a different religion that developed a 'Christian' variation by taking certain elements of the Christian story of Jesus.
Finally, beware of assuming that someone is reliable BECAUSE they are outside the church structure, or that someone is NOT "reputable" because they are an orthodox Christian leader!! There are plenty of scholars who personally find elements of Gnosticism attractive (Pagels, for one) or have some personal reasons (as opposed to scholarly objections) that may bias them against orthodoxy, every bit as much as a Christian leader may be biased. (And there is some attraction in 'knocking down traditions'.) So beware of the dangers of "bias" on ALL sides, but do not automatically dismiss arguments on that grounds alone.
2007-06-05 06:48:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by bruhaha 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
the most reputable scholars who deal with the first centuries of the church ARE afiliated with churches...hence the fact it is why they started studying it in the first place.
silly.
gnosticism was the first theological threat to orthodoxy.
the n.t. epistles deal with gnostic emergence by repudiating the idea that there are secret revelations and that there are teachers of false doctrines.
the fact that the writers denounce gnostic thought precludes the possibility that 1.gnostic belief was acceptable 2. gnosticism was a valid teaching.
2007-06-03 02:35:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they did not meet the time line and other criteria for the Bible gospels. 1. There is no reliable proof that the gospel of Mary Magdalene was really written by her 2. Well, he might have 'favorited' somehow her for her being a female and following Him even though it was not common for women to be able to do that, but God loves all equally. 3. Jealousy did not make the Gnostic gospels any more reliable 4. Jesus was sinless, Jesus did not have any lovers and He never had sex, never. 5. No, Judas had his free will. Jesus just knew how he was going to use it. Jesus was right. 6. Yes, Christianity is a personal relationship with God, not a religion. However, God made us for the community and that is why church has a big role in our personal relationship with God. We are the body of Christ. Church is the body of Christ. All of us need to function properly for that body to perform right, meaning also showing up for the worship. The four gospels are protected by God. They support the Scripture. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament and promised the NT.
2016-05-20 00:21:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yea it was alive and well well before the New Testament. Just look at the Deed Sea Scrolls and the Teacher of Righteousness and the condemnation of the Wicked Priest.
The Gnostic's were outlawed by St Peter's ministry in about 300 AD as heathens or atheists. The main reason is that they the Gnostic's did not believe in the reincarnation theme of Jesus Christ.
2007-06-03 02:30:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Drop short and duck 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some apocryphal gospels do, some don't. Some fragments are very early, some are very late.
There is definite evidence that gnosticism predated Christianity, and that some apocryphal gospels are gnostic texts given a Christian gloss, while some are Christian texts influenced by gnostic thought.
Even in the canonical Gospels, you could hardly get a more gnostic line than Mark 4:34.
"He did not speak to them [the crowds] without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything."
The site below is good for dates and details of various texts.
2007-06-03 02:29:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pedestal 42 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not really sure what the apocryphal gospels are, but just a few weeks ago I was reading from a website about the Gospel of Matthew and that it is strongly believed that Matthew was actually keeping a journal of the entire time he was with Jesus and the other apostles, and that his gospel is the most authentic gospel in existence. This would only make sense as Matthew was a record keeper of sorts and keeping a running journal of his entire time in Christ's presence would only be in keeping with that practice. Jews love to write.
2007-06-03 02:26:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by RIFF 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
The so-called 'Synoptic Gospels' were generally held to have been written in the second half of the first century ad/ce, although there is still considerable debate on this. There now seems to be general scholastic consensus that all four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were largely copied from one source document, designated 'Q'. Whether they were actually written by the people who knew Yashua bin Yusef is doubtful, and the case of Luke most certainly not.
The identity of 'St. John the Divine' writer of the Apocalypse is unclear, that he was exiled to Patmos by the emperor Domitian in 95 ad/ce for unspecified reasons is accepted as true. The Acts of John,a 5th-century work supposedly by the apostle's scribe, contains many legends about his time on Patmos. None of which gets us very much closer to the 'truth'.
What we do know is that the collection of works which now comprise the 'Christian' bible didn't start until the 4th century ad/ce, and as such it hardly likely to be an authoritative set of historically accurate documents. The texts were carefully selected to do exactly what they have done for almost two thousand years, keep people ignorant and in subjection to secular 'authority', in whatever form that has taken over the centuries. The arrival of Gutenburg's press was the beginning of the slow decline of that authority, there was never meant to be general literacy, and people were never meant to be able to read the bible for themselves, in all it's revolting entirety. It was a base ( in both senses of the word ) document for preachings designed to frighten and subject.
The 'apocryphal' or hidden 'gospels' didn't start to re-emerge into the public sector, thanks to the vigilance of Rome, and by the way, I would hazard a guess that all of these texts have copies which have been in the possession of the Vatican since the very beginning of the 'Christian' era, until the middle of the 20th century, thanks to the finds at Nag Hammadi, in Egypt, and Qumran in Israel/Palestine.
Finally, the last part of your question, yes, it is clearly established that, even after 50 years of obfustication by the minions of Rome, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the stored documents of the Essene settlements of both Qumran and Jerusalem, are clearly pre-dating in part the entire period of the first 70 years of the ad/ce era, the work of the Essenes and their equivalent fellow-sects, stretches from almost 200 years earlier until the destruction of the temple in 70 ad, the final blow being the seige and eventual mass suicide of the Zealot community at Masada.
Gnosticism was, I believe, the re-emergence of those sects in Egypt, after the survivors re-grouped towards the end of the first century ad/ce. The Nag Hammadi texts are one precious collection of early documents that survived later attempts by 'Christian' authorities to eliminate all opposition to the official dogma of Rome, as initiated by the Council of Nicea in 327 ad/ce. At that conference the principle points of deliberation were the question of Yashua's 'divinity' or otherwise. The Alexandrean school being unshakeably against such a bizarre idea, a clear Roman invention. The Roman's made 'Gods' of their own emperors, in fact they made 'Gods' of their emporer's horses, if they thought they could get away with it !
Such an idea would have been an abomination to an 'Essene' such as Yashua, or his brother Y'acov, James the Just, the acknowledged first 'Bishop' of the Jerusalem Church, the forerunner of the later Paulian subversion which, even later, became the Roman Catholic Church.
So, yes, Gnosticism was around first, and will, most likely survive the eventual, and inevitable, collapse of the Roman Church.
2007-06-03 02:46:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by cosmicvoyager 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
so why is it more than 60pages if the earh is only 6000yrs old
2007-06-03 02:23:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋