Posts
I ask because some religion scholars want to do away with the term altogether. “Does Gnosticism even exist?” they ask. “Is the term imprecise—or even useless?”
One of those scholars is Karen L. King, Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Harvard Divinity School, who has just published The Secret Revelation of John, based on an ancient document called Apocryphon Johannis. A papyrus copy was first discovered in 1896, but three more turned up at Nag Hammadi in 1945 along with the other so-called Gnostic Gospels. It was not translated into English until 1995, however.
Modern Christians would recognize some of its tenets immediately, as it describes a perfect and transcendent God who loves us deeply and will save us from evil.
But the storyline is strange indeed. The 60-page narrative opens with John leaving the temple downhearted after a Pharisee taunts him that his god has abandoned him. John goes to a mountainous area to think things over when Christ appears to him and explains all.
John hears that a number of divine beings have emanated from the Father, including Pronoia-Barbelo, the mother. From her came Christ, the self-generated saviour, and from him came four divine lights, and from them, eternal aeons.
One of the aeons was Sophia, who wished to produce a likeness of herself, but did not ask the Father's permission. As a result, she produced an evil lion-faced serpent with eyes of fire. This creature is the creator god of Genesis, and is arrogant and ignorant.
Doesn’t sound much like anything in the Bible. Yet Dr King calls it Christian.
"It is the first piece of literature we have that puts together an entirely comprehensive Christian world view."
Apparently, she has a different understanding of “Christian” than does the church.
[F]or Ms. King, the Biblical accuracy of the document is not the point.
. . .
"Just the fact that there are these alternative voices allows people to understand the formation of Christianity as a process."
. . .
She said that, in the early days of Christianity, "there was a lot of diversity but it was not a problem until somebody decided they were going to be in charge. Unity meant uniformity."
Unfortunately, she doesn’t name the “somebody”. I’d like to know who that was. As for “understanding the formation of Christianity as a process”, there is no evidence that any early church leader gave this or other documents in that vein any credence at all, ever. So, how can knowing about the Apocryphon contribute to such understanding?
And, actually, pace Dr King, church leaders from the very beginning regarded theological views diverging from apostolic teachings as a very big “problem” as soon as they became known. In the New Testament letters, we read that St Paul told the Galatians they were “deserting” Christ by following alternative teachings, which he called “a different gospel” and a “distortion of the gospel of Christ”. As for anyone teaching such things, he said, “let him be accursed”. Apparently, Paul didn’t tolerate much “diversity”. (Could he be the rascal who “decided” he was “in charge”?)
Also, in his first letter, St John (the real one, not the fellow who wrote the Apocryphon) cautions his readers: “[D]o not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
Heresy was undeniably a live issue before even the first generation of Christians had passed on. The notion that the early church seriously entertained diverse theological opinion on crucial issues of the faith, e.g., Christ’s atoning death and his bodily resurrection, is a fantasy based on speculation and wishful thinking, not concrete historical evidence. Apostolic doctrine, preserved in the New Testament, settled those issues decisively. Nevertheless, Dr King wants to have another go-round on the fundamentals of the faith, almost 2000 years later.
She also claims to see significant similarities between the Gnostics and their opponents in the church.
Ms. King observes that anti-Gnostic polemicists "took their rivals so seriously and denounced them so emphatically precisely because their views were in many respects so similar to the polemicists' own."
In an interview, Ms. King expands on her theory. "When you map out the similarities rather than the differences between the two sides — or what Irenaeus says are the differences — the territory of similarity is huge," she says. "Both work with this notion of humanity created in the image and likeness of God — and the need for a restoration of that. They both see Christ as the revealer figure, with the body as the place where the struggle takes place.
She’s on to something important here, but I don’t think it leads where she seems to want it to. She seems to want to conclude that Gnostics and their opponents should have focused on their many similarities, overlooked their differences, and accepted each other in the same religious body.
But, in fact, Dr King’s observation is important precisely because the differences are of the essence. Yes, Gnostic and orthodox both saw the need for restoration of fallen man, but the means of restoration were mutually contradictory. Gnosticism said that salvation comes from knowledge of Christ’s secret teachings; once one became skilled at those by dint of study under your master, prayer, meditation, and other theological heavy lifting, you will be saved. Christians said that there’s nothing anyone can do to merit salvation; it can only be received as a gift from God.
Likewise, Christ is indeed a revealer figure, but what exactly does he reveal? For the Gnostics, he reveals knowledge one needs to acquire for redemption. For Christians, on the other hand, he reveals God’s will for his people–and yet he does far more than that. He himself performs the work of redemption that no one could perform for him- or herself. His perfect obedience to the point of death, even death on a cross, has made atonement for the sin of the world and thus imparts salvation to all who believe. That is at the root of what Christianity embraces, and Gnosticism rejects.
Given that, what is to be gained from pretending that Apocryphon Johannis and other Gnostic texts are in some sense Christian? Far from illuminating the development of early Christianity, that will only muddy the waters and hinder true understanding.
Ottawa Citizen link via Bourque.
