Links to elsewhere on
this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html
For the home page, click here:
/index.html
Does
Islam cause terrorism? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Moral Equivalency Applied
Islamic History 0409.htm
Is
the Bible God’s Word? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Is the Bible the Word of
God.htm
Why does God Allow
Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil
0908.htm
Is
Christian teaching from ancient paganism? /Bookhtml/Paganism influence issue article
Journal 013003.htm
Which is right?: Judaism or Christianity? /Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 1.htm
/Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 2.htm
Should God’s existence be
proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be
Proven Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does the Bible teach blind
faith? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel of John Theory of
Knowledge.htm
WAS GNOSTICISM THE SOURCE OF
FIRST-CENTURY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?
Did This Ancient Roman Religious
Movement Influence the New Testament?[1]
By Eric V. Snow
The Talmudic
scholar Hyam Maccoby strongly emphasizes the influence that the ancient Hellenistic
religious/philosophical movement called Gnosticism supposedly had on early
Christianity. Many of his arguments are
like those made by higher critics in general, not just some Jews, against
Christianity’s truth are based upon the claim that first-century Christian
doctrine came directly from Gnosticism.
By stressing the similarities and ignoring or discounting the
differences, Maccoby portrays Paul as a moderate Gnostic (such as in his view
of God and Satan) who also adopted ideas from the mystery cults.[i]
Naturally
enough, Maccoby here merely follows in the footsteps of such scholars as
Bousset, Reitzenstein, and Bultmann in seeing Christianity as having doctrinal
ideas derived from Gnosticism. But what
exactly is Gnosticism? The definitional
issue is foundational to determining whether Gnosticism existed before
Christianity. A broad definition could
allow the label of "Gnosticism" to fit such a pre-Christian
philosophical movement as Platonism, which upheld a strong spirit-matter
dualism. But a narrow definition makes
it nearly impossible to prove "Gnosticism" emerged before
Christianity. And if Gnosticism didn’t
exist before Christianity, the former couldn't have determined the latter's
theological content for chronological reasons alone.
JUST WHAT IS GNOSTICISM?
But what is
Gnosticism, first of all?
Unfortunately, this term for an ancient philosophical/religious
system/movement in the Mediterranean basin has been hard to define, in part
because the label covers a great variety of beliefs. Perhaps most importantly, Gnostics claimed to have an esoteric
secret knowledge that the non-initiated didn’t have. They also upheld dualism: They claimed matter is evil but spirit is
good. The God of the Old Testament is
called stupid and evil, a god of darkness, because he created the material
world (i.e., the Platonic Demiurge).
But the god of the New Testament is good, a god of light. Gnosticism also taught that a series of
intercessors (not just One, i.e., Jesus) between God and man exist, such as
angels, demons, or other celestial beings, who all emanated from God. Jesus (in particular) was believed to be one
of the higher intermediary beings who descended to earth in order to help
release the divine spark imprisoned in every man and woman. Each human soul fell from the highest
heavenly sphere into the material world, which caused it to be imprisoned in a
material body. All these souls, divine
sparks, once were part of a Primal Man.
The demons tore Him apart, and then made the world out of Him. These demons (or powers of darkness)
carefully imprisoned the divine sparks, the souls, in human bodies, in order to
insure the material world doesn't revert back to its original chaos. The basic purpose of gnosis (special
knowledge) is to free the soul from the body.
A savior sent to earth by the true God imparts gnosis to men and women
in order to redeem them. The special knowledge tells them about their former
state, when living in the heavenly world, and how to return to it. What makes "Gnosticism" hard to
define tightly, as well as difficult to trace its origins, was the Gnostics’
practice of borrowing eclectically the ideas of others, resulting in a new
synthesis.[ii]
PROBLEMS WITH MACCOBY'S DEFINITION OF GNOSTICISM
Maccoby makes
"acosmism," i.e., the belief that matter or the material world is
evil, central to his definition. He
omits both a Savior and the mystical ascent/descent motif from his definition,
but emphasizes metaphysical dualism (i.e., the belief that only two fundamental
kinds of substances exist in the universe, such as matter and spirit). Gonzalez would disagree, maintaining that a
messenger, who brings the knowledge required to liberate humanity from bondage
to the material world, “is characteristic [to] all Gnostic systems.” By using this definition, Maccoby lays the
foundation for his argument that a gentile response to Judaism was the origin
of Gnosticism, instead of its being a Christian heresy that originated from the
rejection of the true Gospel.[iii]
By contrast, both Judaism and
Christianity teach a dualism in which the material world is the intentional and
good creation of the one almighty, transcendent God. As Wilson observes when commenting on attempts to trace Gnosticism's
origins back to Persia, and to Manicheism and Zoroastrianism: "There are different kinds of dualism,
and a dualistic system is not for that reason necessarily Gnostic."[iv] Nowhere in the New Testament, unlike the
case in Gnostic teaching, is the God of the Old Testament regarded as evil, whether
it is for creating the material world or for any other reason. No Gnostic could
possibly teach that the Savior bringing the Gnosis (knowledge) needed to save
humanity from the material world's corruption was at fault for creating that
same material world to begin with (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:9 (NKJV); Rev.
3:14; Heb. 1:2, 8, 10)!
Furthermore,
the philosophy of Platonism as well as the mystery religion of Orphism could
easily be labeled "Gnosticism" by Maccoby's "Savior-less"
definition. The Greek philosopher Plato
(c. 428-348 b.c.) advocated a number of ideas that resembled much of later
Gnostic teaching. Hengel draws a sharp
distinction between the common ancient (and modern!) belief in the transmigration
of human immortal souls and their return to earth in various physical bodies,
and Christianity’s insistence on “a unique, once-for-all happening, which is
the consummation of history.”[v] A classicist could argue that Gnosticism's
origins lay in Platonism and neo-Platonism!
It all depends on what elements of Gnostic thinking someone cares to
perceive selectively, isolate, and emphasize to the exclusion of others.
Platonism was
much like Gnosticism (or many Gnostics) since it taught physical pleasures were
evil and deceitful, advocated an ascetic lifestyle, exalted the pursuit and
possession of knowledge of the unseen divine spiritual realities in order to
obtain release from the transmigration/rebirth cycle, saw knowledge (or its
pursuit) as a means of securing spiritual union with the divine, asserted the
human race was indirectly created, and indulged in numerological
speculations. Since the second-century
A.D. Neo-Platonic school of Plotinus taught and/or expanded upon these ideas,
then-contemporary Hellenistic philosophy often upheld beliefs much like those
of the developed Gnostic systems of the same century. So then, do these similarities "prove" Gnosticism
originated in Platonism and neo-Platonism?
Since Maccoby's "Savior-less" definition of
"Gnosticism" could catch Platonism philosophy in its net, its
excessive generality requires its rejection.[vi]
DOES GNOSTICISM SUCCESSFULLY JUMP THE CHRONOLOGICAL HURDLE?
Attempts to
derive early Christian belief from Gnosticism have to leap the same chronological
hurdle that have tripped up similar efforts to trace the influence of the pagan
mystery religions upon the New Testament.
Now Maccoby confidently asserts: "Recent discoveries have shown
that, contrary to what was previously argued, Gnosticism existed before
Christianity, though it later took Christian forms." But unless documents systematically
expressing Gnostic beliefs can be shown to have been written originally before
c. A.D. 100, Gnosticism can’t be proven to have emerged independently before
Christianity did, let alone that its teachings heavily influenced the primitive
church.
Consider now
the dates of writings that Maccoby himself uses when building his case. He cites The Second Treatise of the Great
Seth, “a second-century Christian-Gnostic document, but it may serve as a
starting-off point for discussion of earlier Gnostic attitudes too." How can a "Christian Gnostic"
document written decades after all or most of the New Testament was ultimately
prove anything about Christian beliefs originating in Gnosticism? Likewise, for the Testimony of Truth,
he says its redaction date "is probably third century," and elsewhere
describes it as “a Christian Gnostic text of the second or third century.” He confesses The Apocryphon of John is
"a Christian-Gnostic work of the second century." Of course, why must Gnosticism's origins
lay in a reaction by outside gentiles, including lapsed or prospective
converts, against Judaism in general, as Maccoby believes? Why couldn't it be in hostile gentiles
responding to Christianity's teachings?
Or could it lay in gentiles who were superficially or temporarily
Christian, but who soon rejected the New Testament's authority, like Simon the
Sorcerer (Acts 8:9-24), who early Catholic Church writers blamed for beginning
the Gnostic heresy? Since Christianity
added the New Testament to the Old Testament as part of the inspired word of
God, the early Gnostics could well have responded to Genesis as the church
presented it to them, rather than the synagogue. Since many a skeptic has attacked Christianity (not so much
Judaism) in recent centuries by blaspheming the one true God of the Old
Testament as a vengeful, warlike, bloodthirsty God, could not have a
similar process occurred in antiquity?
The origins of Gnosticism may lay in Gentiles, having been influenced by
Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, partially reacting against yet also accepting some
of Christianity. Finally, Maccoby
himself concedes that Gnosticism lacked a long independent existence before
Christianity's birth, conceding it may have arisen no earlier than the first
century b.c., and perhaps only in the first century A.D.[vii]
In addition, note that mere preexistence isn't sufficient to prove
causation. This is the old logical
fallacy of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, "After this, therefore
because of this." Further steps in
reasoning and evidence, such as sharing common causal agents, are necessary to
eliminate or reduce the possibility of this logical fallacy.
SKEPTICISM ABOUT PRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM FOR CHRONOLOGICAL
REASONS
All of the standard primary sources cited as evidence
for a pre-Christian Gnosticism are reliably known to have been originally
written after the first century A.D. As
C. H. Dodd explains, “no Gnostic document known to us . . . can with any show
probability be dated . . . before the period of the New Testament.” Petrement's dogmatic prediction has yet to
be falsified: "The sole decisive
proof, the discovery of a pagan Gnosticism in texts anterior to Christianity,
has always been lacking and will always be lacking." Likewise, a critical methodological error of
many searching for proof of a pre-Christian Gnosticism is to assume that any
document that appears to present a non-Christian Gnosticism must have been
written during or before the first century A.D., an error that both Nash and
Drijvers warn against. Maccoby commits
a variation of this error by assuming that if Gnosticism arose as a result of a
Gentile reaction against Judaism, therefore, it must predate Christianity.[viii] But merely because paganism’s or Judaism’s
antiquity far exceeds Christianity's proves nothing by itself. Clearly, the emperor ("pre-Christian
Gnosticism") has no clothes! Just
as chronology bars drawing parallels between the pagan mystery religions and
Christianity, chronology even more securely wipes out all attempts to derive
Christianity from Gnosticism.
DID PAUL AND THE GNOSTICS USE THE SAME WORDS WITH THE SAME
MEANINGS?
One trap
Maccoby and others arguing Christian doctrines originated in Gnosticism have
fallen into comes from concluding that if the Gnostics and the New Testament
used the same motifs or words, such as logos, they must have had the
same meanings. For example, Maccoby
asserts that when Paul said the Galatians "were held in bondage under the
elemental things of the world" (Gal. 4:3) that "this is pure Gnostic
language" because Paul in this passage supposedly meant "obedience to
the Torah [is] a worship of inferior powers." Importantly, the immediate context rules this meaning out, since
Paul pointedly reminds the Galatians of their pagan background when he uses stoicheia
again (Gal. 4:8-10). Wilson warns
against reading back into first century texts the connotations and associations
that the same terminology had in the second century. Furthermore, the
similarities in vocabulary could actually be the result of the second-century
Gnostics taking the New Testament, including Paul’s Letters, as their point of
departure, which the already raised issue of chronology addresses.[ix]
IS THE GOSPEL OF JOHN GNOSTIC AND/OR UNJEWISH IN ITS
THOUGHT?
Maccoby
dismisses the Fourth Gospel as "the latest and least authentic of the
Gospels." Conspicuously, he draws
no specific comparisons between John and Hellenistic philosophy or religion in
order to bolster his claims. John,
supposedly the New Testament writer that Gnosticism influenced the most, spends
considerable time attacking, directly or indirectly, certain Gnostic ideas (cf.
John 1:14; I John 1:1). In particular,
Docetism, the teaching that Jesus Christ did not have a body of flesh and blood
while He was on earth, is clearly denied (John 1:14; I John 1:1) and strongly
attacked elsewhere (II John 7; I John 4:2-3).
The Dead Sea Scroll discoveries of (most likely) the Jewish Essene
sect's writings show ideas like John's appeared in first-century Judaism, as
Ladd notes. Albright notes the similarities that appear between the Gospel of
John and the Qumran sect’s Scroll of Discipline. Such terms as "spirit of truth," "the sons of
light," "the light of life," and "in ways of darkness they
continue to walk," resemble those found in the Fourth Gospel (see John
14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 12:36; 8:12.[x]
Because
Pharisaical Judaism became the rabbinical Judaism of succeeding centuries,
dissident interpretations of Judaism promoted by other groups, such as the
Essenes (who presumably made up the members of the Qumran sect) and the
Sadducees, were ignored or misrepresented in the records that survived, all
written by the party that won. The lack
of Jewish flavoring Maccoby detects in John results from his comparing it with
what the Pharisees and their spiritual descendents wrote as found in the two
Talmuds, the Mishnah, and various Midrashim.
By ignoring other forms of Judaism when making comparisons between
Christianity and Judaism, he’s actually assuming what he wishes to prove.
WAS PAUL A MODERATE GNOSTIC?
Maccoby
suggests "it may be useful to consider Paul's views as a kind of moderate
Gnosticism." In order to paint
Paul as a (moderate) Gnostic, Maccoby plays up any possible similarities
between Paul's thought and Gnosticism while discounting any contrary evidence
of parallels between Paul's beliefs and Judaism. For example, Maccoby interprets Paul's metaphor about Satan being
"the god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4) all too literally, implying
Paul here had a near miss with polytheism.
But in I Cor. 8:5-6, Paul reveals that any evil spirit beings who would
like to be called "God" aren't really so. Because of what Paul says about Satan and the demons in such
passages as Eph. 2:2, Maccoby claims "the Pauline view of Satan went far
beyond that of the Jewish dualistic writings." But is this yet another exaggeration falling
from Maccoby’s pen? Consider the
following remarkable extract from the Qumran Community Rule (IQS 3:19-23): “All the children of falsehood are ruled by
the Angel of Darkness [Beliar, i.e., Satan] and walk in the ways of
darkness.” How does this differ from
the Christian portrayal of Satan as an evil angel who tempts men to sin (Matt.
4:3; I Thess. 3:5) and deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9)? According to D.E. Aune, the later
post-Biblical Jewish writings mention the fallen angels time and time again,
such as in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.[xi] No radical discontinuity emerges between
Paul’s thought and the intertestamental literature in their portrayal of Satan,
unlike what Maccoby believes.
CHRISTIANITY'S DEPENDENCE ON GNOSTICISM REMAINS UNPROVEN
For all the learned
tomes alleging primitive Christianity's dependence on a pre-existing Gnostic
movement's teachings, little real proof of the latter's existence has ever been
produced. Anti-chronological leaps and
linguistic manipulations of similar terms are necessary to prop up the claims
of Christianity’s receiving its doctrinal content from Gnosticism. Similarly, all Jewish precedents for Paul's
or John's beliefs are either ignored or discounted, such as for Satan's great
and evil influence on humanity or a dualistic view of humanity's moral
condition as documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the intertestamental
pseudepigrapha. As always, Maccoby's
method consists of maximizing superficial similarities between Christianity and
Gnosticism (here) or some other Hellenistic religious movement by ignoring or
minimizing the actual differences between the two, while simultaneously
producing sharp dissimilarities between Judaism and Christianity by denying or
minimizing the precedents for the latter's doctrines as found in the
former. Ultimately, there's no
"there" there in the attempts of the defenders of Judaism to show a
preexisting Gnosticism supplied early Christianity with its central doctrines.
[ii]Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion,
192-93; Nash, Gospel and the Greeks, 39-40, 213-24; see also Wilson, Gnosis
and the New Testament, 4-6.
[vi]Plato, The Collected Dialogs of Plato, eds.
Hamilton and Cairns, trans. B. Jowett, pp. 1162, 1170-1; 29a, 29e-30a;
42d-e; cf. 41a-42a. See also Republic, p. 762; 530a; Timaeus,
pp. 1165-6, 1171-2, 1180-1; 35b-36b, 43b-e, 54c-55e.
[viii]C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel,
98; S. Petrement and H.J.W. Drijvers as quoted by Yamauchi, Pre-Christian
Gnosticism, 184; Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, 252; Maccoby, Paul
and Hellenism, 12, see also 33.
[ix]Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism, 46; the listed
possible meanings of stoicheia are in Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich,
768-69; Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament, 23; see also 143.
[x]For Maccoby’s view of John, see The Mythmaker, 44,
48; George Aldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 219-20; See
generally W.F. Albright, "Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel
of St John," in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology,
eds. Davies and Daube, 154-55, 167-70.
[xi]My emphasis, Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism, 39-40;
Bromiley, gen. ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4:341-42,
“Satan,” by D.P. Fuller, 1:922, “Demonology,” by D.E. Aune.
Click here to access essays that defend Christianity: /apologetics.html
Click here to access essays that explain Christian
teachings: /doctrinal.html
Click here to access notes for sermonettes: /sermonettes.html
Does
Islam cause terrorism? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Moral Equivalency Applied
Islamic History 0409.htm
Is
the Bible God’s Word? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Is the Bible the Word of
God.htm
Why does God Allow
Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil
0908.htm
Is
Christian teaching from ancient paganism? /Bookhtml/Paganism influence issue article
Journal 013003.htm
Which is right?: Judaism or Christianity? /Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 1.htm
/Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 2.htm
Should God’s existence be
proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be
Proven Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does
the Bible teach blind faith? Click
here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel of John Theory of
Knowledge.htm
Links to elsewhere on
this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html
For the home page, click here:
/index.html