Scholars Home | Sophomore Projects
The Religious Struggle for a True Christianity
in the Second Century
by Matthew King '03
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1: Jesus: The Debate Surrounding His Death and Resurrection
Chapter 2: The Origins of Mankind and the Nature of God
Chapter 3: Succession: A Question of Authority
Conclusion
Notes
Introduction
The history of Christianity, and for that matter any religion, lies in writing. The origins of all major religious groups in the world today are so distant that there is no other means by which to explore them. Christianity is no different. The writers of centuries ago are our only source for information on the formation and continuation of Christianity up to the present. Without the preserved texts of these writers, the ancient history we hold so dear is lost. The writings about the general beliefs of different groups leave clues at what life was like for them. In this essay, I shall look at several writings from the time of early Christianity to see if the rhetoric used by the authors can tell us something about what was at stake, politically, for the church leaders.
Ancient Christianity, with its many early sects and its later rise to world prominence, is quite possibly one of the most interesting histories to inspect. Recently, a single man, through his discovery of an unprecedented collection of ancient texts, has unknowingly given us a second chance to look at the beginnings of Christianity. The discoveries at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, are the most important discoveries in the realm of theology to date.
Every year in December Muhammad Ali al-Samman, a peasant farmer of the Nag Hammadi region of Upper Egypt, went to the Jabal to dig for a special soil used to fertilize his crops.1 The year of 1945 added an interesting twist to his normal routine. As he tells the story, his brother, Khalifah Ali, and he were digging for the special soil when he unearthed a massive meter-high red earthenware jar, which was still sealed. Muhammad was at first hesitant to open the jar for fear of a spirit, or jinn, that might live inside, but when the thoughts of the gold the jar possibly contained overtook him, he smashed the jar with his mattock. Muhammad was at first disappointed with the contents, papyrus fragments, but he unregrettingly secured them in his tunic, unhobbled his camel, and returned home to Al-Qasr. There the books were left on the straw pile next to the fireplace of his home, where his mother used many of the pages to kindle the fire. Here they stayed for several weeks until Muhammad Ali, fearing the loss of the books in the investigation of his recent past, gave several of them to a Coptic priest named al-Qummus Basiliyus Abd al-Masih.
Muhammad Ali's household had been in mourning for half of the preceding year as he had lost his father. Vowing revenge, he and his brother found the murderer after being tipped off by their neighbor. James M. Robinson offers a graphic account of what followed: "The family fell upon their victim, hacked off his limbs bit by bit, ripped out his heart, and devoured it among them, as the ultimate act of blood revenge."2 With the ensuing investigation and daily searching of his home, Muhammadi Ali quickly dispersed the texts. The few he gave to the Coptic priest began the discovery of the Nag Hammadi text for the world of Biblical scholars.
The story continues; the texts flowed through many hands for many reasons, eventually ending up in Cairo in the hands of the Department of Antiquities, which passed them onto the Coptic Museum, where they were deposited on the date of 4 October 1946.3 Interestingly enough, the rest of the texts were bartered for or purchased by illiterate Muslim neighbors and several other interesting characters from Muhammad Ali's mother because she considered them worthless and bad luck. Most of the texts were sold on the black market but remained in Egypt, where the government eventually confiscated them all. However, several of the texts from the thirteenth codex were smuggled into America and then purchased by the Jung Foundation in Zurich, under the urging of Professor Gilles Quispel, historian of religion at Utrecht, in the Netherlands. He studied the codex, and was amazed when he read: "These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and which the twin Judas Thomas, wrote down."4 Comparing these to the notes of fellow scholars, H.-C. Puech and Jean Doresse, Quispel identified this line of text as the beginning of a Greek Gospel of Thomas discovered in the 1890's.5
The unveiling of important papyrus fragments sparked the beginning of the struggle for publishing rights of translations of the some 52 texts that were discovered.6 The conflict was fed by both political discord and greed. When the value of these texts became clear antiquities dealers hid the texts from the government, hoping to sell them and get rich. Eventually the entire Nag Hammadi discovery was reunited at the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Egypt. However, even the collection of all the texts in one location left most of the academic world waiting to view the texts. The publishing rights to the various texts still had to be ironed out. The Museum curator, Dr. Pahor Labib, had to delegate who was going to obtain the rights of translation, but his actions consisted of little forward progress. With the delay UNESCO was coerced into finally intervening, forcing the Museum to release a photographic version of the thirteen codices by 1977. Nevertheless, the whole process meant many delays, so Professor James Robinson, director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, organized a team of international scholars to copy and translate most of the texts. That material was then circulated throughout the world to scholars readily waiting for their first look at the exciting discovery. The monopoly controlling the discovery was then officially broken and the rights of all were restored.7
Before the Nag Hammadi discoveries the so-called gnostics were for the most part known only through "church fathers". The church fathers were a group of male writers, exemplified by writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, who wrote much about and against these "heretics" that threatened the orthodox Church. The religious systems outlined in simplified form by the church fathers were all that were known of the heretics until the recent discoveries. Modern scholars, especially those of the 19th century, have been quite effective in their hypotheses and studies considering the limited sources of which they could draw from. However, the new abundance of sources has left us with more diversity than before, making generalization and consensus on a definition of gnosticism even more difficult. The diversity makes, as Elaine Pagels describes it, "what we call 'gnosticism' a widespread movement that derived its sources from various traditions."8 As more of the texts are read and interpreted, many different systems begin to appear, and with each the term "gnostic" broadens. One thing that must be understood is the term "gnostic" is not the term these groups of people used to describe themselves; it is the one given to them by modern scholars.
For our purposes we will not take into account all the texts from different groups of gnostics, and we will not consider all the church fathers who wrote against them. For the general purposes of our discussion we will only consider those church fathers writing in the second century A.D. and those "gnostic" texts included in their discussions.
To make the discussion of the second century time period easier, a brief history of the happenings must be presented. Rome was near the height of its empire and its Pagan religion was still the dominant religion in the second century A.D. Christianity had not yet been established as the national religion; in fact, this happened several hundred years later. For a while Christianity had been growing in membership; slowly younger members of aristocratic families were converting from their pagan families. The conversions left many families at odds with one another. The growing membership from all classes led the Roman authority to begin its fight back, and they began a system of persecution. Names of those suspected of following Christianity were all submitted, and those people were interrogated; most people gladly admitted to their faith and so began the long list of martyrs. These people were either crucified or were made gladiators for the gory pleasure of the public.
As we know, the pagans were only one side of the attack on the orthodox Christian tradition. The gnostics led another more notorious attack from inside the Christian core, recruiting members from the Christian faith. These gnostics claimed to be Christian and accused the orthodox church of teaching false knowledge. Each group claimed to have the true and real knowledge that would lead to salvation and eternal life. As outlined by the various church fathers, or Apologists, Christians and gnostics disagreed over five basic points: 1) the genesis, or creation of the material world, 2) the nature of Christ's body, 3) the nature of Christ's resurrection, 4) the nature of general resurrection, and 5) the true lineage, or succession from Christ that gave the authority to tell the "true" story. On these five points I will begin to examine the arguments of the Apologists Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, along with the writings from three gnostics and their groups, Basilides, Marion, and Valentinius. The rhetoric of these writers can be used to reveal in greater depth the political stakes behind the historical situations of these writers.
In the chapters following I will examine the five points of conflict between the gnostics and orthodox, and discuss the platform's importance politically for both groups was reflected in the writing styles and rhetoric choice for their arguments. We will see a passive style from the gnostics. They were characterized by a more intellectual interpretation of the historical events surrounding creation, the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, and his resurrection. They had a mystical quality to their explanations of these events. Their views allowed for one's own intellect to help a person form his interpretation of these inexplicable events. This cerebral aspect allowed for the diversity in the various sects that characterized the collective group known as the gnostics. The freedom conveyed by the gnostics is especially evident in their writing. They tend to have extremely complicated descriptions that appear to be the flow of an individual's thought process. The ambiguous nature, then, is the answer for the gnostics because it allows all to interpret the historical events to fit their individual religious needs.
The orthodox take on an entirely opposite characterization. The church fathers were very adamant about the true answers to the historical events surrounding creation, the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, and his resurrection. They based their authority on an apostolic succession from the flesh and blood Christ figure, who died a mere man and rose again from the dead as a mere man who contained the holy spirit. This fundamental foundation of faith for the orthodox characterized and authoritized all of the other orthodox arguments. Note, the gnostics derived a similar type of succession from a spiritual Christ figure that was never a human. The strictness in the orthodox interpretation appeared in the writings of the church fathers in the form of their writing style. They made clear concise arguments that were based on a literal scriptural interpretation. They repeatedly stated why the gnostics are wrong and why the orthodox contained the true tradition. One interesting feature of the church fathers' writings, especially those of Irenaeus, is that they take on a mocking tone when speaking about the gnostics, or "heretics". They continually bash the gnostics and their creativeness, showing that the gnostics were really a threat to the orthodox tradition, not merely a nuisance.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Chapter 1
Jesus: The Debate Surrounding His Death and Resurrection
I believe in God almighty
And in Christ Jesus, his only son, our Lord
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried
And the third day rose from the dead
Who ascended into heaven
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father
Whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead
And in the Holy Spirit
The holy church
The remissions of sins
The resurrection of the flesh
The life everlastingAlthough The Apostles' Creed's meaning as a statement of faith has been reformed over time to reflect changes in the church, it most accurately represents a time and a Church like the one struggling for its place in the second century. The authors carefully constructed each statement to reflect where heretics were attacking the church and to reaffirm the true faith as they saw it. Scholars believe the origins of this particular version, "The Old Roman Creed," belong in the second century. The view that the Creed originally comes from the second century finds support because we see the same pillars of faith upon which the Fathers of the Church based their arguments. The Creed specifically affirms that the Christ Jesus was in human form, that he was born with a human body already full of the holy spirit, that he walked this earth as a mere human, that he suffered like a mere human, that he died like a human, and that his body also rose to heaven after death, to forever forgive humans of their sins committed while on the earth.
These building blocks are the ones that have lasted through time and trial. The question then arises, simply: why not something else? Why has the Christianity of today reigned supreme when there were so many versions of the same story during its infancy? Why didn't another group, such as a gnostic group, gain the same power that the orthodox faith did in the second century? No one can give a definite answer to these questions, but we can look at the situations surrounding Christianity's beginning.
The appropriate start would be to examine the man they called Christ. No other man in the history of the world has caused such a lasting debate proportional to the time spent in this world. Most know the orthodox accepted biblical story of Jesus' entrance into this world as the birth of a child from the Virgin Mary. The flesh and blood life of this man is played out in the different Gospels of the New Testament, his deeds are recorded, and his death and resurrection dutifully noted. The absurd idea9 of the resurrection, as the second century theologian Tertullian calls it, lays the basic building block of the orthodox faith. A man being crucified and then rising from the dead to remain on the earth for 40 more days to spread his words sounds grossly impossible. However, orthodox Christians as early as the second century were absolutely adamant that the resurrection was an actual event, that a fully human man named Jesus actually rose from the dead, and that his physical body rose from the dead and returned to the earth before ascending to heaven. Elaine Pagels recognizes the importance of the "bodily" resurrection in her work entitled The Gnostic Gospels. She explains:
The conviction that a man who died came back to life is, of course, a paradox. But that paradox may contain the secret of its powerful appeal, for while it contradicts our own historical experience, it speaks the language of human emotions. It addresses itself to that which may be our deepest fear, and expresses our longing to overcome death.10The emotional appeal and political implications of a bodily resurrection combined to assure its place as a central theological question. Pagels notes, "Whatever we think of the historicity of the orthodox account, we can admire its ingenuity. For this theory--that all authority derives from certain apostles' experience of the resurrected Christ, an experience now closed forever--bears enormous implications for the political structure of the community."11 It allows for the church to claim that future leaders could only receive authority from the apostles, and since this was restricting, the authority could be maintained to a small group of leaders, who would stand in a position of incontestable authority.12 A second look at this particular platform from the point of view of a gnostic shows that the view held by the orthodox was only one story of several that claimed to be the true story of the Christ. As we will see, alternate views of the Christ figure inflamed the church fathers and set them on the defensive.
The Valentinians, led by the man Valentinus, believed that Christ was not raised from the dead in bodily form nor that he was human to begin with; he was a spirit appearing in forms that allowed people the best view for understanding him. He appeared to different beings as they could best relate or, in other words, in the same form as they. He did this in such a way that sometimes the people even believed they were seeing themselves. As the text, marked Valentinian,13 named the Gospel of Philip explains,
Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which [they would] be able to see him. He appeared to [them all. He appeared] to the great as great. He [appeared] to the small as small. He [appeared to the] angels as an angel, and to men as man. Because of this his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, ...14
This statement boldly rejects the idea that Jesus' body was more than a tool used briefly on earth or that his body remained with him during his resurrection into the afterlife. How could a man appear in so many ways after the resurrection if his body was retained during the resurrection? It most certainly also rejects the idea that the flesh and blood of a man exist anywhere other than in this world. If the Lord Jesus Christ did not retain the flesh and blood of his body, for certain even the noblest of men will also shed their bodies as they pass to the afterlife. The departure from the flesh is opposite to the orthodox view and is, in a sense, the pillar of gnostic belief. All gnostic groups, not just the Valentinians, based their system of beliefs on the idea that the resurrection is of the spirit only.
Another gnostic text called The Treatise on the Resurrection, actually a didactic letter from an anonymous author to his pupil, Rheginos, returned an answer to several questions and concerns expressed by the student. The student had asked about the resurrection as achieved by Jesus and about the resurrection in general for the humans of the earth. The author, in trying to be short and concise with his answer, made the process quite confusing; however, there are passages that lead to insight on the gnostics' view of the resurrection. One example explained that the body is left behind, that all the flesh and blood, which dies, will be left behind as the living body, or the soul, which is inside and cannot be seen, rises. The passage runs:
[T]here are some (who) wish to understand, in the enquiry about those things they are looking into, whether he who is saved, if he leaves his body behind, will be saved immediately. Let no one doubt concerning this. ... indeed, the visible members which are dead shall not be saved, for (only) the living [members] which exist within them would arise.15
Hence, man has two parts on this earth, the physical "visible" body and the inner "living" member, which will travel to the afterlife. An interesting set of statements/questions, previously made in the text, fully explains the concept. It tells that flesh is a part of the world, received at birth and shed at death. It explains by its own means that the body received upon entering this world is not theirs to keep; it is merely a tool of the spirit, useless in the end.
[T]he All is what is encompassed. It has not come into being; it was existing. So, never doubt concerning the resurrection, my son Rheginos! For if you were not existing in flesh, you received flesh when you entered this world. Why will you not receive flesh when you ascend into the Aeon? That which is better than the flesh is that which is for it (the) cause of life. That which came into being on your account, is it not yours? Does not that which is yours exist with you? Yet, while you are in this world, what is it that you lack? This is what you have been making every effort to learn.16
The "All" referred to in the first line is the earthly world which we all know. It was here before you; therefore, the gnostic teacher says, whatever was here in the beginning must stay here. When you were brought into this world you did not bring your body with you, it was given to you as you entered, so there again, it will leave you as you exit, and return to the Ploera or the so-called heavens of the gnostics. This passage in an overall sense reveals that the author asks several rhetorical questions to create a sense that the readers are asking them for themselves. Although the letter proceeds as from teacher to a single student, it gains much when the "you's" are considered plural and suggestive. With this implication the author is speaking to a broader audience; hence, the author challenges all who read this so-called letter to accept his take on the resurrection. Many gnostic writings are of this style. They are passive in their rhetoric, leaving readers to ponder what little information the author has given them.
Such a style fits with the gnostics' position in the second century. They were not on the attack in a sense that the Pagans were; nevertheless, they were pulling the carpet out from underneath the orthodox movement. The gnostics considered themselves Christian; they looked to the congregations of the orthodox faith for members, and it seems that they didn't recruit but relied on people's natural curiosity to pull in members. Statements along the lines of "we hold the true Truth" could be quite seductive for a newly converted orthodox Christian, or anyone for that matter. Such words cause one to want to learn more. Irenaeus understood this characteristic of gnostic teaching, and he attempted to expose it. Irenaeus describes in his words the gnostics' method of leading Christians from the church,
[The gnostics] adjust what is ambiguous to their fiction through exegesis and lead captive, far from the truth, those who do not preserve a firm faith in one God the Father Almighty and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God.17
Irenaeus calls the gnostic truths or interpretations of some of the ambiguous scriptures "fictions" that lead people far from the truth. As far as the gnostics' ability to claim "the Truth", we will touch on that matter later.
In another view of the nature of Christ's body, The Gospel of Truth describes the death of Jesus as follows :
[H]e draws himself down to death though life eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability....18
The context of this passage shows that after death one can obtain eternal life if one has the "true" gnosis, exactly the way Jesus did. He had risen from the body long before the body died on the cross, according to the gnostics. He was able to achieve an early resurrection because he was obviously not ignorant; in turn, you too shall be able to shed the earthly body or "perishable rags" if you strive to gain knowledge. Ignorance was the greatest and only sin in the gnostics' eyes. The gnostics had little respect for the body as such; they looked at it as a ponderous burden. It was useless to them, but nonetheless a required albatross while of this earth.
The gnostics' view of the resurrection as a spiritual matter was extrapolated to the point that a person could receive resurrection even before death. Death was not a component of the resurrection, only a stepping-stone. In fact many believed the resurrection was required before death or there would be no resurrection at all. The spiritual resurrection allowed one to remain on earth without worrying about the afterlife. The Gospel of Philip states,
Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.19
The statement first explains how the orthodox were wrong, and then explains that the only true resurrection, which comes from the right gnosis, is received before death or else there is nothing. In another text, The Treatise on the Resurrection, the "teacher" tells people not to "live in conformity with this flesh for the sake of unanimity, but flee from the divisions and the fetters, and already you have the resurrection."20 He goes on in the following text to explain that even though the resurrection is possible now, do not waste your body, but receive the resurrection and enjoy it without the fear of sin. A statement like this in the second century was potentially devastating for the orthodox movement. The ideal Christian led a sin-free life, and for someone to come along and say that the pleasures of the body and resurrection were possible together was possibly the worst danger for a newly converted Christian congregation.
Because resurrection could occur at any time in one's life, its characteristics were essentially different from the resurrection doctrine of the orthodox. As we know for the gnostics the resurrection occurred when a person received the "Truth". This word held a different meaning for each gnostic; its source was the same for all, but it held many names. Of course much of the "Truth" was first taught to a person, but eventually the "Truth" taught the person, and it was here that a person received his own gnosis.21 Each gnostic text we have generally was written because the author had received the "Truth". It was this condition, then, that caused the gnostics to have such a diversity of perspectives. An example of this gain in gnosis comes from Marcus, a student or disciple of Valentinus, who tells of his revelation, or resurrection. He says that in his study the "Tetrad," or the beginning almighty being, actually appeared to him and told him the story of "the genesis of everything." Receiving the truth forced him to write, passing on the mysteries that were revealed only to him. Irenaeus tells of Marcus's meeting with the gods:
The Tetrad from the highest invisible ineffable places came down to him in feminine form, since, he said, the world could not endure the masculine element she possesses, and showed him who she was and told him alone the genesis of everything, which she had not revealed to any gods or men.22
Visions or happenings like the one described are one of the sources from which the gnostics drew their authority. The expanse of new ideas gave them the desire to spread their knowledge, or gnosis, so schools were opened and texts were written. As we said, the search for the truth was a personal experience; one could not tell a person that they had received it; they were to only know when they had. The personal search for the truth can be summed up by a parable from the Gospel of Philip, which tells about the gnostic search for the "real Truth." This parable relates a Roman householder to the one who spreads the true gnosis:
There was a householder who had every conceivable thing, be it son or slave or cattle or dog or pig or corn [or] barley or chaff or grass or [...] or meat and acorn. [Now he was] a sensible fellow and he knew what the food of each one was. He served the children bread [...]. He served the slaves [... and] meal. And [he threw barley] and chaff and grass to the cattle. He threw bones to [the] dogs , and to the pigs he threw acorns and slop. Compare the disciple of God: if he is a sensible fellow he understands what discipleship is all about. The bodily forms will not deceive him, but he will look at the condition of the soul of each one and speak with him. There are many animals in the world which are in human form. When he identifies them, to the swine he will throw acorns, to the cattle he will throw barley and chaff and grass, to the dogs he will throw bones. To the slaves he will give only the elementary lessons, to the children he will give the complete instruction.23
Just as a householder knows his responsibilities and what to properly feed each of his possessions, so the disciple of God knows who receives each type of knowledge. The simple beings of the earth, the swine, cattle, and dogs, or non-christians, receive the nourishment they need to stay alive and well on this earth: acorns, chaff, and bones. The second class of beings, the slaves, or Christians, will receive only what has been prepared for them in the scriptures they love so dear, or the "elementary lessons." The true Christians, or the "children of God," will be given "the complete instruction." The gnostics were the humans that would receive the true Gnosis, this parable would have you believe.
The search for the "Truth" from the heavens can only be accepted if the authority of the people that claim such truths can be verified. This was the argument of the church fathers to combat the gnostic claims of their version of the resurrection. What the church fathers realized was that if the people accepted the idea of early resurrection, then what was it that would keep the masses in line? People claiming to already have been resurrected would not worry about the sins they committed before death. That was not acceptable, as Irenaeus wrote in his work, Against the Heresies. He claimed that to inherit the kingdom of God a person must have strived to be as holy as possible on this earth.
[T]he "perfect" among [the gnostics] fearlessly perform all the forbidden acts, of which the scriptures affirm that "those who perform them will not inherit the kingdom of God"(Gal.5:21).24
Irenaeus went on to describe the various "forbidden acts" that the gnostics engaged in. The fact the gnostics felt they could act as they wished brought a certain bitterness to the church fathers. He also clearly explained the gnostic thought process of how they were allowed to commit such acts without future punishment. The gnostics believed that there were three types of people. Like the classes from the parable, there were the material, the psychic, and the spiritual, respectively. The material were doomed to corruption. The psychics would remain in the middle, lowering themselves if they so choose to the material. However, the spiritual were special. Their souls would be nourished and instructed, then once judged perfect sent to return to the savior. We see this perspective in an excerpt from Irenaeus on the discussion of the to upper classes of human beings:
[T]he psychics are trained in psychic teaching, those men who are made firm through the works and mere faith and do not have perfect Gnosis. These men, [the gnostics] say, are we who belong to the church. That is why good behavior is necessary for us, and otherwise we cannot be saved, but they are definitely saved not by works but because they are spiritual by nature. Just as what is material cannot share in salvation, for it is not receptive of it, they say; so again what is spiritual cannot undergo perishablilty, whatever acts it experiences. For as gold deposited in mud does not lose its beauty but preserves its own nature because mud cannot harm gold, so they themselves, they say, no matter what material acts they experience, cannot be harmed or lose the spiritual substance.25
The passage explains why the psychics, or orthodox Christians, who belong to the church, must obey the laws of the church. Their struggle is not to free themselves from ignorance but to achieve ascension to the Middle, or heaven, through their limited faith and good conduct. However, the spiritual's struggle is that of freedom from ignorance, to obtain the true gnosis; that gnosis makes him precious as "gold", unfading through the earthly pleasures, or mud. Irenaeus' sarcastic parable of gold deposited in mud is interesting. The gnostics are compared to gold, an earthly substance. That for them must have been intolerable. To hold the material world in such disgust and then to be compared to it by an enemy must have been quite vexing.
A question that often arises from the idea that gnostics were not held responsible for their actions is, what keeps them from destroying themselves and others? If they were allowed to indulge in earthly pleasures, what stops them from corrupting the masses? Well, the gnostics have a simple answer to these questions. They call it "love." This "love" results from the fact that the gnostics viewed everything as working towards the ultimate goal of good. The "love" that the gnostics are considering is Christian "love," the idea that we were placed on this earth to help each other. Pagels summarizes this gnostic idea, "The gnostic Christian must always temper the freedom gnosis conveys with love for others."26 That temperance is one of the themes of the Gospel of Philip, which explains why the true Christian has the freedom to choose his own actions. Pagels continues, "The central theme of the Gospel of Philip is the transforming power of love: that what one becomes depends upon what one loves."27 Gnostics say that for each Christian the "right" decision is different. The differing laws governing the actions by people negates the idea of right and wrong or good and bad. The idea that what is evil for one person may not be for another is reflected in the parable of the householder described earlier. As each one has a diet different from the next, requiring a different type of nourishment, each type of soul is the same, requiring different teaching and responsibilities depending on one's spiritual maturity. These differences explain why gnostics are allowed to act as they please just so as long as they do not bring grief on others. It all relates back to their interpretation of the so-called Christian "love."
Despite its dualist reputation, the gnostics' system of belief did not contain a dualistic approach to good and evil. As Pagels says, "The divine Father and holy spirit, working in harmony with each other, direct all that happens, even the actions of the lower cosmic forces so that ultimately, in Paul's words, 'all things work together for good' (Rom. 8:28)."28 Satan is not a component of this system. The gnostic belief is that ultimately everything leads to good, that people's actions are a result of their spiritual maturity. The rejection of a paired conception of good and evil for all acts was a key component to gnostic thinking. It allowed them to act on free will while still claiming to be holy.
The lack of dualism for the gnostics leads to the idea that the resurrection for the gnostic meant becoming one with God. A person was an equal to a god after resurrection. Their spirit was returned to its original state of a higher form. The orthodox could not accept this complete lack of structure. Therefore, the fact that the gnostics did not recognize a Satan figure was very discomforting for the orthodox. Without the idea of sin and eternal damnation they saw a future of chaos. In addition to this vision of chaos the idea that a person could become an equal of the ultimate judge, the lord Jesus Christ, would anger any orthodox Christian. Irenaeus shows such anger in his writing of Against Heresies.
Irenaeus repeatedly restates the basic pillars of the orthodox faith throughout his books. Within these statements he attempts to make everything simple and easily understood. Irenaeus shows that he cannot comprehend why people could speak in such different ways about the Lord Jesus Christ. The blasphemy so utterly disgusts him he turns to a mocking tone throughout his writing. On several occasions he compares the gnostics and their writing to acts of entertainers, especially magicians. He specifically calls Mark the "Valentinian magician"29 who leads people away from true Christianity, and "a true forerunner of the Antichrist," 30 who "is considered a miracle-worker among those who have no sense or are demented."31 The tone he takes in this small passage shows quite clearly his hate for not only Mark but also for all of the gnostic fold. These emotions show that the gnostics were more than an annoyance to the orthodox and the tone of the rhetoric clearly exemplifies exactly the threat that the gnostics posed to orthodoxy. He calls them demented with no sense. These insults show a sign of weakness in the orthodox argument. Why would a man so convinced that his version was correct resort to insults for a defense? Is it possibly because he bases his argument on very little fact, or were there other reasons?
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Chapter 2
The Origins of Mankind and the Nature of God
The main focus of the conflict between gnostic and orthodox writers remains on the nature of the man called Jesus. However, the gnostics also hold a different view of the genesis and nature of the deity. This second issue leads into the creation of the material world and human kind. The gnostics' systems of creation are widely varied. Each main group has its version, much for the same reason that the different groups were created--that different men received different gnosis. To discuss the many different systems of creation is tedious and tangential to my discussion. We will stick to the main attentions of Irenaeus in his refutation of the Valentinians and several other smaller groups.
An examination of the orthodox faith yields the conclusion that the ancient church accepted only a masculine form of God. While much the church today claims a sexless God, we cannot forget the fact that a neuter creator and Almighty was not a thought of the original church fathers. The gospels clearly show a male God, and the church fathers defend the notion of God as the masculine "Creator of Heaven Earth." The Apostles Creed specifically states "his only son;" both "his" and "son" are masculine terms. In addition, with the "Father, son and holy Ghost," however neutral the last term, the first two clearly state a masculine form of the deity. Nowhere in this creed do we see a feminine term relating to the deity. The masculine view is also evident throughout the works of the Gospels of the Bible. This paternal ideology was understandable in the second century. Women generally did not hold positions of authority, and they were considered subservient to males of the household. A feminine deity would not have complemented the masculine position of authority; it would have undermined it.
The gnostics, however, viewed the Almighty as consisting of several parts or, as Pagels states, as "a dyad who embraces both masculine and feminine elements."32 Each group had their own take; however, they were consistent with the idea that God was not just of masculine form. There is even a group of gnostics that claimed to be descendants from a secret tradition that was from Mary Magdalene. Here both the divine Father and Mother were worshiped. For most gnostic groups, like the Valentinians, however, the deity was a couple,33 Father and Mother, combined to create a single God. Irenaeus tells about this couple in his first book in the first section, 1.1.1. As he explains the different systems of creation the idea of a duality of the deity is evident. The Mother is spoken of on several occasions. Irenaeus writes, "[The Father] set [the beginning] like a seed in the womb of his companion....When [the Mother] received this seed she became pregnant and generated..." the rest of what Ptolemaeus, a disciple of Valentinus, describes as the Aeons.34 This passage describes the Valentinian creation of the material world and of the heavens. The "he" referred to is the indescribable Pre-Father, that had a companion, the "she" called Thought, and together they were all that was in the invisible pre-world state. They emitted the rest of the Valentinian system of Aeons, "each [of which] is male-female."35 So not only is the Almighty dualist but the resulting Aeons are as well. The passage describes what the gnostics called "The Tetrad." If we reexamine the origin of Marcus's system discussed previously, Marcus claims to have received his knowledge from a "feminine form." He calls this form the Tetrad. So here again we see the acknowledgment of the feminine part of the deity.
The question that arises about the gnostics is why did they so eagerly embrace this ideal of a dualistic deity of male and female? Was there a political reason behind their divergence from the normal of the time period? As Pagels has noted, the answer is yes.36 The gnostics only served to gain from the addition of the feminine element into the deity. The orthodox, with their strict exclusion of women from the priesthood and such positions, were ultimately the opposite of the gnostics. The gnostics encouraged women to participate in religious ceremonies, and most groups had a select few women disciples and Priests that are historically acknowledged. The openness to women in the second century by the gnostics would have been all the encouragement needed for a female to consider the gnostics and their teachings. The inclusion of the female must have enraged the orthodox church Fathers. In fact we shall see that it did.
Irenaeus addresses the addition of a feminine element into religion specifically when he deals with Marcus, his "magician". He dwells on the role of women, or the seduction of women, so he gives us much insight. Marcus initiated women into his sect, allowing them to go out and speak the truth they have received, to "prophesy."37 Even when women were confused and unsure he gave them comforting words, words that "seduced" them into his fold. According to Irenaeus when women were confused and replied:
"I have never prophesied and do not know how to prophesy." He [Mark] makes invocations again to stupefy the one being seduced and says to her, "Open your mouth and say anything, and you will prophesy."38
One must remember a prophesying woman was strictly prohibited by the orthodox Church and for the church fathers to accept this would have been sacrilegious.
Tertullian, in his writing, speaks out specifically against women's participation in religion in quite a rage, stating:
These heretical women--how audacious they are! They have no modesty; they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptize!39
Tertullian also makes a statement at one point of exactly what women are not allowed to do in response to his learning of the existence of women priests.
It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church, nor is it permitted for her to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer [the eucharist], nor claim for herself a share in any masculine function--not to mention any priestly office.
For the church fathers to pay as much attention to women in the church as they did it must have been a large grieving factor for them.
Returning to the original question it is still unclear whether allowing women to participate was merely a religious practice or whether it was a method of subterfuge used by the gnostics to create a greater appeal. Irenaeus would have you believe the second, which is understandable. He tells of one of his own deacons' wives who was "seduced" by Mark himself along with many of the women in the Rhone Valley. This was a blow quite close to home for Irenaeus. In his writing he turns to a very particular word choice after telling about the deception. He begins to weave an interesting image of Mark. He ceases to refer to Mark by name but calls him the "magician."40 He calls Mark a demon or actually one possessed by a spirit sent from Satan. These are demons that use "philters," which are potions or drugs held to have the power to arouse sexual passion, "and charms," to "dishonor [women's] bodies."41 Irenaeus even accuses Mark of using lines from the Iliad to mislead women.42 Thus we see that Irenaeus would have us believe that the gnostics used women for their own purposes in attacking the orthodox; however, such an argument would be quite useful to a man defending his faith!
The genesis, or creation of the material world, is another point of conflict between the orthodox and the gnostics. The First Book Of Moses, or Genesis, relates the well-known story of the creation of earth, heaven, and man in the course of seven days. The Almighty proclaimed all of creation piece by piece and it appeared as the story tells "...God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." (Gen 1.3). The Almighty, being a singular god, was left to his own devices and with no help is the sole creator. Only later did his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit join him. This story of creation is strict, frank, and offers no chance for alternate versions. However, the gnostics had their own stories of creation and cosmologies. These stories were exactly like that of the first section of Irenaeus' first book of Against Heresies quoted earlier. There are versions such as that contained in the Nag Hammadi text On the Origin of the World, that are very complicated and actually quite eloquent. They speak passionately of an indescribable infinite existence that was before everything. Through careful genealogy, the heavens and all of its immortal beings were created, out of which each created their portion of the material world and of mankind. Passages like these from the gnostics were very poetic and articulate, and for this reason the church fathers were quick to attack their language and make a mockery of it.
Irenaeus was well noted for his "heretic-bashing." He, on several occasions, makes the comparison of gnostic writing to taking several lines of Homer and transposing them together to make a story that would to the unknowing be considered to be written by Homer. Irenaeus describes their method:
After collecting scattered texts and names they transfer them, as we said before, out of their natural meaning to a meaning contrary to nature, acting like those who propose random hypotheses for themselves and try to treat them from the Homeric verses, so that the untutored may suppose that Homer composed verses on this completely novel subject and that many readers may be led astray, through the well-ordered sequence of the verses, to ask if Homer wrote them.43
The text following this passage gives an example, taking several lines from Homer's different writings and putting them together in an interesting order, so they do in fact make their own story line. Then in a concluding statement he explains that if the lines of the gnostics' writing are separated into their separate pieces and examined they will lead to "inconsistency" and make the "system disappear."44 Irenaeus uses this analogy to describe the poetic style of many gnostic writers, using their artistic abilities against them. He also makes this comparison to show the way the gnostic writers took lines from the gospels and placed them together to support their "truth", making the gospels a tool to lead astray the masses from the rightful doctrine.
One of the greatest examples of Irenaeus's mocking tone comes from what I like to call the cucumber parody. He takes a sample of writing from the gnostics and replaces several of the words using long Homeric words, thus making the gnostic statement about the first Tetrad, one of the "Great Cucumber." The Valentinian description of the first Tetrad is thus:
There exists before everything a pre-unintelligible Pre-principle which I call Unicity. With this Unicity there coexists a Power which I call Unity. This Unity and this Unicity, being one, emitted without emitting a Beginning of all things, intelligible unengendered and invisible, the Beginning which language calls Monad. With this Monad coexists a Power of the same substance, which I call One. These Powers, Unicity, Unity, Monad, and One, emitted the rest of the Aeons.45
Ireneaus' translation is a follows:
There exists a certain royal Pre-principle, pre-unintelligible, pre-insubstantial and pre-prerotund, which I call Gourd. With this Gourd there coexists a Power which I call Supervacuity. This Gourd and this Supervacuity, being one, emitted without emitting a Fruit visible in all its parts, edible and sweet, which language calls Cucumber. With this Cucumber there is a Power of the same substance, which I call Melon. These Powers, Gourd and Supervacuity and Cucumber and Melon, emitted the whole multitude of Valentinus' delirious Melons.46
Upon comparison we see that the ironic use of long Homeric words47 by substitution creates this parody about a simple vegetable, the cucumber. Irenaeus manages to mock the Valentinians without drastically changing the style of their language, and he even adds a little statement at the end, it seems, just to spite the Valentinians: "These Powers emitted the whole multitude of Valentinus' delirious Melons." As Robert M. Grant also notes, this "...parody owes some of its force to the gnostics' love of transforming history into nature, here specifically vegetable nature."48
Irenaeus can, on many occasions, be cited for his comparisons of gnostic writing to Homer, and, in general, for his mocking attitude of the gnostics' system of religion. In Book One, after the parody of the cucumber, Irenaeus gives more examples of gnostic writing describing the origins of the world. He then asks the reader a very simple, but directional question: "Do not these people seem to you, O beloved, to have envisioned the Homeric Zeus, sleepless because of cares, worried about how to honor Achilles and destroy a multitude of Greeks, rather than the Lord of all?"49 Basically this rhetorical question says the gnostics are worshiping Homer's writing, and by doing so they are leading astray good Christians from the one true Almighty, hence, destroying their lives. The mocking continues as Irenaeus claims to the reader, "When you read all this, beloved [the reader], I know you will laugh hard at their pretentious foolishness."50 He goes on to describe the gnostics as mentally ill: "When sick people fall into delirium, the more they laugh and believe themselves healthy and do everything as if they were well or more then well, the sicker they really are."51
In book Two of his Against Heresies, Irenaeus again reveals his true hatred for the gnostics. He claims that gnostics answer the question of the genesis by simply creating more gods, and thereby "weave ropes from sand and develop a major question from a minor one."52 In an irritated tone Irenaeus then explains, "No question is resolved by another question. Intelligent people do not resolve one ambiguity through another, nor an enigma through a greater one. Such matters find resolution out of what is evident, consistent, and clear."53 Here Irenaeus implies that the gnostics are ignorant, or unintelligent, but more importantly we see that in the last line he is actually attempting to find support from the scriptures. "What is evident, consistent, and clear" can mean none other than the scriptures for Irenaeus. One particular joist by Irenaeus comes in the second book when he declares that the gnostics copied an old poet by the name of Aristophanes, by simply replacing names in a theogony by him. Irenaeus claims that the poet "spoke with much more probability and elegance about the genesis of everything."54 In a last attempt to mock the Valentinians in particular, he says, "In reality [the gnostics] transfer to their own system what is said in theaters everywhere by actors with splendid voices, or rather they use the same plots and simply change the names."55 Irenaeus continues his mocking with: "The doctrine they present is new because it has been elaborated recently with a new art, but it is really old and worthless, since it was stitched together from old doctrines smelling of ignorance and lack of religion."56 The "old doctrines" that Irenaeus is referring to consist of many sources, especially by philosophers, which he goes on to describe in the text following.
We see that the poetic style of the gnostics was used against them and that the church fathers claimed the gnostic inventiveness led to the different stories of creation, not to a secret teaching of creation passed on by the Christ. As Pagels recognizes, this view contains a bit of truth, that "...certain gnostics openly acknowledged that they derived their gnosis from their own experience."57 Many people in the second century claimed to see visions of the Christ and other supernatural beings; this was not an uncommon occurrence, yet still Irenaeus uses the claim by the gnostics about a "true" Christ to target the gnostics as merely confused storytellers. The gnostic groups actually encouraged creative thinking, believing original creative invention to be the mark of anyone who becomes spiritually alive.58 Though invention and innovation, then, many different mysteries were transformed as they were passed on from teacher to student. To repeat only what one was taught was a sign of immaturity among the gnostics. This idea of becoming mature relates back again to the story of Marcus, a student of Valentinus, and his revelation that led him to the writing of his own gnosis. People like him were revered in the gnostic community.
Of course the idea of spiritual maturity through creative expression upset Irenaeus, and he dutifully comments on this idea. As we explore more of the points of conflict between the gnostics and the orthodox, we begin to see a more complete picture of what was at stake for both of them. It seems that the orthodox were in a position with the most to lose. The church fathers' tone of mockery and anger show that they were fighting a very real threat to their congregations. The idea of women involving themselves in religious rites and the idea of free thinking were devastating to the orthodox movement. What remains unknown, then, is did the gnostics understand this weakness and use it against the orthodox.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Chapter 3
Succession: A Question of Authority
Why was succession a point of conflict between the church fathers and gnostics in the second century? How could the lineage from Christ containing the true gnosis be lost so quickly after his death? Why is there such a mystery surrounding the greatest figure in Christianity, for gnostics and orthodox alike? It seems that the events of Jesus's life, especially his afterlife, should have been more dutifully noted; it is not every day that a man returns from the dead. However, there was no such record. Many doubts are raised from the fact that Jesus' life is so elusive. The lack of factual base on the Christ and hence succession of tradition from him left both the gnostics and the orthodox to duel, while individual Christians chose sides.
The gnostics and the church fathers struggled with proving their side to the succession issue. If a true claim of succession from the Christ figure could be nailed down, then the whole of the opponent's argument could be nullified. The church fathers recognized this staging point for argument and desperately attempted to prove that the true succession, the only succession, was passed from Christ to the apostles to the Bishops of the orthodox Church. Even though a vague succession was a detriment to the church fathers' claim to authority as well, they used it as a stand against the gnostics. A factual base on the point of conflict of a historical Jesus is lost in time; however, we will see that both sides were much aware of the importance to all arguments of being able to claim the true succession. A supposedly true story of the resurrection, the creation of the world, the nature of the Almighty, all of it, could be claimed with confidence.
The orthodox kept the lineage simple. All of the church fathers were adamant in their points surrounding succession. Irenaeus devotes much of the beginning of his third book of Against Heresies to the correct succession. He tells of the apostles' learning and "what they then first preached they later, by God's will, transmitted to us in the scriptures so that would be the foundation and pillar of our faith."59 Irenaeus attempts to emulate that concept in his own argument, sticking to the scriptures as his basis for all his arguments. He goes on to say that the gnostics are wrong when they say that the apostles "preached before they had the perfect knowledge,"60 that the apostles did indeed have the perfect knowledge when the "lord arose from the dead and they were clad with power from on high by the coming of the Holy Spirit."61 He finishes this statement with a key claim: "Collectively and individually [the apostles and hence the orthodox] had the Gospel of God."62 That claim is the root of the orthodox claim of true succession. If that statement is false the apostles' teachings are false and with them falls the church.
The church fathers attempted to smooth the edges of their story of succession so that no argument could refute it. In fact, they did achieve a solid argument from the point of succession forward, but the gnostics clung to the one discrepancy in the orthodox story that traced back to the Christ himself: that the Christ relayed secret teachings to certain people that contained the true gnosis. In general the gnostics accepted that the Christ passed a tradition on to the apostles, who in turn passed this same tradition on to the first bishops of the orthodox Church. But they viewed that tradition as a fake tradition, fitting only for the spiritually immature; the truth was kept from most of the apostles and passed on to those who the Christ recognized as being able to handle the truth. The truth was then kept secret and revealed to only those who were initiated into the secret mysteries of the gnostics and were ready to receive the true gnosis.
Irenaeus recognizes the gnostic claim and attempts to refute it by asking a question of reason: why would the Christ pass on a secret knowledge to some and a false knowledge to the apostles, who were entrusted to preach the word of God to all? We can see here that Irenaeus is trying to understand his so-called heretics. He is attempting to gain a basic line on the thought process of the gnostics, so that he can more completely denounce them. Irenaeus does not ask straightforwardly the question why Jesus would pass a false knowledge to the apostles but rather skirts the point as seen below.
The tradition of the apostles, manifest in the whole world, is present in every church to be perceived by all who wish to see the truth. We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time, men who taught or knew nothing of the sort that they madly imagine. If however the apostles had known secret mysteries that they would have taught secretly to the "perfect," unknown to others, they would have certainly transmitted them especially to those to whom they entrusted the churches. For they wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless in every respect. If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity.63
In this passage we see, as in a quote from before, Irenaeus making the same statement that the greatest benefit to all mankind would have been for the Christ to pass the true knowledge to the apostles, who in turn pass it to the bishops, and finally through the church to the people. If the true knowledge were passed in secret elsewhere it would seem that God is condemning the majority of mankind to a false religion. This type of reasoning seems to be why Irenaeus becomes agitated at every point of difference between the gnostics and the orthodox.
To solidify his point, Irenaeus chooses the Church of Rome started by the apostles Peter and Paul, and lists the succession from the first disciples of the apostles to the bishops of his time. He cites specifically where these people are mentioned in scripture down to the 12th episcopate Eleutherus, who holds this position along with the true scripture. In Irenaeus' words, "With the same sequence and doctrine the tradition from the apostles in the church, and the preaching of truth, has come down to us." Examining the motives behind keeping succession simple reveals that this simplified succession raises the political stakes. The Church of Rome claims succession from the apostle Peter himself, whom they also recognize as the first man to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared. A claim of lineage from the apostle Peter has vast implications for the actual structure of the community in the second century. A hierarchy of power that was strict in form dominated the social and political scenes, and it made sense for the Church to hold to these same hierarchical characteristics. The church could restrict power to a small group of people and uphold the authority with the claim that the apostle Peter only passed on the tradition of the church to those qualified, so that it could be preserved and portrayed correctly to all. In fact for some 2000 years afterwards the tradition of apostolic succession upheld itself and gradually gained undoubted power in the empires and kingdoms of the earth to come.
Clement of Alexandria, another church father, famously known for the writing of Stromateis, takes another approach to the question of succession. As Denise Buell explains, Clement masked the names of his teachers, never once mentioning where he gained his knowledge. She claims that there was a specific reason behind Clement's failure to announce his predecessors; that "Clement's decision to mask his teachers' names removes Clement's claim to apostolic inheritance beyond scrutiny--one cannot question Clement's pedigree since he does not fully elaborate his own lineage."64 Clement may have had many motives for omitting his teachers, but the one conclusion that can be made is that his lack of explanation results in a convenient link to the four apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, that he is consistently taking into consideration for his spiritual and intellectual inheritance.
Clement also attacks the gnostics collectively, with two methods.65 He claims in Sromateis that the gnostic forms of Christian thought and practice date to earlier than the origins of Christian thought. He specifically calls leaders of the gnostics groups such as Valentinus, Basilides, and Marcion, "founders" of their sects, and in turn, "founders" of their Christian thought and practices. Also, Tretullian is noted for making a similar claim when he slanders Valentinus by saying that the only reason Valentinus started his own group was that he was not elected bishop when he immigrated to Rome in about 140 C.E. Hence, we see that Clement is claiming the different gnostic groups are innovations on the original Christian way of thinking. Buell states, "By positioning Valentinus and other Christian teachers as 'founders' of their own movements, Clement opens them up for criticism as false fathers."66 Buell also explains that "the notion of spiritual paternity, which Clement elsewhere applies positively to himself and other Christians, is now turned on its head, such that Marcion or Basilides appears to be false fathers. For Clement one can only legitimately claim to be a spiritual father if one can also demonstrate that one has been a spiritual son to a spiritual father."67
We see that Clement tries to raise doubts about the gnostics on the same grounds that doubt can be laid on his own claim of succession. Clement's second method, or charge, is that the gnostics have distorted the truth, and it is here that he attempts to debunk the gnostic claims to apostolic succession. He recognizes that the similar gnostic claim of succession from Peter and Paul decreases the value of orthodoxy's claim. Therefore, as Beull says, he "denies the veracity of claims that Basilides and Valentinus fall into the category of sons within the transmission of apostolic traditions."68 In this way Clement retains his authority by not directly disputing the use of genealogical claims to the apostles Peter and Paul. The above argument relates to Clement's larger argument, in Stromateis, that the gnostics are confused Christians who do not understand the true tradition, and hence have produced heresy by passing on a false tradition; they are "...prideful dissenters from one true unified stream of Christian tradition."69 Another church father, Tertullian, claims the same thing, saying in his Prescription Against Heretics that the heretics "come from our lineage but they do not belong to our family. They come from the seed of truth, but lies have made them wild."70
Clement's argument is obviously structured to refute the gnostic claim of succession from the apostles while salvaging the church fathers' equivalent claim of succession from the apostles. However, there are several initial flaws in his argument that must be considered. First and for most, no matter how Clement masks himself, like the other church fathers, he still lacks any factual proof to support his version of succession and to falsify the gnostics' version. Secondly, his argument that Christian leaders such as Basilides and Valentinus are "founders" really only extends from the fact that people outside these groups called the groups by their leaders' name; for example Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcionites. The people included in these groups did not refer to themselves as such; rather, most likely referred to themselves as nothing but true Christians. Therefore the comment that Valentinus and those like him are the "founders" of there groups on the part of Clement and other Church fathers should be taken as slander, and, as Buell says, "Clement's argument can be interpreted as one framed to produce the appearance of fragmentation within Christianity in order to argue for his particular vision of Christian unity."71
The gnostics could not attack the orthodox's claim to succession from anywhere but its source, the Christ figure himself and his disciples. We saw earlier that the gnostics and orthodox held different views on the nature of Christ. The difference was interwoven with the conflict over succession. For the gnostics the Christ was of spiritual nature, not flesh and blood, and therefore his resurrection symbolized how he could be experienced in the present, and not just through an event that happened in the past. This meant for the gnostic Christians that those who did not experience Christ's presence directly could through inner experience. In fact, the gnostics believed that such people were closer to the Christ than even some of his disciples because his disciples, who mistook the resurrection as an actual event and not a spiritual truth, remained blind to the meaning. So, actually not being present and seeing the resurrected Christ was a spiritual advantage. That last short precise statement defies all of orthodox tradition and questions completely the authority that the bishops' claim from apostolic succession.
The questioning of the bishops' authority creates a problem for the growing church of the second century. Pagels states, "...Paradoxically, the doctrine of bodily resurrection also serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter."72 Here, again, we see the importance of the nature of Christ's body. Since the orthodox had no actual, or factual base to claim succession they realized that the resurrection of the body, the actual flesh and blood, was essential. Hence, a literal version of the resurrection of Jesus gives an authority to the orthodox through the scriptures that they would otherwise not be able to claim. As Pagels states it, "What linked the group gathered around Jesus with the world-wide organization that developed within 170 years of his death into a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons [was as Christians of later generations maintained] the claim that Jesus himself had come back to life!"73 We know that Peter, who claimed the bodily resurrection of Jesus a historical fact, founded the church at Rome, and more importantly after claiming to be the first to see Jesus alive again, he took charge of the group of apostles and became their spokesman; therefore, the bodily resurrection became an important component of the succession from Christ. If Christ's body did not inherit the Kingdom of God as the gnostics claimed then Peter is a liar, and the succession of the orthodox is false. Again, Pagels concludes, "In terms of social order the orthodox teaching on resurrection legitimized a hierarchy of persons through whose authority all others must approach God."74 The gnostic view was the opposite and offered a direct access to God of which the priests and bishops themselves might be ignorant. If, in fact, the spiritual view of the nature of Christ is accepted the complete lineage of the orthodox is lost.
If we ignore the differences in the nature of Christ, we see that the gnostics also claimed a succession of tradition from the Christ figure and apostles. The general understanding is that the Christ passed on a secret tradition that the disciples passed on to personal students of theirs and from there they were preserved from one person to the next, forming the different gnostic sects. As we said earlier the gnostics saw the scriptures that were written by the apostles for the most part as writings of immature Christians that should be neglected under most points.
Nowhere do we see the church fathers trying to dislodge the apostles from the gnostic claim to succession to any great extent; rather, they tend to attack those following the apostles in the gnostic lineage. There exist several lineages for the different gnostic groups. The main lineage, Irenaeus points out, extends from Simon Magnus of Samaria and is in relation to Valentinus and the Valentinians. However much the gnostics attempted to claim an apostolic succession, Irenaeus tried even harder to refute it. In Against Heresies Irenaeus uses a genetic approach, trying to "undermine contemporary Valentinians by showing that they had forerunners and those forerunners were wrong and perverted." He first chooses Simon to attack the Valentinians' claim of succession. He calls Simon a magician who traveled the world to "employ exorcisms, incantations, love-philters, charms, familiar spirits, dream inducers, and every other magical practice."75 In this way Irenaeus claims that Simon and all like him claimed to promise the destruction of the world. He then goes on to attack Simon's successor, Menander. He also calls him a master of magic, who passed on his knowledge to several people where Basilides of Alexandria "eventually took their points of departure [and] set forth different doctrines."76 Through this lineage Irenaeus claims all the gnostic groups followed, by the borrowing of ideas and innovating them for their, the gnostics', own means.
We see that the church fathers were in a dilemma on the issue of succession. If they refuted the idea of apostolic succession they obviously refuted their own claim, so they stuck to the process of slandering the gnostic idea of succession. They chose key entities and created vivid images of evil and lies flowing from them like those just shown. The church fathers seem to be very aware that they were supporting their argument in such ways; in fact a close look at the way the forerunners of the gnostics are shown reveals that the church fathers were attempting to cover their tracks of slander. They took true factual stories and interwove their views to create a bias the reader would hopefully not see. For example throughout Irenaeus' Against Heresies we see that he is very much aware of his audience. He consistently refers to the scriptures, and creates parody to keep the readers' interest. Also appearing from Irenaeus' style of writing is the appeal to repeatedly relate the gnostics to evil. He uses all these methods in an attempt to discredit the gnostic exegesis and claim to succession.
The issue of succession, then, was encompassed by several of the other main points of conflict between the gnostics and orthodox. The issue of the nature of Christ and his resurrection was very pertinent for both the gnostics and the orthodox. The two points complemented one another; if one could be claimed as the ultimate truth then the other would follow. Both groups realized the importance and attempted to develop their arguments according to the fact that the issues were related. The gnostics chose a path of succession that was very fitting to their characteristics. It was a secret tradition passed on in secret so that it would not be tainted by the spiritually immature. The orthodox chose a very literal apostolic succession; expanding from the apostle Peter since he was first to view the bodily resurrected Christ, and hence, the founder of the Roman Church. The orthodox claim was dependant on the fact that the Christ appeared first to Peter after his resurrection. The church fathers argued this point with great animosity towards the gnostics, saying simple that the Christ would not have passed on a secret tradition to a few when the largest benefit would have been to pass on the true tradition to the apostles, who would in turn pass it on to the bishops of the church, were the greatest benefit to all would be achieved.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Conclusion
Salvation--the freedom from the pain and suffering in the world and most importantly from the fear of death--is a compelling palliative for all common human emotions we try to understand and overcome. Religion has served this purpose and many others since history as we know began. Religion has attempted to answer the many ambiguous questions that life leaves unanswered. A dictionary definition of "religion" describes it as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.77 It is a system of beliefs that one holds so strongly one would defend it to no end. The convictions of hundreds of martyrs killed by the Pagan Romans, and the convictions expressed in Irenaeus' writings are both examples of this dedication even though they are at different extremes. It is the diversity among human beings, then, that is the cause of different religious groups and sects. All look for answers to the same questions, but not all look to the same place. Conflict is the only result of the formation of different religions when so many are involved. Any similarities between the gnostics and orthodox did not overcome the fact that they were fundamentally different. That their differences falsified one another's beliefs led to the struggle between the orthodox and gnostics in the second century. The struggle was not strange or extraordinary; it has been repeated in similar a fashion throughout history by many groups with religious differences.
The gnostics were not on the attack in the sense Irenaeus would have you believe. They were a threat to the orthodox tradition, but they did not seduce and create false statements to gain membership. The gnostics only viewed the world differently. The gnostics saw a world that was evil; hence, the body being part of that world was also evil and should be left behind. They saw a world where the body was a home to fear and anguish in the human condition; therefore, they began to mistrust the body. Many gnostic writings attest to the discovery of the human condition as the beginnings of a gnostic's search for the "true" gnosis. The mistrust of the body, because of its containment of suffering, often led the gnostics to consider the solitary as sacred. To be able to express one emotion freely and to search for the "true" gnosis brought the joy that was meant to overcome the suffering. The search was considered of a spiritual nature: looking for one's own answers to life's questions. The result of this search brought the gnostics to believe that salvation or resurrection was achieved before the ultimate end of life on earth, death. To achieve this resurrection was the ultimate goal as it freed one of the worries of earthly suffering. The gnostic system of beliefs then builds upon this basic fact that the body is a required albatross of the earth. The spirit descending originally form the heavens must be freed of its earthly bonds so that it may return to its beginnings.
The orthodox Christian held a different view of the human condition. The evil of the world was a result of the beginning, the fall of an angel, Satan. The pain and suffering is caused by this evil, because there is a duality of good and bad created by the Almighty. Abstinence from sin and not giving in to this evil, then, is the path to resurrection--not acquiring the right gnosis. The Church, which is descendent from the Almighty will provide this knowledge through faith while the individual must strive to please the Almighty and work to help others so that he may return, body and all, to his maker in the afterlife. The goal to help others shows that the orthodox Christian was concerned with relationships with others. Hence evil was defined as violence towards others. We see then a resulting code of conduct. The evil was not the body but the wrongful actions of human beings. The orthodox saw the good in the world and nature and so they saw the beauty in natural processes as long as they followed the code of conduct given to us by the Almighty.
Both the gnostics and the orthodox agreed that human suffering was a fault of humans; however, they grew different from this point on. Their interpretations of the Christ's meaning to the world differed because of the two views of the body. The gnostics saw Christ's coming as a certain trailblazer for the soul to enlightenment. The orthodox viewed it, as Pagels describes it, as the "'fullness of God' come down into human experience--into bodily experience--to sacralize it."78 It shows why the church fathers were so adamant about the fact that Jesus must have been born a human baby, experienced human life, and died like a mere man, so that we too may be able to inherit the Kingdom of God. This fundamental difference between the two groups has brought us the writings we have today. The writers of the second century clearly acknowledged that without the nature of Christ being as they perceived him, they were mere philosophers of their time. The argument over the nature of Christ arises in so many matters of difference, even in the greatest--that of succession--between the gnostics and orthodox. The ambiguous nature of Christ, then, is the sole building block of the system of belief for both the gnostics and orthodox.
The writers of the gnostic scriptures may not have intentional wrote with a passive style. We can never know their exact motives; however, we can conclude that their rhetoric did reflect upon the position they had politically in the second century struggle of religions. They're intellectual approach to answering life's questions left them to explain many events like the genesis with ambiguous connotations. I have shown the orthodox readily attacked this approach. The gnostics never appear to be on the offensive when establishing their religion in their writings; however the apparent neglect of the gnostics to do this could be a sign of their self-given superiority. The passiveness of the gnostics rhetoric yields a certain tone of contempt for the orthodox Christians. The fact that the gnostics already claimed to be superior in their sense of spirituality and that the orthodox were merely misled would have allowed them to portray a tone of supremacy towards the gnostics. Their rhetoric style clearly suggests this tone.
The orthodox writers or the church fathers took an opposite approach. They repeatedly mocked the gnostics. They compared them to entertainers and despicable philosophers. The consistent "heretic-bashing" that is interwove among the church fathers argument shows that the threat of the gnostics was more than a nuisance. Those like Irenaeus had personal experience of subterfuge against them--small factions of their own congregations were even part of what they fought so piously against. The urgency created by the gnostics infiltration, then, is the cause for this tone in the church fathers' writing. Politically they were defending their beliefs from attach on both sides of the spectrum. The pagans and gnostics were ultimately the enemy, but the gnostics were much more deceptive. These facts all are very conducive to the idea that the harshness in the church fathers' rhetoric is a result of the general feelings the orthodox had about the gnostics due to the accused distortion of the Christian faith.
The similarities between the orthodox and gnostics do not negate the fact that one endured the test of time. The orthodoxy of the second century is dramatically different from Christianity today, but this proves that as an institution the orthodox of the second century, adhering to the fundamentals of faith, was constructed in a manner that was intriguing to humans throughout the centuries. The gnostics may have defeated themselves by offering so many views of the world and afterlife. The political circumstance of the second century and the centuries that followed may not have allowed for a freethinking religion. The uncollective force the gnostics offered in the second century was not a powerful enough determent for the orthodox, but it most certainly unified the orthodox of the second century and shaped many of the Christian religious practices of today.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Notes
Introduction
1 J. M. Robinson, Introduction, in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, HarperSanFrancisco, (A division of HarperCollins Publishers), 1978, 23. The rest of this summary of the discovery at Nag Hammadi that follows can be credited to the introduction of the above listing. rtn
2 J. M. Robinson, Introduction, in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, HarperSanFrancisco, (A division of HarperCollins Publishers), 1978, 23. From this point on it is referred to as TNHL. rtn
3 Ibid., 24. rtn
4 The Gospel of Thomas II 32, 10-11, in TNHL page 126. rtn
5 Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, in Introduction pg. [xv]. rtn
6 Ibid. Introduction [xv]. rtn
7 Ibid. paraphrased, Introduction [xvii]. rtn
8 Ibid. Introduction [xxxii]. rtnChapter One
9 Tertullian, De Carne Christi 5. rtn
10 Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, page 26. rtn
11 Ibid., page 10. rtn
12 Ibid. rtn
13 Robinson, TNHL, 139. rtn
14 The Gospel of Philip, 57.28-58.6, in TNHL, 144-5. rtn
15 The Treatise on the Resurrection, 47.30-48.3, in TNHL 56.Note that the parentheses, ( ), contained are added by the editor for emphasis to provide useful information to the reader. I will use brackets, [ ], for this same purpose. rtn
16 Ibid. 46.38-47.15, in TNHL 55. rtn
17 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.3.6. rtn
18 The Gospel of Truth 20.28-20.33, in TNHL 42. rtn
19 The Gospel of Philip 73.0-73.5,in TNHL 153. rtn
20 The Treatise on the Resurrection, 49.10-49.17, in TNHL 56. rtn
21 Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, page 20. rtn
22 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.14.1. rtn
23 The Gospel of Philip 80.24-81.15, in TNHL 157. Note that here the brackets were placed by the editors of the text to show where suggestions were made for untranslatable or missing text. rtn
24 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.6.3. rtn
25 Ibid. 1.6.2. rtn
26 Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan, Random House, New York, 1995. pg. 173. rtn
27 Ibid. rtn
28 Ibid. pg. 171. rtn
29 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.13.1. rtn
30 Ibid. rtn
31 Ibid. rtnChapter Two
32 Pagels Elaine, The Gnostic Gosepls, pg. 49. rtn
33 Ibid. pg. 50. rtn
34 Irenaeus, AH 1.1.1. rtn
35 Ibid. rtn
36 Pagels Elaine, The Gnostic Gosepls, pg. 59. rtn
37 Irenaeus, AH 1.13.3. rtn
38 Ibid. rtn
39 Pagels Elaine, The Gnostic Gosepls, pg. 60. rtn
40 Irenaeus, AH 1.13.5. rtn
41 Ibid. rtn
42 Ibid. 1.13.6. rtn
43 Ibid. 1.9.4. rtn
44 Ibid. 1.9.4. rtn
45 Ibid. 1.11.3. rtn
46 Ibid. 1.11.4. rtn
47 Grant, Robert M., Irenaeus of Lyons, Routledge, London, 1997, pg.28. rtn
48 Ibid. rtn
49 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.12.2. rtn
50 Ibid. 1.16.3. rtn
51 Ibid. rtn
52 Ibid. 2.10.1. rtn
53 Ibid. rtn
54 Ibid. 2.14.1. rtn
55 Ibid. rtn
56 Ibid. 2.14.2. rtn
57 Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, pg.18. rtn
58 Ibid. pg.19. rtnChapter Three
59 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1. rtn
60 Ibid. rtn
61 Ibid. rtn
62 Ibid. rtn
63 Ibid. 3.3.1. rtn
64 Buell, Denise Kimber, Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999, page 85. rtn
65 Ibid. page 87. rtn
66 Ibid. rtn
67 Ibid. page 87-88. rtn
68 Ibid. page 88. rtn
69 Ibid. rtn
70 Ibid. rtn
71 Ibid. page 89. rtn
72 Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, page 6. rtn
73 Ibid. page 8. rtn
74 Ibid. page 27. rtn
75 Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 1.23.4 rtn
76 Ibid. rtnConclusion
77 http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary rtn
78 Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, page 146.rtn
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects