5. The New Gnosticism

The year 1945 witnessed an amazing discovery at Nag Hammadi, about 300 miles south of Cairo in the Nile River region of Egypt. In the month of December, an Arab peasant accidently discovered 13 papyrus codices bound in leather. Though remaining obscure for years due to several bizarre occurrences, including murder, black market sales and the destruction of some of the findings, along with the normal amount of secrecy, 52 separate writings from those codices still exist today. Known as the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts, these writings have grown increasingly important, especially since the appearance of the first English translation of the entire set of texts in 1977.

There is general agreement that these Coptic translations are to be dated from about AD 350–400, based on the type of script and papyrus utilized. However, this is almost where the scholarly consensus on important conclusions ends. For example, it is also realized that the originals of these texts are to be dated much earlier, but how much so is a matter of sharp dispute. Further, some scholars assert that the Nag Hammadi texts contain almost nothing of significance for New Testament studies, while others think that the relevance is nothing short of colossal.

In this chapter, it will be necessary to be selective in the subtopics that will be addressed. Accordingly, we will state and evaluate several of the stronger claims on behalf of these Gnostic texts, since these are the ones that purport to most directly affect New Testament teachings about Jesus. Although there are many other areas we could investigate,

our criteria for discussion will be to center on assertions which challenge the orthodox understanding of the historicity of Jesus.

Challenges from the Gnostic Texts

One of the favorite theses advanced by some of those who make claims on behalf of the authority of the Gnostic texts is that, in some sense, these writings should be viewed on an equal footing with the canonical New Testament books. Perhaps the classical modern expression of such a contention was promoted by Walter Baur in his 1934 volume, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.

Baur argued that second century Christendom witnessed a wide variety of theological viewpoints. Gnosticism existed in this milieu as an alternative to what was later recognized as the orthodox position. In fact, in some areas, Gnostic tendencies may have been the chief expressions of Christianity. However, out of this multiplicity, orthodoxy still emerged, but not necessarily because it was the original position of Jesus and his disciples.

Such a theme reappears, in one form or another, in current discussions of this subject, as well. Frederik Wisse is one of the most recent scholars to revive a contention quite similar to Baur’s. He also insists that orthodoxy surfaced from the second century amalgam of views by asserting itself over the other positions involved in the conflict.

More popularly but not as recently, A. Powell Davies also argued that orthodox Christianity existed in the midst of various other competing religious ideologies. After an intense struggle between such differing philosophies, orthodoxy triumphed in the third century AD.

Thesis of Pagels

Elaine Pagels advanced a related thesis in her volume The Gnostic Gospels,

in which she brought some of the conclusions of various esoteric discussions to the attention of the general public. She holds that the second century church included a wide variety of options, since canonical, theological and ecclesiastical views had not yet been settled. Differing texts and traditions, both Gnostic and orthodox, circulated alongside each other.

A struggle ensued, and orthodox beliefs prevailed. Thus, one of the several, competing options elevated itself above the others and became predominant. But, far from distinguishing itself as the superior historical and theological view, orthodoxy achieved victory largely on political and social grounds. Those who disagreed with these dogmatic assumptions were simply viewed as heretics.

Pagels also raises other issues, such as the possible Gnostic interpretations of certain of Jesus’ teachings, and the question of deciding between the conflicting itineraries of the orthodox and Gnostic traditions. She concludes that Gnosticism remains, even today, “a powerful alternative to what we know as orthodox Christian tradition.” But, presumably, conclusions must be reached on more solid grounds than they were in the early centuries after Christ.

Besides questions related to the milieu in which orthodox Christianity asserted itself, at least one other major issue needs to be introduced at this point. Earlier, we briefly mentioned differences among contemporary scholars with regard to the dating of the original Gnostic treatises. One particular case perhaps needs to be mentioned, both because of its crucial nature in the present discussions and as an actual example of the importance of these dating concerns. The case in point here concerns the Gospel of Thomas, which is chiefly characterized as a document which purports to record 114 secret sayings of Jesus, but with very little narrative about his life.

Classically dated from about AD 140–170, a major effort has been made by scholars who argue on behalf of the Gnostic tradition that Thomas ought to be viewed, at least in part, as a much earlier document. It is variously asserted that the tradition behind the book is more ancient than the actual writing or even that the composition of the book dates from the first century.

Thesis of Robinson and Koester

Perhaps the two scholars who most exemplify this tendency, thereby lending their considerable reputations to this position, are James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester. Robinson continues to pursue his quest for what he terms a “trajectory” from Jesus to Gnosticism by endeavoring to locate similarities between Thomas and Q (“Quelle,” the hypothesized source lying behind the synoptic Gospels), especially in regard to the genre of both texts. For him, such indicates the primitive tradition behind both.

Koester appears to have steadily moved his dating for Thomas in a backwards direction. In his introduction to Thomas in The Nag Hammadi Library, Koester identifies the composition as dating from before AD 200, but possibly being as early as the first century.

Pagels, who was also involved in the project, recalls Koester’s position on this subject.

A few years later, Koester stated his view that Thomas was probably written during the first century in either Palestine or Syria. His reasons for this early dating are the similarities to Q, that the Thomas tradition is independent of and earlier than that of the canonical Gospels, the location of the Thomas tradition in Syria, and the Thomas-James (the brother of Jesus) contrast in sayings 12 and 13.

That such conclusions may present a challenge to the orthodox understanding of Jesus might be indicated from several considerations. Besides the question of dating, it is also asserted that Thomas includes a number of new teachings of Jesus not available in the canonical Gospel tradition, and that there is “no trace of the kerygma of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus” in Thomas, perhaps manifesting a different tradition from that of orthodox Christian theology.

This last claim, in particular, demands a more detailed response.

To be sure, a considerable number of influential critical scholars have reacted strongly to theses such as those by Pagels, Robinson, and Koester. It is generally thought that the claims on behalf of the Gnostic tradition in the early church are very much overstated. We will turn now to an evaluation of several of these contentions.

A Critical Evaluation

As we have already said, we need to be selective in our treatment of these issues. Accordingly, we will propose to just briefly address four central questions, all of which impinge on our understanding of the historicity of Jesus.

These four topics for consideration include some very preliminary thoughts on two issues: the comparative dates of the Gnostic writings and the authority of the Gospels. This will be followed by a somewhat more detailed response to the two charges that the New Testament canon was in a state of flux until the late second century AD, and the general question of the downplaying of the gospel facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus in these writings. It should be noted that the employment of this strategy is designed not just to respond to these four critical areas, but the convergence of the critiques will hopefully provide an overall case against the Gnostic thesis outlined here.

1. Canonical Gospels earlier

First, from the perspective of the time factor alone, the four canonical Gospels are much earlier than their Gnostic counterparts. While the earliest Gnostic Gospels are perhaps dated from about AD 140–200 (see the comments below on the Gospel of Thomas), the canonical Gospels may be dated from AD 65–100, a difference of 75–100 years earlier on the average. Even though these Gnostic texts possibly include earlier material, the Gospels certainly include traditions that predate their writing.

So while Pagels and others would have us suppose that these various Gospels simply circulated together, inviting believers to espouse radically different beliefs,

the facts indicate that these two groups of texts were not on an equal footing. The very fact that the canonical Gospels were written decades earlier is at least a preliminary indication that they could possibly also be more authoritative.

One scholar who agrees with this assessment is O.C. Edwards. Speaking in particular of Pagels’ thesis, he asserts:

It is precisely as history that I find her work most unsatisfactory. Nowhere, for instance, does she give the impression that the basic picture of Jesus given in the New Testament gospels did not arise contemporaneously with the Gnostic portrait, but antedated it by at least half a century. As historical reconstructions there is no way that the two can claim equal credentials.

New Testament scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer responds similarly: “Time and again, she is blind to the fact that she is ignoring a good century of Christian existence in which those ‘Gnostic Christians’ were simply not around.”

2. Canonical Gospels more authoritative

Second, beyond the matter of age alone, the canonical Gospels are both historically reliable and simply much closer to the authority of Jesus Himself. An issue here that some would say is as crucial as any other is the authorship of the Gospels. While we cannot pursue here a discussion of this question, the traditional authorship of each Gospel is still defended by outstanding scholars.

But some intellectuals point out that authorship is not the main issue at all. If the Gospels are judged according to the standards of ancient historiography in terms of date and reliability on issues that can be compared to other known data, they measure well and ought to be accepted as good sources for historical information about Jesus.

Perhaps it would be helpful to summarize the conclusion of New Testament critical scholar A. M. Hunter, who pointed out that there are several reasons why the Gospels are trustworthy sources.

(1)The earliest Christians were meticulous in preserving the tradition of Jesus’ words and life.

(2)The Gospel writers were close to the eyewitnesses and pursued the facts about Jesus.

(3)There are indications that these authors were honest reporters.

(4)The overall composite of Jesus as presented in the four Gospels is essentially the same.

Far from not being able to distinguish which teachings concerning Jesus are historical, the data strongly favors the New Testament Gospels.

3. NT canon decided early

Third, another major problem with the Gnostic thesis is the contention that the New Testament canon was in a state of flux until the late second century, allowing a variety of Gospels to circulate without any indication as to which ones were more authoritative. Pagels’ brief and undifferentiated treatment is quite simplistic in that it gives virtually no indication of earlier developments.

Accordingly, critiques of her thesis have abounded.

Koester’s approach is both typical and more sophisticated. While holding that the New Testament canon was “essentially created” at the end of the second century (by Irenaeus), he also informs his readers of the earlier recognition of important groupings of canonical texts. Yet, he still implies that certain apocryphal writings (including Gnostic documents) were also in general circulation, almost as alternative explanations to the early Christian tradition.

Assessments such as Pagels’ are misleading, at best, while Koester needs to heed some of the important ramifications of the data. Within the pages of the New Testament itself, the seeds of canonicity were already beginning to grow. Later, by the very early second century, there were several crucial indications that two blocks of books, in particular, were being recognized as authoritative. All of this occurred well before the written Gnostic tradition was established.

Testimony of NT Itself

In 1 Timothy 5:18 two statements are termed “Scripture.” The first is found in Deuteronomy 25:4, one of the Jews’ most sacred Old Testament books. The second teaching is found in Luke 10:7 (compare Matt. 10:10), and recites the words of Jesus. By placing a text in Deuteronomy alongside a statement by Jesus, and referring to both of them as Scripture, we have an indication of the early realization that Jesus’ teachings were to be viewed in some sense as being authoritative or canonical.

A major question here concerns whether citations such as the one in 1 Timothy 5:18 (as well as many others in the early church) make reference to the remembered oral teachings of Jesus (perhaps in early written form) or to the Gospels themselves. We will return to this issue later. We will just note here that we are at least presented with the possibility that it was the Gospel text in Luke itself which was being cited. If so, such could well be an implicit recognition of the principle that texts which authoritatively recount the life of Jesus could at least potentially be viewed as Scripture. But even if this is not the case, we will endeavor to indicate that Jesus’ oral teachings had already attained a similarly authoritative status.

Additionally, 2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’s epistles as Scripture. Such a text testifies to the existence of a certain Pauline corpus which was also recognized, at least by some, as being authoritative.

So very early, even before the last canonical New Testament book was written, at least two groupings were already being recognized and referred to as authoritative. These were the Gospels and/or the tradition of Jesus’ oral teachings on the one hand and Paul’s epistles on the other. Such conclusions are also supported by a number of other very early sources as well.

Testimony of Apostolic Fathers

In his Epistle to the Corinthians, usually dated about AD 95, Clement of Rome made an important reference to the “Gospel,” which was the central message that the apostles had received from Jesus Christ himself and had passed on to their hearers (42). On other occasions, Clement cited various teachings of Jesus which are found in all three synoptic Gospels, introducing them as “the words of the Lord Jesus” and “His hallowed words” (13) or as “the words of Jesus our Lord” (46).

Here we have an early, first century reference either more generally to the teachings of Jesus or to the text of one or more of the canonical Gospels themselves, which were recognized in either case as the words of Jesus.

Ignatius, writing seven epistles around AD 110–115 on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, quoted the statement found in Luke 24:39 as the words of Jesus (Smyrnaeans 3). Polycarp wrote his Epistle to the Philippians about AD 115, shortly after Ignatius’ letters, to which he makes reference (13). Polycarp also cites sayings found in all of the synoptic Gospels and, again, identifies them as the words of the Lord (2, 7).

The Didache, an ancient Christian manual, is usually dated somewhere between the end of the first century and the early second century AD. It frequently cites the words of Jesus as being authoritative, sometimes without reference to whose comments they are (1, 3, 16), once as the words of the Lord (9), and twice as the Gospel of the Lord (8, 15). In almost every case, the text contains teachings found in the synoptic Gospels (8, 15-16).

One interesting note is that several words from the Book of Acts are quoted in the Didache (4; cf. Acts 4:32), as are several examples from Paul’s teachings (see below). The point in the former instance is that such would not be accounted for by any collection of Jesus’ sayings. The most likely source is Acts itself.

The epistle of Barnabas, perhaps dated about AD 135, refers to Jesus’ saying in Matthew 22:14 as “scripture” (4). This is followed by a reference to Jesus’ “Gospel” and a quotation of His words which is found in the synoptics (5).

From Papias’ Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, written about AD 125–140, we obtain information which explicitly comments on the writing of the Gospels. Sadly, almost all of this work is no longer extant, with extracted fragments being all which remain. Yet, it is perhaps difficult to overemphasize the importance of the brief data which are still in existence.

Papias explains that Mark, as Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote his Gospel based on the teaching of this apostle, although not necessarily in chronological order. Then we are briefly told that Matthew wrote his account in Hebrew, with interested readers providing their own translations (III).

While anything which Papias may have said concerning the Gospels of Luke and John is not extant, a later manuscript summarizes Papias’ testimony that John composed his Gospel while he was an elderly man (XIX). Incidently, Papias does testify that he received such material from those who learned directly from the Lord’s apostles themselves (III).

To return to the significant issue of whether these early citations of Jesus’ words are from a sayings tradition (either written or oral) or from the canonical Gospels themselves, at least two things need to be mentioned. Initially, while none of the quotations of Jesus are specifically said to be taken from the Gospels, this conclusion could still be successfully argued on several fronts.

The Didache excerpt from Acts (4) also does not identify the source, yet it is unlikely that it comes from any sayings source both because of its nature and in that it lacks those characteristics. Further, the citations from Paul (see below) are from his epistles, even though the specific books are not mentioned. Lastly, the passages from Papias about the authorship of Matthew, Mark, and John do not cite sayings from Jesus but definitely do acknowledge the Gospel sources.

And it should be noted that our original goal was not so much to prove the source for the sayings, but to show that the Gospels were accepted as authoritative well before the end of the second century. This would certainly appear to be evident from this data, especially in that Papias also relates the importance of these Gospels — three times he explains that Mark made no errors in recording his material about Jesus (III). Such was evidently important to him.

But, additionally, even if most of the citations of Jesus’ words are from a sayings source,

the earliest post-apostolic authors clearly refer to these statements as inspired and authoritative, on a par with that of the Old Testament. So once again, the chief point here is that the early Gnostic Gospels of the mid to late second century did not appear in a milieu where “anything goes.” Rather, the sources for Jesus’ life (see below) and teachings were clearly established and accepted. That the canonical Gospels are the texts which incorporate these teachings also says something about their authority.

So the facts certainly appear to indicate that the canonical Gospels were widely recognized as being authoritative well before the late second century. In addition to 1 Timothy 5:18, six major Christian sources refer to the teachings of Jesus alternatively as the Gospel, the words of Christ and Scripture between AD 95 and 140.

Thus, while the Gospels were one major corpus in the New Testament canon to be accepted as sacred, the other was Paul’s epistles. Besides being called Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16, verses from Paul’s epistles are referred to, often as inspired, in Clement’s Corinthians (47), Ignatius’ Ephesians (10) and To Polycarp (1, 5), as well as in Polycarp’s Philippians (1, 3-4, 6, 12). In a few of these passages, Paul’s letters as a whole are both discussed and referred to as Scripture.

Therefore, when the earliest Gnostic Gospels were being written in the mid to late second century AD, at least the teachings of Jesus as presented in the canonical Gospels had already circulated for quite awhile and had been well established as Scripture. The same might be said for the Pauline corpus.

In fact, the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts as a whole cite most of the canonical New Testament books and borrow often from some of these works. The Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip, in particular, are examples of Gnostic writings which recognize most of the New Testament as authoritative.

So, despite Pagels’ complaint that history is written by the victors,

the four Gospels, in particular, were certainly not “forced” into the New Testament canon. Rather, there are fitting reasons why the biblical Gospels were the “victors” — the facts indicate that these writings are simply better-attested sources for the teachings of Jesus.

4. The death and resurrection of Jesus

Fourth, what about the status of the life of Jesus and his death and resurrection, in particular? Does the downplaying of these events in the Gospel of Thomas provide any challenge to the orthodox teaching of, say, the centrality of the gospel message?

Initially, it ought to be pointed out that the post-apostolic authors did not ignore the important aspects of the life of Jesus. Along with the emphasis on Jesus’ teachings which we just surveyed, a number of (usually) brief passages concentrate on historical interests. In particular, the death and resurrection appear to be the central concern in these texts.

With regard to the claim that Q and Thomas do not emphasize the death and resurrection of Jesus, there are several reasons why this does not change either the facticity or the importance of these events. (1) Both of these texts are sayings documents and by far the primary purpose is to list the purported teachings of Jesus, not his actions or events in his life.

(2)Neither of these records is without its own serious problems on other grounds. The growing number of critical scholars who think there are sufficient grounds to doubt the very existence of Q or related hypotheses are listed by William Farmer,

who also contends that “the existence of Q, the fount of all these speculations, is not proven and today is more hotly contested in gospel scholarship than at any other time in our century.”

On the other hand, Koester’s reasons notwithstanding, it is generally concluded that Thomas was originally written in the mid second century. One reason for this conclusion is the majority view that Thomas relies on the gospel tradition in its citations. So, whether it preserves earlier traditions or not, it adds little to our knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus.

On this last point, Brown judges that “we learn not a single verifiable new fact about Jesus’ ministry and only a few new sayings that might plausibly have been his.”

Fitzmyer agrees, but in even stronger terms: “The Coptic texts of Nag Hammadi tell us little that is new . . . . It has been mystifying, indeed, why serious scholars continue to talk about the pertinence of this material to the study of the New Testament.”

Accordingly, any thesis that would pose Q and Thomas over against the New Testament tradition in favor of the death and resurrection of Jesus would have to argue from a tradition which is somewhat problematic from the outset. This is especially the case with regard to Thomas. The many obstacles caused Farmer to comment concerning the Robinson-Koester proposal: “We can only conclude that a hypothesis is being set forth for which there is very little evidence.” So when Q theology is combined with Thomas and other Gnostic theses, Farmer responds that such is only “a grand vision. . . a romance”!

(3)The issue of whether Q includes or presupposes the knowledge of Jesus’ death and resurrection is debated by scholars. Because of the nonexistence of this document, it is rather difficult to argue conclusively as to its content. Regardless, Fuller argues that, even without mentioning the resurrection, Q “presupposes it all the way through.”

But the purported sayings of Jesus contained in Thomas do acknowledge Jesus’ death (34:25-27; 45:1-16), as well as encouraging believers to follow him in bearing their own crosses (42:27-28). Jesus’ exaltation is depicted in the post-death illustration that asserts that the builders’ rejected stone is the cornerstone (45:17-19). While the resurrection is not directly described, “the living Jesus” identified in the opening line of Thomas as the speaker who is imparting this information, is most likely the risen Jesus, causing Robert Grant to explain that this is why so little attention is given to Jesus’ life and death.

(4)Last, the earliest creedal formulas in Christianity frequently recount the death and resurrection of Jesus. These confessions depict Christian doctrine in its earliest stages as it was transmitted orally, often recounting various details concerning these events and their importance. Although we cannot provide detailed arguments here, two examples that demand notice are 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 and 15:3ff.

The initial text depicts the Last Supper that Jesus shared with His disciples, explaining the significance of his death. Jeremias asserts that the tradition here comes from the earliest time in the early church, even going back to Jesus.

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. recounts the gospel facts of the death, burial, resurrection and appearances of Jesus Christ and is probably even earlier in its formulation. There are numerous other creedal statements in the New Testament that also report the subject of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

We will return to a detailed treatment of this topic in below.

The point to be made is that the report in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. of the earliest eyewitnesses who themselves attested the appearances of the risen Jesus predates the Gnostic material. Further, it must be remembered that the Gnostic texts do not deny these facts; in reality, they affirm the resurrection of Jesus.

But Raymond Brown still reminds us that the earliest interest relative to the resurrection of Jesus is “an identifiable chain of witnesses,” not Gnostic theology.

Farmer contends that any Gnostic scenario which implies that the death and resurrection of Jesus were unimportant for the earliest apostolic community “is like children making castles in a sandbox” in the sense that it is a “fanciful reconstruction” of the data.

Summary and Conclusion

So what do those who appear to champion the Gnostic thesis think about the death and resurrection of Jesus? Perhaps surprisingly, there is apparently no attempt by Robinson or Koester to deny either historical event. Robinson, in fact, reminds us of a crucially important logical point: even if the death and resurrection of Jesus were absent from Q, it does not follow that the Q community was not aware of these occurrences.

Further, Robinson argues elsewhere that the earliest accounts of the resurrection appearances depicted nonphysical visions of the radiant, spiritual body of Jesus. However, he argues that the mainstream Gnostic view preferred only the radiance apart from the body itself.

Although we wish to register disagreement over Robinson’s disdain for physical appearances, we also need to point out that even a commitment to the Q and Thomas traditions do not at all necessitate a denial of Jesus’ literal death and later appearances.

Koester clearly states the certainty of Jesus’ death on the cross and then asserts that “We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect.” And while he is not concerned to attempt to ascertain the nature of these experiences, Koester holds that their occurrence “cannot be questioned.” He then explains that it was these appearances that account for the disciples’ interest in missionary activity, in that:

the resurrection changed sorrow and grief, or even hate and rejection, into joy, creativity, and faith. Though the resurrection revealed nothing new, it nonetheless made everything new for the first Christian believers.

While we may guess that the assertion “the resurrection revealed nothing new” perhaps provides a hint about Koester’s personal view, it must again be stated that the Q and Gnostic theses by no means require disbelieving either Jesus’ death or his literal appearances. In other words, even those who may disbelieve apparently do not do so because of the Gnostic data. But it is also evident that the interest in Q and Thomas, with their relative silence on these subjects, still do not even keep Koester from concluding that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was central for the first believers.

In sum, we conclude our discussion by asserting that the general Gnostic trajectory fails, and for several reasons, some of which have not been mentioned here.

The Gnostic sources are too late, besides lacking evidence that they are based on eyewitness, authoritative authority.

Furthermore, the New Testament canon was not formulated in an open forum where orthodox and Gnostic texts circulated on the same level. And while it may have been the late second century before canonical concerns were basically solved, the Gospel corpus (plus Acts) and the epistles of Paul had long before had an established tradition. In fact, somewhere during the time frame between the writing of some of the canonical books themselves until about 40 years after the close of the canon, these two collections of texts appear to be well-established as Scripture.

Last, there are a number of reasons why even the reliance on the Q and Gnostic traditions do not constitute grounds on which to deny the gospel facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Several responses were given to show that, at every turn, such a thesis is strongly opposed by the data.

Therefore, it must be concluded that the recent interest on the part of some scholars in this Gnostic scenario does not threaten the historicity of the life, teachings, death, or resurrection of Jesus. The majority of critical scholars have rejected such a conclusion and we have attempted to argue that there are certainly firm grounds for doing so.

The Nag Hammadi Library.

Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,

The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Gnostic Gospels

Nag Hammadi,

Nag Hammadi in English,

Gnostic Gospels,

Nag Hammadi in English,

Thomas

Gnostic Gospels,

New Review of Books and Religion,

America,

Introducing the NT,

Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus,

The Evidence for Jesus

Historical Reliability,

Introducing the NT,

Bible and Gospels,

Gnostic Gospels,

Pagels either knows or cares too little about the theological diversity and development of “orthodox” Christian theology in the first three centuries to be fair to its defenders in their debates with the gnostics. She is frequently taken in by the stock rhetorical polemics of both sides, mistaking rhetoric for fact.

(See Pheme Perkins, “Popularizing the Past,” Commonweal, 9 November, 1979, pp. 634-635.)

Other problems include Pagels’ popularizing methodology, her constant imposition of political, sociological, and modern psychological factors upon ancient philosophical and theological questions, and the lack of her desired support for woman’s rights in the Gnostic sources. (For details, see Edwards, p. 7; Fitzmyer, p. 122; Perkins, p. 635; Raymond E. Brown, “The Christians Who Lost Out,” The New York Times Book Review, January 20, 1980, p. 3; Kathleen McVey, “Gnosticism, Feminism, and Elaine Pagels,” Theology Today, vol. 37, January, 1981, pp. 498, 501.)

Lastly, Edwards charges that Pagels’ volume is plagued by a reductionism for which no evidence is provided, but only her own word (p. 7). Perkins summarizes her critique this way:

But the whole is so flawed by hasty generalization, over-interpretation of texts to fit a pre-determined scheme, and lack of sympathetic balance that this reviewer found herself constantly wishing that the whole could have been redone with more care (p. 635).

Nag Hammadi,

The Apostolic Fathers

Corinthians

Ephesians

Fourfold Gospel

Muratorian Canon

The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible

Gnostic Gospels,

Corinthians

Trallians

Smyrnaeans

Magnesians

Barnabas

Ecclesiastical History

First Apology

Dialogue With Trypho

The Perkins School of Theology Journal,

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

Gospel Perspectives,

Biblica,

Evidence for Jesus,

Foundations,

The Gospel of Thomas

Gnosticism and Early Christianity,

Historical Reliability,

Thomas.

The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus

The Eucharistic Words of Jesus,

The Gospel of Truth

The Treatise on Resurrection

Drew Gateway,

Journal of Biblical Literature,

Nag Hammadi,

Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus,

(Gnostic Gospels,

Another crucial area concerns the origin of Gnosticism. The predominant view is that it was derived from Christianity. Fitzmyer refers to Gnosticism as a “parasite” in this regard (p. 123). (See Robert Grant’s Gnosticism and Early Christianity, as well as Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973]).

Many other critiques on related topics are found in Ronald H. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).

↑ Back to top