What is Gnosticism?

Scott C. writes from Texas:

You are exactly correct that Alessandra Stanley’s reference to the Gnostic texts as “Early Christian Gospels” is indeed “a mark of shocking ignorance of the subject.” The word “gospel” means “good news,” and there is no good news in any of the Gnostic texts, only heresy.

Few, if any, people these days truly understand the Gnostic heresy, even though it has been a prevalent part of Western culture since the very beginning and continues to be so today. Gnosticism did not begin with Christianity; it had its origins in Ancient Greece. There were Gnostic cults in Athens which inverted the prevailing religious beliefs; that’s what they do. But since Greek mythology is extraordinarily complicated, Gnosticism is more easily understood in its antipathy to Christianity.

Instead of believing in God as a loving Father, the Gnostics saw him as an “evil archon.” They argued that the Creation was an act of tyranny and that the physical world is a prison. You see, the Gnostics believed that once all beings were Eternals, but one Eternal, Elohim (or Jehovah), rose up, presuming himself to be above the others, and formed the material world to imprison the rest of the Eternals. Thus, matter is inherently evil, a dungeon at the center of which is trapped a “divine spark,” the remnant of each being’s eternal existence.

Further, Jesus is not seen as the Son of God but rather as an “aeon,” or special power, sent from Eternity to ignite the “divine spark” within each being so that it might cast off the material world and return to its eternal existence.

In this heresy, there is no Holy Spirit. There is only “gnosis,” or a secret knowledge, through which the casting off of the material world and the return to eternal existence takes place.

Put simply, Gnosticism is merely conceit. The Gnostics presumed they were smarter than everyone else; they had a secret knowledge that revealed to them the real truth. That “truth” is simply that everyone else is wrong, and the “real truth” is the exact opposite of what everyone else believes. This is what John was referring to in the Apocalypse, when he talks of a time when right is wrong, up is down, black is white, good is evil. He was defending Jesus, who came to bear witness to the Truth, against the Gnostics, who only wished to tear everything Jesus stood for down.

Now, think feminism. Marriage is not a sacrament, it’s a prison. A husband is not a loving partner, he’s a tyrant. Sex is not making love, it’s rape. Pregnancy is not a blessing, it’s a disease. A fetus is not a baby, it’s a parasite. A child is not a gift, it’s a burden.

Do you see how easy it is to do that? Do you see how clever that is? Just take the opposite and throw a fit. And yet this is what passes for intellect in progressive circles.

Gnosticism is nothing new. It’s been around for a very long time. Only today, it’s been renamed progressivism. But that doesn’t make it any less of a heresy, or worthy of any serious discussion. Augustine proved that in the 4th century.

Vincent C. writes:

Several years ago, I wrote the then Deputy Editor of the neo-con Christian magazine, First Things, about attempts by revisionist historians to cast former President Lyndon Johnson&&s political career in a more favorable light. I pointed out that, despite the permanent damage he had done to the U.S., it appeared that Johnson would get a pass, but Joe McCarthy (this was long before Ann Coulter&&s book was published)—and Nixon—were unlikely to find hagiographers. Neuchterlein ended by agreeing and saying that McCarthy had “ … virtually no defenders.” But another historical figure who hitherto has had “virtually no defenders” may also see his career star ascending with the help of Gnostic texts: the unlikely figure of Christ&&s betrayer, Judas Iscariot.

Professor Bart Ehrman, of the University of North Carolina, and an “expert” in early Christianity, has been instrumental in the effort to give Judas Iscariot a new historical hearing, and in his latest work, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, he explains why. The 1978 discovery in Egypt of a codex called The Judas Gospel, has now been translated (from Coptic) and published, and Ehrman believes that, “Eventually, there will be hundreds of scholarly books and articles written about the Gospel of Judas.” It would not surprise me, then, if The Judas Gospel will become the Dead Sea Scrolls of our time.

As one might suspect, several “revisionist” themes emerge from this Gospel. As Scott C. mentioned, the Gnostics believed that Jesus was not sent by God the Creator, but came from “the realm of Barbelo.” Indeed, much of the Gnostic language in this Gospel seems to be parody of Tolkien. But most pointed is the radical transformation of the character and work of Judas Iscariot. It appears that Judas, “the 13th Apostle,” was the most faithful of the apostles, and understood Jesus best, and it was to Judas, then, that Christ revealed “all that needs to be known.” It was that knowledge (gnosis) which separated Gnostic belief from that of early Christians, and Gnostic heresy was condemned by many early Christian writers, including Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Of course the most significal historical revision is Judas Iscariot’s role in the Passion. Instead of betraying Jesus as detailed in the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of Judas claims that, indeed, Judas did precisely that, but that perfidiousness was a kind deed performed so that Jesus could escape his earthly body and chains. In short, there was no treachery, there was devotion, and the road to Golgotha was the prelude not to Man’s redemption, but to Christ’s fleeing his earthly chains.

Now this may appear flippant, but, given the unsettled religious environment in which we live, it would not surprise me if we do not witness the results of this greatest historical revision of all: colleges and universities with their own Judas Iscariot Clubs.

LA replies:

Not to defend the crazy Gnostic re-intepretations of the Gospels which make good bad and bad good, the fact remains that Judas is the most puzzling character in the Gospels. We know that it was Jesus’ mission to be arrested and crucified, and therefore it was necessary for someone to betray him to the authorities. Therefore Judas wasn’t simply a traitor but was in some sense carrying out Jesus’ purposes (“What you’re going to do, do quickly”). Further, the consequences for someone carrying out this horrible task would be fatal; no man could betray Jesus and live. From this point of view, Judas had the greatest and most difficult task of any of the disciples, leading to his own miserable death. At the same time, while what I’ve just said is strongly suggested by the Gospel account, the Gospels do not provide us enough material to make sense of any of this. Judas’ role will ever remain an unanswered mystery.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 03, 2007 03:05 PM | Send