I’ve always had an extreme dislike of the way modern religious scholars have treated Gnostic sources as being on equal footing to patristic sources as a means of gauging early Christian faith. Many Gnostic writings are pure, outright fakes, and it’s not as if they tried to hide that fact from the populace. However, this is not to say there is nothing we can learn from the Gnostics, especially some of the earlier Gnostics who seemed to be interested in bridging philosophical trends with early Christian traditions.[1] We must be careful, obviously, and not take their speculations as necessary truths, and we must purify their teachings, just as Christians had to purify the teachings of other non-Christian sages, but if we are diligent, like Vladimir Solovyov, we can find valuable material contained in Gnostic sources.[2]
Sometimes, what we find from the Gnostics are questions and criticisms which needed to be answered. Marcion made it necessary for early Christians to come to grips with the Old Testament, to read it with a discerning eye, and not accept a straight, uncritical reading of its texts. Marcion’s objections, like those of many modern atheists, are based upon a flawed hermeneutic, a hyper-literalist reading that we find common among fundamentalists. Atheists, Marcionites, and the like, similar to fundamentalists, argue that their reading “is the only valid reading of the text, and any other reading is just an attempt to cover up the clear meaning of the text.” Christians however, do view the text differently. We understand how it reveals the history of revelation, the developing charism in Israel, with those who had the most inspiration being the prophets and psalmists because they more directly pointed to Christ.[3] Marcion’s objections showed why the fundamentalistic interpretation could not be accepted, and why the text had to be examined in greater detail, with historical-critical approaches (such as associated with Antioch) and allegorical approaches (as associated with the early Alexandrian tradition) being employed so that inquirers would not think that God was presented in the Old Testament as some kind of vile monster. Marcion helped establish the need for proper hermeneutics, and despite his faulty understanding of the Christian faith, he helped it along, so it would tackle important issues early on, leading to the formation of Biblical Theology (with Origen). This then allowed Origen and others like him to answer the objections of pagan critics of Christianity; without such internal struggle they would not have been so well equipped to present the faith to outsiders.
One of the most intriguing Gnostic Texts is the Gospel of Thomas. Why it is so interesting is that it clearly is early. There is a feel to it that its author is intimately associated with early Christian traditions, and is actively trying to follow them. It also seems that the author had some of the same material to use that the synoptic authors had. Now, I think scholars are wrong in trying to suggest the Gospel of Thomas is itself a source for the orthodox Gospels, but I do think it is a legitimate, outside witness to a common tradition about the sayings of Christ, and in this way, it is an important tool in proving the authenticity of the Gospels. It demonstrates what was transmitted and accepted, and then it adds to it, material which suggests the author is being influenced by non-Christian Gnostics. I am not sure if the scribe themselves intended deception, or if we have a writer who put together the traditions they heard from the community they lived in, one associated with the Apostle Thomas, revealing what they knew, and in doing so, showing us how that community was being corrupted. If I had to guess, I think we have a text which was written after the fact, based upon an assume apostolic tradition, similar to what we find happened in the creation of the Donation of Constantine. This, however, would suggest that we might have in the text material which was commonly accepted and understood as being statements from Jesus, which are not in the authentic Gospels, and yet are themselves not unauthentic.[4] Interestingly enough, I have now found confirmation that this was the way at least some early Christians took the Gospel of Thomas. In his commentary on Jeremiah, Origen references (without name) The Gospel of Thomas, and how he does so is quite interesting:
I have read elsewhere as if the Savior was speaking– and I question whether it was someone who was a figure for the person of the Savior of it was appended in his memory or if this may be truly what he said — the Savior there says, ‘Whoever is near me is near fire; whoever is far from me, is far from the kingdom.’[5]
What Origen quotes is saying number 82 from the Gospel of Thomas. Now the question is, why does Origen not name the source? Possibly because this was a saying which was written down in many texts, and he wasn’t even thinking of the Gospel of Thomas, and “Thomas” had also heard it and recorded it from the text Origen knew. Or it is possible it was “Thomas” Origen was referencing. In either case, what is interesting is that he thinks the words are of value, and they could possibly be authentic words of Christ, or at least, of the kind which demonstrate the Savior’s teaching — here, the teaching that our salvation requires us to be purified from our sins, from the “fire of God.” Our earliest record of the text is clearly from “Thomas,” and so within “Thomas” there is something of value, and perhaps a preservation of words of Christ not found elsewhere. Once we recognize this, however, we must be careful, and not assume the whole text is valid. Again, all we have to do is look at the pre-history of the Donation of Constantine to see how valid history can be innocently intermingled with historical error. The reason why early Christians did not accept “Thomas” is because they did not feel him to be reliable, and they would better know what was or was not reliable than scholars looking back to the first century with a hermeneutic of suspicion, doubting the way Christianity developed as being authentic. But it does seem that there is some flexibility with “Thomas,” that even if he was rejected as a pure source of orthodox teaching, that it did not preclude him from offering authentic material not found elsewhere. This is why “Thomas” is and will always be intriguing. It is because there does appear to be something different with the text than later Gnostic forgeries, and that we do find something in it which strikes as “true.” It is also for this reason that the text is more dangerous -for those who are not predisposed to orthodox Christianity, this can become the wedge they want to reject it, and all for the wrong reasons.
For Vladimir Solovyov, it was the Sophiological texts, like Pistis Sophia, which were of greatest interest and importance. Because it is easier to spot its unorthodox aspects, the speculations in it are easier to study, and deal with, and not be corrupted by them while still using them to reflect upon the questions they raise. For Solovyov, the question of Sophia was an early Christian concern, and not just a Gnostic concern, but because of the Gnostics, Sophiological work was neglected. Nonetheless, the Gnostic traditions, being a part of the Sophiological tradition, are important resources to consider Sophia. Again, following his example, we can clearly see how these texts are valuable, and indeed, they will help us show the kinds of questions which were being asked, and possibly never properly answered: one of the reasons why Russian Orthodox theology found itself in a renaissance in the early 20th century is because of the religio-philosophical work Solovyov engaged from the Gnostics, where he brought their questions back to the forefront and showed how they could be better answered in the modern world, revising the field of theology and making it once again a lively enterprise, capable of dealing with questions that modern philosophy and science had of the Christian faith.
C.S. Lewis mentioned in many of his writings how he believed a revival in paganism, authentic paganism, would ultimately be good for the Christian witness, because such paganism was better, much closer to the truth, than post-Christian atheism. Paganism contained the seeds of the Gospel, it prepared the peoples of the world for the Gospel. Perhaps we can also look similarly to the rise of Gnosticism in the present age. While its theology is not good, and must be rejected, perhaps we can see within it the preparation of souls, where people are now reaching out for authentic spiritual traditions and looking for it where they think it can be found. They are no longer satisfied with the bleak world of positivistic materialism. The task at hand seems to be for someone to follow the example of Origen and Solovyov, someone willing to engage Gnostic texts, to mine it for truth, to purify it from corruption, and then to use the outcome of their research to lead others to the fullness of truth in authentic Christianity. Hence the rise of Gnosticism provides us an evangelical opportunity if we are willing to take it on. The question is, who is it that God will send?
[1] We have to recognize that the Gnostic movement was not cohesive. Some involved in it were trying to understand Christianity and got diverted. Others, however, are clear charlatans, and if they lived today, we would consider them to be the equivalent of David Koresh and Jim Jones, that is, we would see them for what they were: “cult” leaders.
[2] And, as my own previous discussion of Gnosticism pointed out, it is clear many early Christians did look at and were influenced, positively and negatively, by the Gnostics, and this is why it is not surprising to find Gnostic texts preserved by early Christians, especially in monastic circles where some Gnostic ideas seem to have been refined and rendered orthodox.
[3] Robert Hill thinks he finds this tendency in the works of many Eastern Fathers, such as St John Chrysostom: “Less frequently at the focus of attention in sustained patristic commentary were the works of the Old Testament sages who left us the Wisdom books. It is not that wisdom, sophia (Latin sapientia), was not of interest to the Fathers; they can be found frequently citing these book of the sages, sophoi. By referring to the authors in this way, however, and not applying to them the usual term for Old Testament authors, prophêtai, it may be that they did not consider them to be the recipients of the charism of divine inspiration to the same extent as prophets and psalmists (just as mere historians likewise forfeit the term).” Robert C. Hill, trans. and intr., St John Chrysostom Commentaries on the Sages Volume One: Commentary on Job (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), 1-2.
[4]I would also say there is clearly inauthentic material in the Gospel of Thomas, explaining why it cannot be entirely accepted — the Gnostic rejection of all that was feminine (whether in the literal or allegorical sense) cannot be seen as words Jesus spoke.
[5] Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28. trans. John Clark Smith (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1998), 254.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In