What are gnosticism and Gnostic writings? This post gives you the basics about those writings, and how they veer off from the New Testament.

The surge in interest in these strange documents has tapered off, but it will circle back around. On the other hand, I recently heard part of an interview with an Yale- and Oxford-educated man who was promoting Gnosticism. So maybe there is a surge of interest in these strange writings.

I hope no one is fooled by them.

Here’s what these odd religious beliefs look like and how they differ widely from the NT.

Let’s use the question-and-answer format for clarity and conciseness.

1. What is Gnosticism?

It is difficult to define because it was a diverse religious movement. (See Question Seven for a description of its characteristics and traits.) Often Gnostics borrowed the outward form of traditional Christianity, which spread rapidly, and Gnostics capitalized on its fame. They used the names of the disciples for the titles of their works: The Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, the Secret Book of John, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of James.

But the real disciples of Jesus never wrote any of those books.

In other cases, the Gnostics titled their works according to a more religious or mythological outlook, such as Three Forms of First Thought, the Vision of the Foreigner, and the Exegesis of the Soul.

2. What does the word gnostic mean?

This word comes directly from ancient Greek with few changes in spelling in English. In Greek that has been transliterated into English, gnosis means knowledge. A gnostic or gnostikos (English transliteration of Greek) is one who knows or is a knower.

3. But what does he or she know?

A gnostic knows secret, privileged doctrines and ideas that enlightens him or her about the true nature of this world and the other world; how and why this world was made; about how to transcend or escape from it; how spirit beings, such as a gnostic god or redeemer, can help the “true knower” escape from his all-too-human existence (to use a phrase anachronistically); how the spirit or nonmaterial interacts with the body; how not to be tied down to the physical; and how the soul may journey upwards into a heaven. Self-knowledge is the path to redemption for the soul.

4. What is the source or origins of Gnosticism?

This question also goes to the when of this diverse religious movement. The source is difficult to discover. Some scholars say it grew out of Indian and Persian religions. It overlaps with Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. Or it was a syncretism (mixture) of many beliefs circulating over the trade routes in the greater Middle East and the Mediterranean world. A few persons collected these floating ideas into oral teachings and written texts, which also circulated along the trade routes, gathering interested listeners and followers.

Some of the religious ideas include Hellenistic mystery religions (Hellenistic means Greek ideas that circulated after Alexander the Great’s conquests in the fourth century BC); Jewish apocalyptic (revelatory) texts that began surfacing in the second century BC; Jewish wisdom literature; and later interpretations of Plato (one scholar says Gnosticism is Platonism run wild).

The Gnosticism that concerns us here staked out its identity most clearly in the second and later centuries. In most instances, I use the term Gnosticism in this specific way.

As noted, Gnostics borrowed from the outward form of Christianity, such as the names of the disciples. It is mainly for this reason that some scholars of Gnosticism use the phrase Gnostic Christian or Christian Gnostic, though they push the definition of Christian beyond recognition. Sometimes one can get the impression that they combine the two terms because they want to blur the distinction between traditional or orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism. Let’s hope their intent is not malicious.

In any case, the doctrines of the two religious movements, Orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism, differed widely.

5. Does Gnosticism influence the New Testament?

Most scholars say that the Gnosticism that can be clearly identified as a fully grown religions movement did not influence the New Testament, for this kind of Gnosticism came about in the second and later centuries. But it is clear that some New Testament authors may have been responding to an incipient gnosis, broadly defined in the sense that religious ideas had been circulating in the Hellenistic world for a few centuries. See Colossians 1:19, 2:9; 1 Timothy 1:4, 3:16, 6:20; 2 Timothy 2:8; and 1 John 1:1, 4:1-3.

The Gospel of John, written in the AD 90s, has been called the “spiritual” Gospel, but it highlights the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This may, in part, be a response to those who denied a physical resurrection, as some Gnostics did.

It must be emphasized that the early Christians are shown in the New Testament as replying to religious ideas that did not fit their theology, not absorbing them, for example, in Acts 8:9-25; 14:8-18; 17:16, 22-34; 19:17-20, 23-41. The other passages listed above also demonstrate resistance to incorporating strange ideas, as the early Christians perceived things. The more liberal New Testament scholars imply that the early Christians adopted popular religious ideas indiscriminately, but this must be counterbalanced, and, in my opinion, is wrong.

See Robert McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament (Fortress, 1968), chapter 2.

6. Which religion derives from the other?

That’s easy. Gnosticism studied here in this post is a derivative of Christianity, but recall that often Gnosticism borrowed from other religions and came up with its own ideas. The four Gospels in the New Testament were completed by the end of the first century (and Mark, Luke and Matthew were written either before or just after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70), and the four Gospels were written in the apostolic community. In contrast, some gnostic texts were written in the middle of the second century, but most were written later. Therefore, chronologically, it was impossible for the four Gospels to be derived from the gnostic gospels and writings.

7. What are some major characteristics or traits of Gnosticism?

One is an “unmediated mystical knowledge, as the way to salvation and life” (Marvin Meyer, the Gnostic Bible, Shambala, 2003, p. 16).

Kurt Rudolph is considered the foremost scholar of Gnosticism, and a large chapter in his introduction to the topic provides five basic characteristics.

Dualism means a belief in two things. In Gnosticism, the two things can be two worlds, one invisible, the other visible; or an otherworldly, unknowable, invisible God contrasted with lower-level “world-gods.” Fullness (Pleroma) is a key idea, and it incorporates angels and other heavenly beings who can interact with humans in this world. In my opinion, it is the multiplication of these beings and aeons (eternal realms) that make Gnosticism distinctive. Rudolph is careful to point out that dualism has the background of monism, which means literally “one thing”; that is, a single unifying ultimate principle or reality that encompasses everything. So some Gnostics advocated dualism against the backdrop of monism.

Cosmogony means the creation or birth of the world. It explains the present condition of humanity. God exists in the high heaven, and he is not responsible for the creation. Instead, lower gods made it, and they bungled it. Thus, Gnosticism is anti-cosmic, for the cosmos (the created universe) is a system of constraints.

Soteriology means the doctrine of salvation or redemption. All major religions offer a path away from or higher than mundane existence that bogs humans into this world. Gnosticism is no different. It includes a wide range of redeemers that offer this kind of path. Or Gnosticism teaches sunken humanity a path for the soul, in a heavenly journey, through self-knowledge. gnosis is the way to redemption.

Eschatology means the study of the end things. In most gnostic documents, it concerns the ascent of the soul into an otherworldly realm, where it finds rest. And some Gnostics taught the end of the cosmos (universe). Evidently, they did not believe the cosmos was cyclical or starting back up again, but see Wilson’s description in the long excerpt, just below.

Community or cultic associations mean that Gnostics formed their own “churches,” of sorts. Gnostics saw themselves as “the few,” contrasted with “the many,” so we should not see their movement as large. Women seem to have held positions of authority. Rituals included anointing with oil, washings and baptism, prayers, image worship, a sacred meal and a eucharist, and sacraments for the dying, to name only these. They wrote up teachings and epistles. They even sent out missionaries. They “infiltrated” Christian communities, says Rudolph (p. 215). But the details on the makeup and the hierarchy and the rituals in these communities are lacking.

Source: Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism, 2^nd ed, trans. R. McL. Wilson (Harper and Row, 1980), pp. 54-272.

Robert McL. Wilson summarizes Gnosticism in four basic elements that were common to all gnostic systems. He writes:

[The basic elements are] (1) a distinction between the unknown and transcendent God on the one hand and the Demiurge or creator of this world on the other, the latter being commonly identified as the God of the Old Testament; (2) the belief that man in his true nature is essentially akin to the divine, a spark of the heavenly light imprisoned in a material body and subjected in this world to the dominance of the Demiurge and his powers; (3) a myth narrating some kind of pre-mundane fall, to account for man’s present state and his yearning for deliverance; and (4) the means, the saving gnosis, by which that deliverance is effected and man awakened to the consciousness of his own true nature and heavenly origin. This deliverance, and the eventual return of the imprisoned sparks of light to their heavenly abode, means in time the return of this world to its primordial chaos, and is strenuously opposed at all points by hostile powers. (Gnosis and the New Testament, p. 4)

8. How did early Christians react to the Gnostics?

Rudolph says that Gnostics sent out missionaries, and some of them “infiltrated” Christian communities (p. 215). So the direct answer to this question is – not very positively, to say the least.

We already saw in Question Five that the New Testament authors replied to some incipient forms of gnosis. So why wouldn’t the early Church in subsequent generations continue in doing this? This is particularly true as Gnostics staked out its identity in communities.

The most prominent apologist (defender) of traditional Christianity was Irenaeus (flourished c. AD 175-c. 195). As a boy he listened to a Christian leader named Polycarp link (c. AD 70-155/60) who was a disciple of the Apostles, particularly John the Apostle. Thus, Irenaeus’ link to the Apostles is very close indeed. He possibly moved to Rome, and then he became the bishop of Lyons, France. He wrote a multivolume work titled Against Heresies. His strenuous effort indicates that he viewed the diverse religious movement as a threat. It is true that he and other apologists sometimes (but not always by any means) became shrill, which I don’t appreciate in my days. But many documents from the Greco-Roman world use such fiery rhetoric. It seems to have been the style back then.

In any case, a church leader must be careful not to let strange ideas into his congregation. This is true today.

For example, if a southern Baptist church shares the same neighborhood with a Calvary Chapel, then the pastors do not feel threatened by the other, for their theologies are very similar. In fact, the pastors may attend a Ministers Colloquium or Fellowship with many other pastors, meeting once a month, for example.

However, what happens if a modern Gnostic Church, so to speak, shares the same neighborhood? Yes, there really are gnostic churches today, and they still use the ancient gnostic texts explored in this series. Do a google search using “gnostic church society” as keywords, to find out how gnostic teaching and its spirit, even today, is different from New Testament theology and traditional church life.

What happens if some members of the gnostic congregation become zealous and seek to win converts from more orthodox Christian congregations, as they did in the early centuries of Christianity? The Baptist and Calvary Chapel pastors have the right to point out their Christian distinctives, according to the New Testament. They should tell the Gnostics no.

9.. Who’s to say who’s right?

It is true that the gnostic writings posed a serious threat to early traditional Christianity, so the orthodox church leaders needed to shore up their own Scriptures. They sought to establish a canon. This word originally meant a measuring stick or string by which other things were measured out. It has now come to mean a privileged set of writings, in our case, the New Testament as we know it today. Here are six criteria or standards of assessment that the early church used to authenticate Scripture.

Apostolic Authority means that for a writing to be canonical it must come from the apostolic community. For example, the Gospels of Matthew and John were widely attested to be apostolic, and so were the Gospels of Mark and Luke, who were not apostles as such, but who knew the apostles. As noted, Polycarp was a disciple of the apostles, particularly of John. In his epistle to the Philippians, he cites and uses twelve books and epistles of the current New Testament. He treated them as authoritative. This sense of authority grew as the decades went on and later church leaders seriously considered apostolic attestation.

Prominent New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce wisely notes:

It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospels are anonymous, whereas the “Gospels” which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and eyewitnesses. (p. 257)

Bruce seems to mean here that the Gnostics overreached in their writings.

Antiquity means the date of the writings. The New Testament writings were completed earlier than the Gnostic writings. In fact, the Gnostics capitalized on the popularity of early Christianity, using the names of the heroes of the traditional faith.

Orthodoxy literally means “straight or correct thinking.” In the early church it was asked, “What does it teach about the person and work of Christ?” (Bruce, p. 260). Some scholars today doubt the authenticity of certain New Testament books, such as 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Hypothetically, if they were forgeries in reality, it is certain that the early church would not have accepted them if the church leaders had known that the epistles were forgeries. Since they were accepted, they were considered genuine. It was not Anything Goes concerning pseudonymity or authenticity of the New Testament documents.

Catholicity means universality at this stage of early church; it does not yet mean the Catholic Church as we understand the term today. In any case, each document in the New Testament was accepted locally, but then its widespread recognition grew. The documents achieved canonical status. Some books or letters, such as 2 Peter and Jude, required more time to be accepted.

Traditional Use means that as the early church came to appreciate the writings that they considered apostolic and genuine, frequently the church resisted other rival scriptures on the basis of tradition. Is this what we have received? That gnostic group over there teaches that Christ did not really suffer on the cross, so is this the teaching that has been passed down to us Christians?

Inspiration means does that a New Testament document borer the marks of inspiration. John says that the Spirit will guide the disciples to remember what has been taught. (14:26; 16:12-15). Paul says that he has the “mind of Christ” and his instruction was taught by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14-16). The early church’s Scripture before the New Testament was completed and accepted was the Old Testament. If a New Testament book relied on and honored the older sacred text as authoritative and inspired, then the newer Scripture could be trusted. The four canonical Gospels definitely meet this criterion. By contrast, the gnostic writings scarred the older sacred text beyond recognition, or disavowed the so-called God of the Old Testament.

Source: F. F. Bruce, the Canon of Scripture (InterVarsity, 1988) pp. 255-63.

10.. What are other differences between the four Gospels and the Gnostic writings?

The biblical Gospels anchor their truths in time and place, in the life of Jesus, who lived in Israel, about four decades before the fall of Jerusalem. It is true that sometimes the biblical Gospels follow a thematic strategy and sometimes deliberately diverge from or omit the data that are necessary to work out a detailed chronology of the life of Christ. However, we are not talking about mythical Middle-earth in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The discoveries listed in this present article and in Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels and the historical assumptions in the four Gospels correspond to each other and cohere together. And that’s good news for the historical reliability of Scripture.

On the other hand, the disembodied truth-claims in the Gnostic texts seem deliberately to distance themselves from the true, real-life story of Jesus, who lived down here on earth in a Jewish context. According to the Index of Proper Names and a count of names that (should) appear throughout the collection, Pontius Pilate, who ordered Christ’s execution, is not mentioned at all. Galilee appears only once, the Gnostic text Wisdom of Jesus Christ saying that the Mount of Olives is in Galilee in the north. But the Mount is actually quite visible just near Jerusalem in Judea, in the south. By contrast, in the much shorter four biblical Gospels, Pilate appears a little under sixty times in the last few chapters of each Gospel (many in parallel passages). Galilee is mentioned about sixty times (many in parallel passages). All four Gospels clearly say that the Mount of Olives is near Jerusalem.

Further, in all the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts (writings found in Egypt), Jerusalem is found only sixteen times, and one text says that demons helped David and Solomon to build it (see Testimony of Truth 69-70, 24-70; pp. 626-27). “Gnostic Jerusalem” seems to float, as it were, in the background of a Medieval painting done by an artist who had never seen the Holy City. So his depiction of it is otherworldly or just plain outlandish. But in the four Gospel narratives, Jerusalem is listed nearly seventy times (many in parallel passages). As we shall see in future articles, the Gospels were written by or based on eyewitnesses, so the Holy City is down-to-earth and real in their accounts (cf. Matt. 21:12-16 // 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47; and John 2:12-16; Matt. 24:1-2 // Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6; Luke 21:1-4; John 2:20; Luke 21:20). The Gospels never say or imply that demons helped to build it.

The point of listing these names and places is to show that the pseudonymous authors of the Nag Hammadi texts seem to delight in omitting time and place, except for a few ethereal locations and persons, whereas the biblical authors thought the life of Jesus in history was important. The pseudonymous authors and the final collector/s of the Nag Hammadi gospels had a tin ear for storytelling, particularly stories rooted in history. Because of the absence in the Gnostic gospels of a basic, down-to-earth correspondence between the texts and history and for many other reasons, we should not at all be confident that Jesus and his followers actually taught and did what is in the Gnostic gospels, though they contain some sayings and traditions that are derivative off of the biblical Gospels.

How does this post help me grow in my knowledge of the Scriptures and the True, Biblical God?

The gnostic texts are way off. The ancient Gnostics were Gnutty, They were rightly rejected by the early church. The early church leaders would have been derelict in their duties, if they had allowed them in. Think of a Southern Baptist pastor who would allow a Mormon bishop to teach a series on Mormonism in the Southern Baptist church on Sunday morning. The elders would call the pastor into account.

If you read them to find early and authentic and orthodox Christianity, then you’ll be disappointed. I hope people ignore them, unless they are specialists. The New Testament is sufficient for your growth in Christ.

RELATED

Ancient Heresy of Gnosticism and Its Postmodern Teachers

Church Fathers and Four Gospels

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

Reliability of the Gospels

Other Posts about Church Fathers

1. Gifts of the Spirit in Early Church Fathers

2. Healings and Deliverances in Early Church Fathers

3. Prophecies, Visions, and Hearing from God in Early Church Fathers