Gnosticism in the Early Church

By: James Robinson McCormick Theological School

James Robinson

Page 1

8/7/2004

Gnosticism is a generic term for a variety of religious movements of the first centuries of the Christian era. Although the theology, ritual practice, and ethics of these groups differed considerably, all purported to offer salvation from the oppressive bonds of material existence through gnosis, or knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the implications of Gnosticism in the early church. What is known about Gnosticism traditionally depended upon reports in the church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Epiphanius, who are opponents of Christian Gnostic teachers. 1 Irenaeus was above all a pastor. He was not particularly interested in the philosophical speculation or in delving into mysteries hitherto unsolved, but rather in leading his flock in Christian life and faith. Therefore, in his writings he did not seek to rise in great speculative flights, but simply to refute heresy and instruct believers. The writings of Irenaeus are an excellent witness to the faith of the church towards the end of the second century. 2 An example of his written works was his insight on how heretics follow neither scripture nor tradition. He expresses that heretics confuted from the Scriptures turning them around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that those who are ignorant of tradition cannot extract the truth from them. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv voce:

Paul J. Achtemeier and others, eds., Harpers Bible Dictionary (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 349. 2 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984), 68.

James Robinson

Page 2

8/7/2004

wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." Irenaeus continues that this wisdom alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. It was his hypothesis that for every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.3 Hippolytus was the intellectual disciple of Irenaeus and a Greek speaking Christian who settled in Rome. He wrote an influential work called Refutation of all Heresies. A copy of the work was discovered in 1832 at Mount Athos and is important for its summary of heretical doctrines, which Hippolytus rejected outright as blasphemous. The work is in two parts: the first part traces the origins of heresy to pre-Christian Greek philosophy, which he describes as erroneous, and the second part gives an account of thirty-three Gnostic systems. He declared that the basis of Gnostic doctrine was not Christian and therefore all who believed it were godless. He substantiated this claim by highlighting the false doctrines of Simon Magus, especially what he regarded as his false teaching of the Infinite Force as the original force or the principle of the universe. A particular emphasis on his teaching is the unsound notion that Gods love is unconditional and immeasurable. As an advocate of the Logos Christology, he
3

Irenaeus Against All Heresies Book III, chapters 2- 5

James Robinson

Page 3

8/7/2004

also believed strongly in the virgin birth of Jesus, which he linked to the doctrine of the Logos. Jesus was fully man, and so Hippolyus stated, Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God, the Lord came down from heaven (and entered) into the holy virgin Mary, assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul and becoming then all that man is with the exception of sin, he might save fallen man and confer immorality on men who believe in his name.4 Tertullian, who was a lawyer, affirmed that once one has found the truth of Christianity, one should abandon any further search for truth. As Tertullian, sees the matter, a Christian who is still searching for further truth lacks faith. His beliefs were that if any quest for truth goes beyond that of the body of doctrine is dangerous. All outside sources were to be rejected. This is particularly true of pagan philosophy, which is the source of all heresy, and is nothing but idle speculation. In short, Tertullain condemns all speculation. To speak, for instance, of what Gods omnipotence can do is a waste of time and a dangerous occupation. What we are to ask is not what God could do, but rather what is it that God has in fact done. This is what the church teaches. This is what is to be found in Scripture. The rest is idle and risky curiosity. For all these reasons, Tertullian is a unique personality in the story of Christianity. A fiery champion of orthodoxy against every sort of heresy, in the end he joined one of the movements that the church at large considered

John Glyndwr Harris, Gnosticism: Beliefs and Practices (Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1999)

147-149.

James Robinson

Page 4

8/7/2004

heretical. And, even then, he produced writings and theological formulas that would be very influential in the future course of orthodox theology. Furthermore, he was the first Christian theologian to write in Latin, which was the language of the western half of the empire, and thus he may be considered the founder of western theology (Gonzalez 1984, 73-77). Origen draws a distinction between the gnosis of the advanced or perfect and the belief of the simple Christians. According to Origen, these simple Christians concentrated their faith on the man Jesus Christ who was crucified. But without denying this faith, he thinks that what really matters is knowledge of Jesus Christ who is spiritually present as Gods Word and Wisdom. Origen understands the apostle Paul as having had a message on two levels, for the simple and for the advanced. He thought that the Bible had to be interpreted allegorically. This starting point gave him the possibility of interpreting all kinds of texts from the Old and New Testaments spiritually, with reference to his own views. Allegorical interpretation contributed to the preservation in the church of the Old Testament, which was sometimes felt to be difficult. It is evident from some of Origens views that he interpreted Christian faith in a way, which sometimes suggests the Gnostics. However, is it important that he attributes the creation of this world to the one God and not to a lower Creator. According to Origen, the fact that human beings live on this earth is a result of the choice, which the soul once made when it joined in the rebellion against God (as nous). In his view, the soul is thus itself responsible for its existence in the

James Robinson

Page 5

8/7/2004

earthly body. He thought that the fact that the fallen soul has found its way into a body it could learn to return to God again through Christ. Thus Origen opposes the view that he encountered in Gnostics, namely that by nature they were already spiritual and elect. However, Origens view that the purpose of the human beings is once again to be completely spiritual and to leave the material body behind them is akin to the Gnostics.5 Apart from a few hints that can be found in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea (d.339), we have to wait until the second half of the fourth century to find another important writer engaged in the hunt for heretics, especially Gnostic heretics. This is Epiphanius, born c. 315 at Eleutheropolis, not far from Gaza in Palestine. As a young man he visited the most celebrated monks in Egypt; he returned to Gaza and founded a monastery, over which he presided for about thirty years. This helped to provide him with an aura of sanctity, an advantage when the bishops elected him as Metropolitan in 367. He thus became Bishop of Constantia (ancient Salamis). And from there he fought his battles, both theological (he was an implacable opponent of Origen and his followers) and heresiological. With his Panarion (Medicine Chest) (374-7) he intended to offer a reliable antidote to those who had been bitten by the poison of heresy, as well as protection and encouragement to those who had remained true to the faith. That heresy flourished at that time there can be no doubt: one has only to think of the endless theological controversies begun by Arius. That Gnostic groups continued

Riemer Roukema, Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity: An Introduction to Gnosticism (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999) 153-155.

James Robinson

Page 6

8/7/2004

to flourish is a matter of less uncertainty. Nevertheless it is significant that Epiphanius in some cases has had firsthand experience of his opponents. That the heresies from Simon Magus to those of his contemporaries, the Messalians, reappear and are rounded up to the prophetic number eighty, to which Epiphanius limits them, is a further example of the ancients love of arithmetical speculation (cf. the parallel of the eighty concubines in Song of Songs 6:8) and certainly not an actual historical fact. The heresiological material is subdivided or multiplied according to this numerical scheme, with results and problems for the modern scholar that may easily be imagined. Moreover, Epiphanius, with his Tertullian-like hatred of over-audacious philosophical or theological speculation (to which may be added his failure to understand it, unlike the African writer), appears as the exact antithesis of modern scientific method. The heretics are finally consigned to an increasingly fantastic genealogical pedigree, painted in the gloomiest colors, charged with the sins and condemned to the harshest penalties.6 Over the centuries many have denied that the Gnostics can properly be described as Christian. Their own leaders certainly rejected the teachings of Catholic Christianity. Nevertheless, Gnostics always claimed to be followers of the Christ. They often considered themselves outside, or above, the Catholic wing of the Christian movement. Gnostic teachings sought to open the adherents to those higher spiritual realms that exist beyond the material world. Their truths were not for the uninitiated and the common people but were reserved for the

Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, trans. Anthony Alcock (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990), 6-7.

James Robinson

Page 7

8/7/2004

intellectuals and the elite. Set against the background of Alexandrian intellectual and spiritual life in the second century, as exemplified by a thinker such as Clement, the Gnostics do not look like entire strangers to the Christian way, only seekers after a mystical higher life. As for the Gnostic party, by the third century its numbers proportionally had dwindled. The causes for this were more than simply the opposition expressed by the Catholic party. Despite the vehement character of the Catholic writers attacks, we have little evidence that books alone caused the Gnostic movement to diminish. Catholic leaders had no power other than that of persuasion to employ against the Gnostics or any other party that they considered to be unacceptably deviant in the second and third centuries. Gnosticism died down not because the Catholic party suppressed italthough that did come later, in the fourth centurybut because the Catholic party simply swallowed it up with its numbers. The increase in members in Catholic Christianity in Alexandria and elsewhere eventually proved to be too great.7 The attempt to picture Gnosticism as a mighty movement of the human mind towards the noblest and highest truth, a movement in some way parallel to that of Christianity, has completely failed. It has been abandoned by recent unprejudiced scholars such as W. Bousset and O. Gruppe, and it is to be regretted that it should have been renewed by an English writer, G.R.S. Mead, in "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten", an unscholarly and misleading work, which in

Dale T. Irvin and Scott W. Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement Vol.1: Earliest Christianity to 1453 (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001), 89-90.

James Robinson

Page 8

8/7/2004

English-speaking countries may retard the sober and true appreciation of Gnosticism as it was in historical fact. Gnosticism was not an advance it was retrogression. It was born amidst the last throes of expiring cults and civilizations in Western Asia and Egypt. Though hellenized, these countries remained Oriental and Semitic to the core. This Oriental spirit -- Attis of Asia Minor, Istar of Babylonia, Isis of Egypt, with the astrological and cosmogonic lore of the Asiatic world -- first sore beset by Ahuramazda in the East, and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness of Jesus Christ in the West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism and Christianity with itself. It tried to do for the East what Neo-Platonism tried to do for the West. During at least two centuries it was a real danger to Christianity, though not so great as some modern writers would make us believe, as if the merest breath might have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as against orthodox, Christianity. Similar things are said of Mithraism and neo-Platonism as against the religion of Jesus Christ. But these sayings have more piquancy than objective truth. Christianity survived, and not Gnosticism, because the former was the fittest-immeasurably, nay infinitely, so. Gnosticism died not by chance, but because it lacked vital power within itself; and no amount of theosophistic literature, flooding English and German markets, can give life to that which perished from intrinsic and essential defects. It is striking that the two earliest champions of Christianity against Gnosticism- Hegesippus and Irenaeus-- brought out so clearly the method of warfare which

James Robinson

Page 9

8/7/2004

alone was possible, but which also alone sufficed to secure the victory in the conflict, a method which Tertullian some years later scientifically explained in his "De Praescriptione". Both Hegesippus and Irenaeus proved that Gnostic doctrines did not belong to that deposit of faith which was taught by the true succession of bishops in the primary sees of Christendom; both in triumphant conclusion drew up a list of the Bishops of Rome, from Peter to the Roman bishop of their day; as Gnosticism was not taught by that Church with which the Christians everywhere must agree, it stood self-condemned. A just verdict on the Gnostics is that of O. Gruppe (Ausfhrungen, p. 162): the circumstances of the period gave them a certain importance. But a living force they never were, either in general history or in the history of Christendom. Gnosticism deserves attention as showing what mention dispositions Christianity found in existence, what obstacles it had to overcome to maintain its own life; but "means of mental progress it never was".8

The Catholic Encyclopedia

James Robinson

Page 10

8/7/2004

Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J., Roger S. Boraas, Michael Fishbane, Pheme Perkins, William O. Walker, Jr., eds. Harper Bible Dictionary. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985. Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity Vol.1: The Early Church to the Dawn of Reformation. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984. Harris, John Glyndwr. Gnosticism: Beliefs and Practices. Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1999. Roukema, Riemer. Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity: An Introduction to Gnosticism. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism, trans. Anthony Alcock. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990. Dale T. Irvin and Sunquist, Scott W. History of the World Christian Movement Vol.1: Earliest Christianity to 1453. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001. The Catholic Encyclopedia Irenaeus Against All Heresies Book III, chapters 2- 5

James Robinson

Page 11

8/7/2004