----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Gnostic Gospels: Are They Authentic?" Part Two in a Two-Part
Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism (an article from the
Christian Research Journal, Winter 1991, page 15) by Douglas
Groothuis.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
In the first installment of this two-part series, I outlined the
stark contrasts between the gnostic Jesus and "the Word become
flesh." These respective views of Jesus are lodged within mutually
exclusive world views concerning claims about God, the universe,
humanity, and salvation. But our next line of inquiry is to be
historical. Do we have a clue as to what Jesus, the Man from
Nazareth, actually did and said as a player in space-time history?
Should such gnostic documents as the _Gospel of Thomas_ capture our
attention as a reliable report of the mind of Jesus, or does the
Son of Man of the biblical Gospels speak with the authentic voice?
Or must we remain in utter agnosticism about the historical Jesus?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*GLOSSARY*
*aeons:* Emanations of Being from the unknowable, ultimate
metaphysical principle or pleroma (_see_ pleroma).
*Nag Hammadi collection:* A group of ancient documents dating
from approximately A.D. 350, predominantly Gnostic in character,
which were discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945.
*pleroma:* The Greek word for "fulness" used by the Gnostics to
mean the highest principle of Being where dwells the unknown and
unknowable God. Used in the New Testament to refer to "fullness _in
Christ_" (Col. 2:10) who is the _known_ revelation of God in the
flesh.
*pseudepigrapha:* Ancient documents which falsely claim
authorship by noteworthy individuals for the sake of credibility;
for instance, the _Gospel of Thomas._
*syncretism:* The teaching that various religious truth-claims
can be synthesized into one basic, underlying unity.
*Valentinus:* Influential early Gnostic of the Second Century
A.D. who may have authorized the Nag Hammadi document, the _Gospel
of Truth._
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless we are content to chronicle a cacophony of conflicting
views of Jesus based on pure speculation or passionate whimsy,
historical investigation is non-negotiable. Christianity has always
been a historical religion and any serious challenge to its
legitimacy must attend to that fact. Its central claims are rooted
in events, not just ideas; in people, not just principles; in
revelation, not speculation; in incarnation, not abstraction.
Renowned historian Herbert Butterfield speaks of Christianity as a
religion in which "certain historical events are held to be part of
the religion itself" and are "considered to...represent the divine
breaking into history."[1]
Historical accuracy was certainly no incidental item to Luke in
the writing of his Gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an
account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as
they were handed down to us by those who from the first were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself
have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it
seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most
excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the
things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4, NIV). The text affirms
that Luke was after nothing less than historical certainty,
presented in orderly fashion and based on firsthand testimony.
If Christianity centers on Jesus, the Christ, the promised
Messiah who inaugurates the kingdom of God with power, the
objective facticity of this Jesus is preeminent. Likewise, if
purportedly historical documents, like the gospels of Nag Hammadi,
challenge the biblical understanding of Jesus, they too must be
brought before historical scrutiny. Part Two of this series will
therefore inspect the historical standing of the Gnostic writings
in terms of their historical integrity, authenticity, and veracity.
*LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE?*
Although much excitement has been generated by the Nag Hammadi
discoveries, not a little misunderstanding has been mixed with the
enthusiasm. The overriding assumption of many is that the treatises
unearthed in upper Egypt contained "lost books of the Bible" -- of
historical stature equal to or greater than the New Testament
books. Much of this has been fueled by the titles of some of the
documents themselves, particularly the so-called "Gnostic gospels":
the _Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of
the Egyptians,_ and the _Gospel of Truth._ The connotation of a
"gospel" is that it presents the life of Jesus as a teacher,
preacher, and healer -- similar in style, if not content, to
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Yet, a reading of these "gospels" reveals an entirely different
genre of material. For example, the introduction to the _Gospel of
Truth_ in _The Nag Hammadi Library_ reads, "Despite its title, this
work is not the sort found in the New Testament, since it does not
offer a continuous narration of the deeds, teachings, passion, and
resurrection of Jesus."[2] The introduction to the _Gospel of
Philip_ in the same volume says that although it has some
similarities to a New Testament Gospel, it "is not a gospel like
one of the New Testament gospels. . . . [The] few sayings and
stories about Jesus...are not set in any kind of narrative
framework like one of the New Testament gospels."[3] Biblical
scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer criticized the title of Pagels's _The
Gnostic Gospels_ because it insinuates that the heart of the book
concerns lost gospels that have come to light when in fact the
majority of Pagels's references are from early church fathers'
sources or nongospel material.[4]
In terms of scholarly and popular attention, the "superstar" of
the Nag Hammadi collection is the _Gospel of Thomas._ Yet, _Thomas_
also falls outside the genre of the New Testament Gospels despite
the fact that many of its 114 sayings are directly or indirectly
related to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. _Thomas_ has almost no
narration and its structure consists of discrete sayings. Unlike
the canonical Gospels, which provide a social context and narrative
for Jesus' words, _Thomas_ is more like various beads almost
haphazardly strung on a necklace. This in itself makes proper
interpretation difficult. F. F. Bruce observes that "the sayings of
Jesus are best to be understood in the light of the historical
circumstances in which they were spoken. Only when we have
understood them thus can we safely endeavor to recognize the
permanent truth which they convey. When they are detached from
their original historical setting and arranged in an anthology,
their interpretation is more precarious."[5]
Without undue appeal to the subjective, it can be safely said
that the Gnostic material on Jesus has a decidedly different "feel"
than the biblical Gospels. There, Jesus' teaching emerges naturally
from the overall contour of His life. In the Gnostic materials
Jesus seems, in many cases, more of a lecturer on metaphysics than
a Jewish prophet. In the _Letter of Peter to Philip,_ the apostles
ask the resurrected Jesus, "Lord, we would like to know the
deficiency of the aeons and of their pleroma."[6] Such
philosophical abstractions were never on the lips of the disciples
-- the fishermen, tax collectors, and zealots -- of the biblical
accounts. Jesus then discourses on the precosmic fall of "the
mother" who acted in opposition to "the Father" and so produced
ailing aeons.[7]
Whatever is made of the historical "feel" of these documents,
their actual status as historical records should be brought into
closer scrutiny to assess their factual reliability.
*THE RELIABILITY OF THE GNOSTIC DOCUMENTS*
Historicity is related to trustworthiness. If a document is
historically reliable, it is trustworthy as objectively true; there
is good reason to believe that what it affirms essentially fits
what is the case. It is faithful to fact. Historical reliability
can be divided into three basic categories: integrity,
authenticity, and veracity.
_Integrity_ concerns the preservation of the writing through
history. Do we have reason to believe the text as it now reads is
essentially the same as when it was first written? Or has
substantial corruption taken place through distortion, additions,
or subtractions? The New Testament has been preserved in thousands
of diverse and ancient manuscripts which enable us to reconstruct
the original documents with a high degree of certainty. But what of
Nag Hammadi?
Before the discovery at Nag Hammadi, Gnostic documents not
inferred from references in the church fathers were few and far
between. Since 1945, however, there are many primary documents.
Scholars date the extant manuscripts from A.D. 350-400. The
original writing of the various documents, of course, took place
sometime before A.D. 350-400, but not, according to most scholars,
before the second century.
The actual condition of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts varies
considerably. James Robinson, editor of _The Nag Hammadi Library,_
notes that "there is the physical deterioration of the books
themselves, which began no doubt before they were buried around 400
C.E. [then] advanced steadily while they remained buried, and
unfortunately was not completely halted in the period between their
discovery in 1945 and their final conservation thirty years
later."[8]
Reading through _The Nag Hammadi Library,_ one often finds
notations such as ellipses, parentheses, and brackets, indicating
spotty marks in the texts. Often the translator has to venture
tentative reconstructions of the writings because of textual
damage. The situation may be likened to putting together a jigsaw
puzzle with numerous pieces missing; one is forced to recreate the
pieces by using whatever context is available. Robinson adds that
"when only a few letters are missing, they can be often filled in
adequately, but larger holes must simply remain a blank."[9]
Concerning translation, Robinson relates that "the texts were
translated one by one from Greek to Coptic, and not always by
translators capable of grasping the profundity or sublimity of what
they sought to translate."[10] Robinson notes, however, that most
of the texts are adequately translated, and that when there is more
than one version of a particular text, the better translation is
clearly discernible. Nevertheless, he is "led to wonder about the
bulk of the texts that exist only in a single version,"[11] because
these texts cannot be compared with other translations for
accuracy.
Robinson comments further on the integrity of the texts: "There
is the same kind of hazard in the transmission of the texts by a
series of scribes who copied them, generation after generation,
from increasingly corrupt copies, first in Greek and then in
Coptic. The number of unintentional errors is hard to estimate,
since such a thing as a clean control copy does not exist; _nor
does one have, as in the case of the Bible, a quantity of
manuscripts of the same text that tend to correct each other when
compared_ (emphasis added)."[12]
_Authenticity_ concerns the authorship of a given writing. Do
we know who the author was? Or must we deal with an anonymous one?
A writing is considered authentic if it can be shown to have been
written by its stated or implied author. There is solid evidence
that the New Testament Gospels were written by their namesakes:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But what of Nag Hammadi?
The _Letter of Peter to Philip_ is dated at the end of the
second century or even into the third. This rules out a literal
letter from the apostle to Philip. The genre of this text is known
as pseudepigrapha -- writings falsely ascribed to noteworthy
individuals to lend credibility to the material. Although
interesting in explaining the development of Gnostic thought and
its relationship to biblical writings, this letter shouldn't be
overtaxed as delivering reliable history of the events it purports
to record.
There are few if any cases of known authorship with the Nag
Hammadi and other Gnostic texts. Scholars speculate as to
authorship, but do not take pseudepigraphic literature as
authentically apostolic. Even the _Gospel of Thomas,_ probably the
document closest in time to the New Testament events, is virtually
never considered to be written by the apostle Thomas himself.[13]
The marks of authenticity in this material are, then, spotty at
best.
_Veracity_ concerns the truthfulness of the author of the text.
Was the author adequately in a position to relate what is reported,
in terms of both chronological closeness to the events and
observational savvy? Did he or she have sufficient credentials to
relay historical truth?
Some, in their enthusiasm over Nag Hammadi, have lassoed texts
into the historical corral that date several hundred years after
the life of Jesus. For instance, in a review of the movie _The Last
Temptation of Christ,_ Michael Grosso speaks of hints of Jesus'
sexual life "right at the start of the Christian tradition." He
then quotes from the _Gospel of Philip_ to the effect that Jesus
often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth.[14] The problem is that
the text is quite far from "the start of the Christian tradition,"
being written, according to one scholar, "perhaps as late as the
second half of the third century."[15]
Craig Blomberg states that "most of the Nag Hammadi documents,
predominantly Gnostic in nature, make no pretense of overlapping
with the gospel traditions of Jesus' earthly life."[16] He observes
that "a number claim to record conversations of the resurrected
Jesus with various disciples, but this setting is usually little
more than an artificial framework for imparting Gnostic
doctrine."[17]
What, then, of the veracity of the documents? We do not know
who wrote most of them and their historical veracity concerning
Jesus seems slim. Yet some scholars advance a few candidates as
providing historically reliable facts concerning Jesus.
In the case of the _Gospel of Truth,_ some scholars see
Valentinus as the author, or at least as authoring an earlier
version.[18] Yet Valentinus dates into the second century (d. A.D.
175) and was thus not a contemporary of Jesus. Attridge and MacRae
date the document between A.D. 140 and 180.[19] Layton recognizes
that "the work is a sermon and has nothing to do with the Christian
genre properly called 'gospel.'"[20]
The text differs from many in Nag Hammadi because of its
recurring references to New Testament passages. Beatley Layton
notes that "it paraphrases, and so interprets, some thirty to sixty
scriptural passages almost all from the New Testament books."[21]
He goes on to note that Valentinus shaped these allusions to fit
his own Gnostic theology.[22] In discussing the use of the synoptic
Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the _Gospel of Truth,_ C. M.
Tuckett concludes that "there is no evidence for the use of sources
other than the canonical gospels for synoptic material."[23] This
would mean that the _Gospel of Truth_ gives no independent
historical insight about Jesus, but rather reinterprets previous
material.
The _Gospel of Philip_ is thick with Gnostic theology and
contains several references to Jesus. However, it does not claim to
be a revelation from Jesus: it is more of a Gnostic manual of
theology.[24] According to Tuckett's analysis, all the references
to Gospel material seem to stem from Matthew and not from any other
canonical Gospel or other source independent of Matthew. Andrew
Hembold has also pointed out that both the _Gospel of Truth_ and
the _Gospel of Philip_ show signs of "mimicking" the New Testament;
they both "know and recognize the greater part of the New Testament
as authoritative."[25] This would make them derivative, not
original, documents.
Tuckett has also argued that the _Gospel of Mary_ and the _Book
of Thomas the Contender_ are dependent on synoptic materials, and
that "there is virtually no evidence for the use of pre-synoptic
sources by these writers. These texts are all 'post-synoptic,' not
only with regard to their dates, but also with regard to the form
of the synoptic tradition they presuppose."[26] In other words,
these writings are simply drawing on preexistent Gospel material
and rearranging it to conform to their Gnostic world view. They do
not contribute historically authentic, new material.
The _Apocryphon of James_ claims to be a secret revelation of
the risen Jesus to James His brother. It is less obviously Gnostic
than some Nag Hammadi texts and contains some more
orthodox-sounding phrases such as, "Verily I say unto you none will
be saved unless they believe in my cross."[27] It also affirms the
unorthodox, such as when Jesus says, "Become better than I; make
yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit."[28] While one scholar
dates this text sometime before A.D. 150,[29] Blomberg believes it
gives indications of being "at least in part later than and
dependent upon the canonical gospels."[30] Its esotericism
certainly puts it at odds with the canonical Gospels, which are
better attested historically.
*THOMAS ON TRIAL*
The Nag Hammadi text that has provoked the most historical
scrutiny is the _Gospel of Thomas._ Because of its reputation as
the lost "fifth Gospel" and its frequently esoteric and mystical
cast, it is frequently quoted in New Age circles. A recent book by
Robert Winterhalter is entitled, _The Fifth Gospel: A
Verse-by-Verse New Age Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas._ He
claims Thomas knows "the Christ both as the Self, and the
foundation of individual life."[31] Some sayings in _Thomas_ do
seem to teach this. But is this what the historical Jesus taught?
The scholarly literature on _Thomas_ is vast and controversial.
Nevertheless, a few important considerations arise in assessing its
veracity as history.
Because it is more of an anthology of mostly unrelated sayings
than an ongoing story about Jesus' words and deeds, _Thomas_ is
outside the genre of "Gospel" in the New Testament. Yet, some of
the 114 sayings closely parallel or roughly resemble statements in
the Synoptics, either by adding to them, deleting from them,
combining several references into one, or by changing the sense of
a saying entirely.
This explanation uses the Synoptics as a reference point for
comparison. But is it likely that _Thomas_ is independent of these
sources and gives authentic although "unorthodox" material about
Jesus? To answer this, we must consider a diverse range of factors.
There certainly are sayings that harmonize with biblical
material, and direct or indirect relationships can be found to all
four canonical Gospels. In this sense, _Thomas_ contains both
orthodox and unorthodox material, if we use orthodox to mean the
material in the extant New Testament. For instance, the Trinity and
unforgivable sin are referred to in the context of blasphemy:
"Jesus said, 'Whoever blasphemes against the father will be
forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven,
but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven
either on earth or in heaven.'"[32]
In another saying Jesus speaks of the "evil man" who "brings
forth evil things from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart,
and says evil things"[33] (see Luke 6:43-46). This can be read to
harmonize with the New Testament Gospels' emphasis on human sin,
not just ignorance of the divine spark within.
Although it is not directly related to a canonical Gospel text,
the following statement seems to state the biblical theme of the
urgency of finding Jesus while one can: "Jesus said, 'Take heed of
the living one while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see
him and be unable to do so'" (compare John 7:34; 13:33).[34]
At the same time we find texts of a clearly Gnostic slant, as
noted earlier. How can we account for this?
The original writing of _Thomas_ has been dated variously
between A.D. 50 and 150 or even later, with most scholars opting
for a second century date.[35] Of course, an earlier date would
lend more credibility to it, although its lack of narrative
framework still makes it more difficult to understand than the
canonical Gospels. While some argue that _Thomas_ uses historical
sources independent of those used by the New Testament, this is not
a uniformly held view, and arguments are easily found which
marshall evidence for _Thomas's_ dependence (either partial or
total) on the canonical Gospels.[36]
Blomberg claims that "where _Thomas_ parallels the four gospels
it is unlikely that any of the distinctive elements in _Thomas_
predate the canonical versions."[37] When _Thomas_ gives a parable
found in the four Gospels and adds details not found there, "they
can almost always be explained as conscious, Gnostic redaction
[editorial adaptation]."[38]
James Dunn elaborates on this theme by comparing _Thomas_ with
what is believed to be an earlier and partial version of the
document found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, near the turn of the
century.[39] He notes that the Oxyrhynchus "papyri date from the
end of the second or the first half of the third century, while the
_Gospel of Thomas_...was probably written no earlier than the
fourth century."[40]
Dunn then compares similar statements from Matthew, the
Oxyrhynchus papyri, and the Nag Hammadi text version of _Thomas:_
Matthew 7:7-8 and 11:28 -- "...Seek and you will
find;...he who seeks finds...Come to me...and I will give
you rest."
Pap. Ox. 654.5-9 -- (Jesus says:)
'Let him who see(ks) not cease (seeking until) he finds;
and when he find (he will) be astonished,
and having (astoun)ded, he will reign;
an(d reigning), he will (re)st'
(Clement of Alexandria also knows the saying in this
form.)
Gospel of Thomas 2 -- 'Jesus said:
He who seeks should not stop seeking until he finds;
and when he finds, he will be bewildered (beside
himself);
and when he is bewildered he will marvel,
and will reign over the All.'[41]
Dunn notes that the term "the All" (which the _Gospel of
Thomas_ adds to the earlier document) is "a regular Gnostic
concept," and that "as the above comparisons suggest, the most
obvious explanation is that it was one of the last elements to
be added to the saying."[42] Dunn further comments that the Nag
Hammadi version of _Thomas_ shows a definite "gnostic colouring"
and gives no evidence of "the thesis of a form of Gnostic
Christianity already existing in the first century." He continues:
"Rather it confirms the counter thesis that the Gnostic element in
Gnostic Christianity is a second century syncretistic outgrowth on
the stock of the earlier Christianity. What we can see clearly in
the case of this one saying is probably representative of the
lengthy process of development and elaboration which resulted in
the form of the _Gospel of Thomas_ found at Nag Hammadi."[43]
Other authorities substantiate the notion that whatever
authentic material _Thomas_ may convey concerning Jesus, the text
shows signs of Gnostic tampering. Marvin W. Meyer judges that
_Thomas_ "shows the hand of a gnosticizing editor."[44]
Winterhalter, who reveres _Thomas_ enough to write a devotional
guide on it, nevertheless says of it that "some sayings are
spurious or greatly altered, but this is the work of a later
Egyptian editor."[45] He thinks, though, that the wheat can be
successfully separated from the chaff.
Robert M. Grant has noted that "the religious realities which
the Church proclaimed were ultimately perverted by the _Gospel of
Thomas._ For this reason _Thomas,_ along with other documents which
purported to contain secret sayings of Jesus, was rejected by the
Church."[46]
Here we find ourselves agreeing with the early Christian
defenders of the faith who maintained that Gnosticism in the church
was a corruption of original truth and not an independently
legitimate source of information on Jesus or the rest of reality.
Fitzmyer drives this home in criticizing Pagels's view that the
Gnostics have an equal claim on Christian authenticity: "Throughout
the book [Pagels] gives the unwary reader the impression that the
difference between 'orthodox Christians' and 'gnostic Christians'
was one related to the 'origins of Christianity'. Time and time
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."[47]
In this connection it is also telling that outside of the
_Gospel of Thomas,_ which doesn't overtly mention the Resurrection,
other Gnostic documents claiming to impart new information about
Jesus do so through spiritual, post-resurrection dialogues -- often
in the form of visions -- which are not subject to the same
historical rigor as claims made about the earthly life of Jesus.
This leads Dunn to comment that "Christian Gnosticism usually
attributed its secret [and unorthodox] teaching of Jesus to
discourses delivered by him, so they maintained, in a lengthy
ministry after his resurrection (as in _Thomas the Contender_ and
_Pistis Sophia_). The _Gospel of Thomas_ is unusual therefore in
attempting to use the Jesus-tradition as the vehicle for its
teaching. . . . Perhaps Gnosticism abandoned the _Gospel of Thomas_
format because it was to some extent subject to check and rebuttal
from Jesus-tradition preserved elsewhere."[48]
Dunn thinks that the more thoroughly the Gnostics challenged
the already established orthodox accounts of Jesus' earthly life,
the less credible they became; but with post-resurrection accounts,
no checks were forthcoming. They were claiming additional
information vouchsafed only to the elite. He concludes that
Gnosticism "was able to present its message in a sustained way as
the teaching of Jesus only by separating the risen Christ from the
earthly Jesus and by abandoning the attempts to show a continuity
between the Jesus of the Jesus-tradition and the heavenly Christ of
their faith."[49]
What is seen by some as a Gnostic challenge to historic,
orthodox views of the life, teaching, and work of Jesus was
actually in many cases a retreat from historical considerations
entirely. Only so could the Gnostic documents attempt to establish
their credibility.
*GNOSTIC UNDERDOGS?*
Although Pagels and others have provoked sympathy, if not
enthusiasm, for the Gnostics as the underdogs who just happened
to lose out to orthodoxy, the Gnostics' historical credentials
concerning Jesus are less than compelling. It may be romantic to
"root for the underdog," but the Gnostic underdogs show every sign
of being heretical hangers-on who tried to harness Christian
language for conceptions antithetical to early Christian teaching.
Many sympathetic with Gnosticism make much of the notion that
the Gnostic writings were suppressed by the early Christian church.
But this assertion does not, in itself, provide support one way or
the other for the truth or falsity of Gnostic doctrine. If truth is
not a matter of _majority_ vote, neither is it a matter of
_minority_ dissent. It may be true, as Pagels says, that "the
winners write history," but that doesn't necessarily make them bad
or dishonest historians. If so, we should hunt down Nazi historians
to give us the real picture of Hitler's Germany and relegate all
opposing views to that of dogmatic apologists who just happened to
be on the winning side.
In _Against Heresies,_ Irenaeus went to great lengths to
present the theologies of the various Gnostic schools in order to
refute them biblically and logically. If suppression had been his
concern, the book never would have been written as it was. Further,
to argue cogently against the Gnostics, Irenaeus and the other
anti-Gnostic apologists would presumably have had to be diligent to
correctly represent their foes in order to avoid ridicule for
misunderstanding them. Patrick Henry highlights this in reference
to Nag Hammadi: "While the Nag Hammadi materials have made some
corrections to the portrayal of Gnosticism in the anti-Gnostic
writings of the church fathers, it is increasingly evident that the
fathers did not fabricate their opponents' views; what distortion
there is comes from selection, not from invention. It is still
legitimate to use materials from the writings of the fathers to
characterize Gnosticism."[50]
It is highly improbable that all of the Gnostic materials could
have been systematically confiscated or destroyed by the early
church. Dunn finds it unlikely that the reason we have no
unambiguously first century documents from Christian Gnostics is
because the early church eradicated them. He believes it more
likely that we have none because there were none.[51] But by
archaeological virtue of Nag Hammadi, we now do have many primary
source Gnostic documents available for detailed inspection. Yet
they do not receive superior marks as historical documents about
Jesus. In a review of _The Gnostic Gospels,_ noted biblical scholar
Raymond Brown affirmed that from the Nag Hammadi "works we learn
not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus'
ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been
his."[52]
Another factor foreign to the interests of Gnostic apologists
is the proposition that Gnosticism expired largely because it
lacked life from the beginning. F. F. Bruce notes that "Gnosticism
was too much bound up with a popular but passing phase of thought
to have the survival power of apostolic Christianity."[53]
Exactly why did apostolic Christianity survive and thrive?
Robert Speer pulls no theological punches when he proclaims that
"Christianity lived because it was true to the truth. Through all
the centuries it has never been able to live otherwise. It can not
live otherwise today."[54]
*NOTES*
1 Herbert Butterfield, _Christianity and History_ (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), 119.
2 Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae, "Introduction: The
Gospel of Truth," in James M. Robinson, ed., _The Nag Hammadi
Library_ (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 38.
3 Wesley W. Isenberg, "Introduction: The Gospel of Philip,"
_Ibid.,_ 139.
4 Joseph Fitzmyer, "The Gnostic Gospels According to Pagels,"
_America,_ 16 Feb. 1980, 123.
5 F. F. Bruce, _Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New
Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 154.
6 Robinson, 434.
7 _Ibid.,_ 435.
8 Robinson, "Introduction," 2.
9 _Ibid.,_ 3.
10 _Ibid.,_ 2.
11 _Ibid._
12 _Ibid._
13 _See_ Ray Summers, _The Secret Sayings of the Living Jesus_
(Waco, TX: Word Books, 1968), 14.
14 Michael Grosso, "Testing the Images of God," _Gnosis,_ Winter
1989, 43.
15 Wesley W. Isenberg, "Introduction: The Gospel of Philip," in
Robinson, 141.
16 Craig Blomberg, _The Historical Reliability of the Gospels_
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 208.
17 _Ibid._
18 _See_ Stephan Hoeller, "Valentinus: A Gnostic for All Seasons,"
_Gnosis,_ Fall/Winter 1985, 25.
19 _Ibid.,_ 38.
20 Bentley Layton, _The Gnostic Scriptures_ (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Co., 1987), 251.
21 _Ibid._
22 _Ibid._
23 C. M. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Gospel of Truth and
the Testimony of Truth," _Journal of Theological Studies_ 35
(1984):145.
24 Blomberg, 213-14.
25 Andrew K. Hembold, _The Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible_ (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), 88-89.
26 Christopher Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in Some Nag Hammadi and
Related Texts," _Vigiliae Christiane_ 36 (July 1982):184.
27 Robinson, 32.
28 _Ibid._
29 Francis E. Williams, "Introduction: The Apocryphon of James," in
Robinson, 30.
30 Blomberg, 213.
31 Robert Winterhalter, _The Fifth Gospel_ (San Francisco: Harper
and Row, 1988), 13.
32 Robinson, 131; _See_ Bruce, _Jesus and Christian Origins,_
130-31.
33 Robinson, 131.
34 _Ibid.,_ 132.
35 Layton, 377.
36 _See_ Craig L. Blomberg, "Tradition and Redaction in the
Parables of the Gospel of Thomas," _Gospel Perspectives_ 5:
177-205.
37 Blomberg, _Historical Reliability,_ 211.
38 _Ibid.,_ 212.
39 _See_ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Oxyrhynchus Logoie of Jesus and
the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas," in Joseph Fitzmyer,
_Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament_
(Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), 355-433.
40 James D. G. Dunn, _The Evidence for Jesus_ (Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster Press, 1985), 101.
41 _Ibid._
42 _Ibid.,_ 102.
43 _Ibid._
44 Marvin W. Meyer, "Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Library," _Reformed
Journal_ (June 1979):15.
45 Winterhalter, 4.
46 Robert M. Grant with David Noel Freedman, _The Secret Sayings of
Jesus_ (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1960),
115.
47 Fitzmyer, "The Gnostic Gospels According to Pagels," 123.
48 James Dunn, _Unity and Diversity in the New Testament_
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 287-88.
49 _Ibid.,_ 288; _see_ also Blomberg, _Historical Reliability,_
219.
50 Patrick Henry, _New Directions_ (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1977), 282.
51 Dunn, _The Evidence,_ 97-98.
52 Raymond E. Brown, "The Gnostic Gospels," _The New York Times
Book Review,_ 20 Jan. 1980, 3.
53 F. F. Bruce, _The Canon of Scripture_ (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1988), 278.
54 Robert E. Speer, _The Finality of Jesus Christ_ (Westwood, NJ:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1933), 108.
-------------
End of document, CRJ0088A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"The Gnostic Gospels: Are They Authentic?"
release A, April 30, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).
Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)
One Year Two Years
U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [ ] 37.00
Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ] 24.00 [ ] 44.00
Other Foreign (U.S. funds) [ ] 36.00 [ ] 66.00
Please make checks payable to CRI
To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:
(800) 2-JOURNAL
To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:
CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500
[ ] Yes! I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.
Name: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________
Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________
------------------
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking? In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you
contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the
offer from this computer text file. We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge. Write us today for
information on these or other topics. Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
(714) 855-9926
---------------
End of file.