![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThis article in Christianity Today, linked to by Frater AMPH, concerns the role of Gnosticism in the early formation of Christian doctrine.
It is embarrasing to see an article like this from an accomplished scholar like Ben Witherington III. It is particularly puzzling that Witherington chose to cloud his arguments in a disingenous and misleading way instead of simply acknowledging the truth about these matters, since the truth of what happened is not inherently damaging to Christian doctrine.
He starts by quoting from the The Da Vinci Code, a popular work of fiction which suggests that bishops changed Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicea and then instituted a massive cover-up. He uses this clearly fictional scenario to muddy the issues at hand:
The problem is, that isn't what Pagels wrote at all. Witherington (perhaps still smarting from his "Scholarly Smackdown" with Pagels on Beliefnet) has attempted to discredit Pagels by comparing her argument to an implausible fictional scenario.
Next he writes, "[T]here is no strong evidence to suggest that gnostic Christians vied with the orthodox from the beginning." This claim is very interesting, in light of contradictory statements we find later in the essay:
So, which is it? If there was no "error" or difference of opinion in the first century, as Witherington claims several times, against whom were John and Paul arguing? This single question causes the whole house of cards to fall apart.
Witherington next writes,
This is at odds with research showing that the Gospel of Thomas probably dates to the same time period as the canonical gospels. There is controversy over this, but the supporting evidence is strong. But even so, it is unclear why Witherington would insist on doctrinal unity in the first century (and mislead his readers into believing so) instead of simply admitting that the New Testament was written and compiled not just to teach the reader about Christian doctrine but also in large part to clear up confusion about points raised by Gnosticism.
The peculiar ways Gnostics read the Jewish scriptures is a matter too complex to explore in this rebuttal, but it bears noting that most scholars of Gnosticism are now of the opinion that Gnosticism was a distinctly Jewish movement. The Gnostics were, in a characteristically Jewish way, wrestling with God in the best way they knew how. The truth of this stands in glaring opposition to Witherington's next claim:
Even a cursory reading of the Nag Hammadi texts shows the falseness of this. At many points in their writings, the Gnostics were responding to the Old Testament. There are no less than half a dozen versions of the Genesis story, and several texts contain extensive quotes and exegetical analysis of the prophetic writings. Another strong influence on the Gnostics are the writings of the later Wisdom tradition, like Job and Proverbs 8. The Gnostics may not have quoted the Old Testament approvingly, but to say that they rarely refer to the Old Testament is an outright lie.
Witherington then confronts an idea that troubles him:
It may be that the first-century Christians were more concerned with bringing people together than making sure that people believed alike. In other words, perhaps the earliest Christians did not think that differences of opinion threatened the unity of the church. Again, it bears asking: if there were no differences of opinion in the first century, against whom were Paul and John arguing? Witherington mistakes the absence of organized Gnostic schools in the first century for an absence of Gnostic ideas in the church.
Witherington then turns to the fictional idea of a massive cover-up, hacking the straw man to death:
He attributes this objection to nameless critics -- probably because he cannot find a reputable scholar who would offer the preposterous suggestion that New Testament documents were revised secret-government-conspiracy-fashion in the fourth century. For a few paragraphs he quotes approvingly from Bart Ehrman's work on the ways in which clarifying margin notes found themselves being incorporated in scripture. But then he writes:
Again, the question bears asking: if there wasn't a "wide array" of beliefs at the beginning, against whom were Paul, John, Peter, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and many others arging? What are differences of opinion besides "a wide array of beliefs"? Witherington wants his readers to engage in doublethink: they are simultaneously to think that there were many doctrinal errors that needed correcting, from the time of the writing of the New Testament, to the anti-Gnostic works of Irenaeus and Tertullian, to the Council of Nicea. But we are not to think of doctrinal errors as "beliefs." And that seems to be his whole point.
crossposting in my journal and crossposting in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
questionofgod
It is embarrasing to see an article like this from an accomplished scholar like Ben Witherington III. It is particularly puzzling that Witherington chose to cloud his arguments in a disingenous and misleading way instead of simply acknowledging the truth about these matters, since the truth of what happened is not inherently damaging to Christian doctrine.
He starts by quoting from the The Da Vinci Code, a popular work of fiction which suggests that bishops changed Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicea and then instituted a massive cover-up. He uses this clearly fictional scenario to muddy the issues at hand:
Pagels admits that the gnostic texts were rejected by the orthodox, but she claims that it wasn't until the period of great councils (325 and after) that "orthodoxy" was defined as opposed to "heresy." Thus fourth-century religious politics decided "orthodoxy." As one character in The Da Vinci Code puts it, "Anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine's version was deemed a heretic. The word heretic derives from that moment in history."
The problem is, that isn't what Pagels wrote at all. Witherington (perhaps still smarting from his "Scholarly Smackdown" with Pagels on Beliefnet) has attempted to discredit Pagels by comparing her argument to an implausible fictional scenario.
Next he writes, "[T]here is no strong evidence to suggest that gnostic Christians vied with the orthodox from the beginning." This claim is very interesting, in light of contradictory statements we find later in the essay:
Revisionist historians like Pagels also argue that there was no core belief system, later called "orthodoxy," in the first century. This is a strange claim, because anyone who has read the letters of John, for example, knows that discussions about orthodoxy and heresy were heating up in the New Testament period. Paul's letters, too, show distinctions being made between truth and error.
So, which is it? If there was no "error" or difference of opinion in the first century, as Witherington claims several times, against whom were John and Paul arguing? This single question causes the whole house of cards to fall apart.
Witherington next writes,
Even what is probably the earliest gnostic document, the Gospel of Thomas, seems to have come from a period after the New Testament books were already recognized as authoritative and widely circulated.
This is at odds with research showing that the Gospel of Thomas probably dates to the same time period as the canonical gospels. There is controversy over this, but the supporting evidence is strong. But even so, it is unclear why Witherington would insist on doctrinal unity in the first century (and mislead his readers into believing so) instead of simply admitting that the New Testament was written and compiled not just to teach the reader about Christian doctrine but also in large part to clear up confusion about points raised by Gnosticism.
Gnosticism fundamentally rejected Jewish theology about the goodness of creation, and especially the idea that all the nations could be blessed through Abraham and his faith. When the church accepted the Hebrew Scriptures, it implicitly rejected Gnosticism before it had a chance to get started.
The peculiar ways Gnostics read the Jewish scriptures is a matter too complex to explore in this rebuttal, but it bears noting that most scholars of Gnosticism are now of the opinion that Gnosticism was a distinctly Jewish movement. The Gnostics were, in a characteristically Jewish way, wrestling with God in the best way they knew how. The truth of this stands in glaring opposition to Witherington's next claim:
New Testament scholar Pheme Perkins points out how rarely the Gnostic literature refers to the Old Testament: "Gnostic exegetes were only interested in elaborating their mythic and theological speculations concerning the origins of the universe, not in appropriating a received canonical tradition. … [By contrast] the Christian Bible originates in a hermeneutical framing of Jewish scriptures, so that they retain their canonical authority and yet serve as witnesses to the Christ-centered experience of salvation."
Even a cursory reading of the Nag Hammadi texts shows the falseness of this. At many points in their writings, the Gnostics were responding to the Old Testament. There are no less than half a dozen versions of the Genesis story, and several texts contain extensive quotes and exegetical analysis of the prophetic writings. Another strong influence on the Gnostics are the writings of the later Wisdom tradition, like Job and Proverbs 8. The Gnostics may not have quoted the Old Testament approvingly, but to say that they rarely refer to the Old Testament is an outright lie.
Witherington then confronts an idea that troubles him:
[Karen] King's argument—that the earliest churches held a wide spectrum of beliefs—is an argument entirely from silence. We have no evidence of Marcionites or gnostics running around in first-century churches.
It may be that the first-century Christians were more concerned with bringing people together than making sure that people believed alike. In other words, perhaps the earliest Christians did not think that differences of opinion threatened the unity of the church. Again, it bears asking: if there were no differences of opinion in the first century, against whom were Paul and John arguing? Witherington mistakes the absence of organized Gnostic schools in the first century for an absence of Gnostic ideas in the church.
Witherington then turns to the fictional idea of a massive cover-up, hacking the straw man to death:
But wait a minute, say the critics. We don't have the original New Testament documents. All we have are copies of copies. What if there were orthodox monks who deliberately changed the text while copying it, shaping it according to their own theology, so that our New Testament is a far cry from the originals?
He attributes this objection to nameless critics -- probably because he cannot find a reputable scholar who would offer the preposterous suggestion that New Testament documents were revised secret-government-conspiracy-fashion in the fourth century. For a few paragraphs he quotes approvingly from Bart Ehrman's work on the ways in which clarifying margin notes found themselves being incorporated in scripture. But then he writes:
If Ehrman had left his discussion at that point, there might not be any objection to his argument. But he goes on to plow the same furrow as Pagels and King; he too writes revisionist history, arguing for a wide array of beliefs at the church's beginning. The struggle over an emerging orthodoxy, in his view, was not solidified until the fourth century.
Again, the question bears asking: if there wasn't a "wide array" of beliefs at the beginning, against whom were Paul, John, Peter, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and many others arging? What are differences of opinion besides "a wide array of beliefs"? Witherington wants his readers to engage in doublethink: they are simultaneously to think that there were many doctrinal errors that needed correcting, from the time of the writing of the New Testament, to the anti-Gnostic works of Irenaeus and Tertullian, to the Council of Nicea. But we are not to think of doctrinal errors as "beliefs." And that seems to be his whole point.
crossposting in my journal and crossposting in
questionofgod
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 09:32 am (UTC)A long time ago, I read a book which spoke of exactly that sort of changing. The text was by an Anglican minister written at the time of the popularization of ancient Egypt (~1890s?). At this late date I remember neither the author's name or book title. It was a hansomly bound hardcover text with many mnmay illustrations.
The hypotheseis of the book is that the early Christians were mainly illiterate, but the scribes of Egypt made many copies of the Gospels. In doing so, the scribes felt the *bare bones* accounts were totally lacking in the magical and phantasmagorical aspects with which ancient Egyptian documents abounded. So the scribes added in stories of the virgin birth, the flight into Egypt, miracle of the loaves & fishes, and the resurection from the dead.
I really wish that I had photocopied that text from the Cornell library. I have no idea if the writer was a lone kook, or if there was actually a number of people with such beliefs back then. I do know the book must have been very expensive to produce. And the writing, plus the compilation of the copious illustrations from Egyptian sources to illustrate the parallel ideas in the Gospels with their Egyptian counterparts, must have been a work which took many years to compleat.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 09:46 am (UTC)I'd have to see the book to evaluate the idea, but certain other explanations for the virgin birth, the resurrection, and other elements of Christian myth seem much more plausible in my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 11:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 09:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 03:17 pm (UTC)A "wide array of beliefs" and a normative tradition are not mutually exclusive ideas. Most indications point to the conclusion that there were quite a variety of beliefs, but that a strong, largely congruous position also existed. Which set of beliefs came before and after which other sets of beliefs is another matter, but this trend is fairly well established by the mid-second c.
As to the question of why the lost Gospels lost out, I have my opinion: most of them simply came to the game too late. By the end of the first century, we already have quotations of "the Gospel" coming from the synoptic tradition and being distinguishable by whether they came from Mark, Matthew or Luke. Within a couple of decades, the tetramorph Gospel tradition shows itself to be well established as the authoritative vehicle of the Gospel. Most of the "lost Gospels" of which we know began their appearance in the mid 2nd c. The normative Chirstians - a more accurate term at this time than orthodox I think - had a Gospel tradition not established by "the authority of the Church" but by simply dominant use. By the mid-2nd c., any other Gospel tradition that came to the normative Christians was not likely to do more than become an appendix or addition to their core gospel tradition.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 09:38 am (UTC)Yes, that's a good point. While we might postulate that the "Thomas Christians" represented a first-century "proto-Gnostic" form of Christianity, it's pretty clear that from the beginning they were seen as something of an oddity within the Christian community.
The question then becomes one of acceptance of diversity within a tradition that has a normative orthodoxy. It seems to me that Christian tolerance of diversity (such as that represented by the Gnostics, Montanists, Arianists, etc.) ended largely because of the accidents of history -- especially the persecution of Christians by Roman authorities.
This is the sense one gets from reading the account suggested by Elaine Pagels in Beyond Belief -- and it makes one wonder how different history might have been if Christians of different stripes could have learned how to live together in peace.
most of them simply came to the game too late.
Yes. I would add to that, that many of the "lost gospels" were meant for esoteric use, that is, they were not meant to be widely distributed in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 11:10 am (UTC)I think some insight into this might be found in the perception of the material. Much of the Gnostic material strikes me as rather arrogant .. both intellectually and spiritually. For example, just look at the basic idea of the psychic vs. pneumatic (I think I'm getting my terms right). This is not to say that the normative Christians did not have their own arrogancy, but simply that the stances of spiritual superiority that I think is inherent to any "the way" path is likely the ultimate cause of the various interpretations of Christianity inability to "play nice."
Yes. I would add to that, that many of the "lost gospels" were meant for esoteric use, that is, they were not meant to be widely distributed in the first place.
That's an interesting observation. The canonical Gospels were written for the purpose of dissemination. This creates quite a distinct difference between them and any other gospels meant for purely or dominantly esoteric use.