Gnosticism was an aberrant form of Christianity, perhaps the first heresy (at least the first we know of, I think). N.T. Wright summarizes in a broad stroke the belief of the 1st Century Gnostic:
"These children of light were like fallen stars, tiny pinpricks of light currently hidden within a gross material body. Once they had realized who they were, though, this knowledge (Greek gnosis) would enable them to enter into a spiritual existence in which the material world would no longer count."
Wright chalks up the origins of Gnosticism to the influence of Platonism on the church. Wright is brilliant and a brilliant historian, so I'll trust that platonic thought helped to nurture gnosticism. However, I do see Wright (perhaps due to other intellectual commitments to his brand of Christianity) as overstepping his bounds in saying that this heresy grew only only from platonic influence.
Couldn't this heresy have grown up, as most do, from taking an original Christian thought too far? Christianity contains the strange teaching that human beings are saved--that is, seen as innocent in God's eyes from all sin--not on the basis of doing anything (good behavior, making sacrifices, prayer, repentance, etc.), but by believing something. It really is a strange proposition...so strange that it's difficult to explain to the nonbeliever (and at certain points in one's life, to the believer). One is saved by believing certain events and a certain interpretation and application of those events. We're saved by believing something! Even Judaism of Jesus' and the early church's day didn't believe this. Second Temple Judaism (from what I've seen) believed individual Jews were saved on the basis of their election as the people of God + works and in particular, the work of repentance.
In it's context the idea of "belief unto salvation" (and especially belief unto salvation as opposed to works) was uniquely Christian. Maybe Gnosticism highlights this novelty. But then again, I'm no historian. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Woohoo, I enjoy reading this and am excited about hearing about your reading for Moore's class!
Hmm, didn't show my name... M.Edmond Galyon made that last comment.
edit:
"only only"
"couldn't" in place of "could" would make your argument stronger.
Quibbles aside, I have these thoughts:
Your central conceit -- if I read you Wright (pun) -- is that gnosticism arises from the uniquely Christian "belief unto salvation" rather than through a Platonic adulteration of the same. I feel like you boys are saying the same thing. You say Gnosticism is a heretical aberration of "belief unto salvation" by supplanting the "certain interpretation and application of certain events" with certain un-Christian others, while Wright says the "others" arise precisely from Platonism. Did I do both sides justice?
Perhaps a stronger distinction could be made between the way a Christian and a Gnostic believe: the Christian and the gnostic both believing, but one gifted from God through illumination of the certain... and the other by the (impotent) power of human reasoning about the certain others... What say you? I mean clearly the things believed supersede the mechanics of believing, but it is beyond human reasoning to believe the things Christian's believe. Can I get some hands raised McGalyon? Thoughts? Criticisms?
Wow...Jasonium comments on the blizzog. The honor is all mine!
Edits are always appreciated.
In terms of your summary/proposition of/for the content, it's helpful. I agree with all of your points and Wright's points for that matter.
However, Wright is saying that mainly at least, Gnosticism is flowing out of Platonism...i.e. Christians from very early on had a problem with creating a Platonistic/Christian hybrid. If he's right (and I feel sure he is), we have a windom into what's going on with the genesis of Gnosticism inside Christian circles.
The point I'm wanting to make (and I could be totally wrong) is:
The reason some Christians found Gnosticism so attractive is, not only because they had been steeped in this philosophical thinking for so long, BUT ALSO because Christianity gives itself (more than other religions in that region of the world) to being saved by "belief".
I think this point strengthens the priority of belief in Christianity from it's conception. I think that proving this priority historically is very helpful. Maybe a future blog post on why that is...
Post a Comment