Jewish Christianity
The term “Jewish Christianity” means many different things, and it is used in various ways by those engaged in research. It can refer to the Palestinian Christianity of the post-Ascension period, that is, the Christians of Jewish birth, who lived in Palestine and had their center in the congregation at Jerusalem—in contrast to the Christians who came out of a pagan background. On some occasions, however, the term is used to identify certain sectarian groups which emanated from the Jerusalem congregation after the Christian community there was driven into the area east of the Jordan about the year 66. It is in this sense that the term will be used here. One of the prime characteristics of this heretical Jewish Christianity, which is also known as “Ebionism” (after the Old Testament termevjonim, “the poor,” originally a name honoring the Christians of Jerusalem), was their confusion of Jewish and Christian elements. According to what has been reported, the Jewish Christians may have assimilated the Essene monks, who have become well known in recent years through the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. The history of Ebionism is, for the most part, cloaked in darkness. Neither the fragments of literature which have been preserved, nor the references found in the church fathers provide us with a detailed picture of the ideas and customs of this group. Certain main lines of thought can, however, be reconstructed.
The Ebionites held fast to the validity of the law of Moses; one faction held that this applied only to them, but another, more militant faction insisted that Christians who came out of a pagan background were also obligated to the law of Moses. Another prominent idea associated with the Ebionites was that they expected a Messianic kingdom to be established with its center in Jerusalem. This reflects their identification of Judaism and Christianity.
It is certainly true that the universal church considers itself to be a continuation of the Old Testament community, the true Israel, but this does not prevent a strong denial of “Jewishness” and the Jewish interpretation of the Law. Paul, for example, fought against those who wished to reintroduce circumcision (cf. Gal. 5), and he demonstrated how freedom in Christ excluded adherence to the way of righteousness which depended on the Law. The Ebionites, who held fast to Jewish precepts and considered them valid for congregational life, repudiated Paul’s interpretation of the Law, as a result, and refused to accept his epistles.
In the writings of the Jewish Christians (the most important of which is the so-called “Pseudo-Clement,” which contains, among other things, “The Preaching of Peter,” plus a number of apocryphal gospels) Christ is put on the same level as the prophets of the Old Testament. He is here described as a new form of revelation of “the true Prophet,” who appeared earlier in Adam and Moses, among others. The concept of Christ as the new Moses expressed the unity of Judaism and Christianity which was prominently emphasized in Ebionism. Christ was said to be “a man born of men” (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, p. 48), or, as it was often put later on, “simply and only a man.” The Ebionites therefore denied the preexistence of Christ; some of them also denied the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. They assumed that Jesus received the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism and was thereby chosen to be the Messiah and the Son of God. Salvation was not associated with Christs death and resurrection; it was rather thought that it would first become a reality at the time of Christ’s second coming, when, according to expectations, an earthly millennium would begin.
On the basis of these ideas, Ebionism provided the prototype of a Christology which conceived of Christ in purely human terms and which assumed that He was not the Son of God until he was “adopted as such at the time of His baptism or resurrection” (the “adoptionist Christology”). Christ’s divine attributes were thereby rejected.
As seen in the light of history, Jewish Christianity did not exert a great influence on the development of Christian theology. It was divided into various groups, and rather soon died out. In all likelihood it did not exist for more than 350 years at the most. On the other hand, however, it exerted a strong influence on Mohammedanism, in which some of its ideas reappeared in a new form. One of these was the concept of the “true prophet”; another was the parallel between Moses and Jesus.
If Jewish Christianity represents a confusion of Jewish and Christian elements, Gnosticism involved a combination of Hellenistic religion and Christianity. Ebionism was quite different from Gnosticism, therefore; it was particularly opposed to Marcion and his repudiation of the Law (see the next section). In spite of this, however, we shall see in certain areas a combination of Gnostic and Jewish Christian ideas. This is true, for example, among the Elkesaites, who were probably named for a certain Elkesai, who might have been the author of a document which bears his name. Another example involves the adversaries mentioned in Col. 2, who also seem to have united Gnostic and Jewish ideas (cf. the reference here to “philosophy and empty deceit” (v. 8) and “an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion” (v. 23). It would not be correct, however, to say that the main concepts of Jewish Christianity were Gnostic in form and origin. (Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, 1949)
Gnosticism
Gnosticism is the common name applied to a number of different schools of thought which developed in the first centuries of the Christian era. Insofar as the Christian “gnosis” is concerned, this refers to an attempt to include Christianity in a general religio-philosophical system. The most important elements in this system were certain mystic and cosmological speculations, plus a distinct dualism between the world of the spirit and the material world. Its doctrine of salvation emphasized the freeing of the spirit from its bondage in the material realm. This cult came equipped with its own mysteries and sacramental ceremonies, in addition to an ethic which was either ascetic or libertine.
Origins. The question of the origin of Gnosticism has been discussed at great length, and there does not seem to be any simple answer. Most of the Gnostic literature has been lost. However, some of it has been preserved in a Coptic translation in Egypt, e. g., the “Pistis Sophia,” the “Gospel of Thomas,” and the “Gospel of Truth.” The two last-named writings were included in the significant manuscript discovery made at the village of Nag Hammadi (near Luxor) in 1946. Among the items found there, in an earthenware jug preserved in the sand, were 13 codices, including no less than 48 writings, all of Gnostic origin. This discovery has not yet been completely evaluated or made available to researchers. For the most part, our knowledge of Gnosticism has come down to us from the writings of the church fathers. They cite Gnostic authors, or refer to their teachings from time to time in their polemical sections.
The church fathers agreed that Gnosticism began with Simon Magus (Acts 8), but apart from this their reports vary. According to a certain Hegesippus, who was quoted by Eusebius (IV, 22), Gnosticism began among certain Jewish sects. The later church fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus), on the other hand, were of the opinion that Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Zeno) was the chief source of the Gnostic heresy. If we are asking here about the Gnosticism which developed on Christian soil, these accounts need not be in hopeless contradiction. For this type of Gnosticism was a syncretistic system which combined widely disparate streams of thought.
When we speak of Gnosticism, we usually have in mind the system which developed in the Christian period, the “Gnostic heresy” which the church fathers opposed so strenuously. But Gnosticism was already present when Christian history began; it was then a rather vague religious phenomenon, a speculative doctrine of salvation with contributions from a number of different religious traditions. It came from the Orient, where it was influenced by the religions of Babylonia and Persia. The cosmological myths testify to its Babylonian origins, while its thoroughgoing dualism relates it to the religion of Persia. Mandaeanism is an example of a Gnostic religious formation in the Persian area. Subsequently Gnosticism appeared in Syria and on Jewish soil, particularly in Samaria, and there absorbed a Jewish coloration. It was this form of Gnosticism which existed at the beginning of the Christian era, and the apostles encountered it in Simon Magus, who was present in Samaria. From that point on a Gnostic school began to develop in the Christian sphere, with elements derived from Christianity. Because of this similarity, Gnosticism did not appear as an enemy of Christianity. It rather intended to blend Christianity and the other speculative elements already present within it into some kind of a universal religious system. It was in this form that Gnosticism appeared in the second century, with its chief exponents in Syria (Saturninus), Egypt (Basilides), and Rome (Valentinus). This later system was also deeply influenced by Greek religious philosophy. For a long time Gnosticism was Christianity’s most dangerous opponent. The Christian polemic against Gnosticism was accompanied by a development of theological thought which had no parallel within the history of the church up to that point.
Tendencies. As we have already noted, many different tendencies were found within Gnosticism. The mythologies and systems which appeared under its general auspices were numerous and disparate.
According to Acts 8:9–24 Simon Magus appeared in Samaria, where Gnosticism had one of its roots. Simon identified himself as the “power of God” and pretended, therefore, to be a Messiah-figure. He also proclaimed freedom from the Law. He taught that salvation came, not through good works but through faith in him. According to the church fathers Simon Magus’ teaching was the prototype of all heresy.
Saturninus appeared in Syria in the early years of the second century. His Gnostic system betrays an oriental influence.
Basilides worked in Egypt around the year 125. His Gnosticism was more philosophical in nature, and the Greek influence was stronger.
Valentinus, who was active in Rome from 135 to 160, has provided us with the classical presentation of the Gnostic system. The Greek contribution is also prominent in his work.
Marcion was included among the Gnostics by the church fathers. His teaching is similar to Gnosticism at many points. He was at the same time, however, the founder of his own unique school of thought, and his system was, in many respects, his own creation. As we shall see more clearly in what follows, the theological position held by Marcion and the Gnostics was frequently identical. But there is a difference, as Adolf von Harnack emphasized in his History of Dogma. For while Gnosticism is a religious potpourri, in which Christianity and Greek philosophy are blended together, Marcion attempted a radical reorganization of Christianity on the basis of certain ideas gleaned from Paul plus the elimination of all Jewish elements.
Chief concepts. Apart from Marcion, Gnosticism contains certain major concepts held in common by all of the schools and systems associated with it, even though the mythology and the cultic customs vary.
Gnosticism’s fundamental metaphysics, which was defined most specifically in the work of Valentinus, has been described by the church father Irenaeus (Adversus haereses, I) and others. It is presented in mythological form under the hypostatization of a number of abstract concepts such as truth, wisdom, and reason. The basic point of view is dualistic in nature, which is to say that it proceeds from a contrast between the world of the spirit and the material world, together with a contrast between good and evil and between a higher and a lower sphere.
Because of this dualism, Gnosticism distinguished between the highest God and a lower deity, and it was the latter, they said, who created the world. The highest God was conceived in completely abstract terms as the ultimate spiritual essence; attempts to describe this God more specifically were not made, and He was not associated with any revelation. He was thought to be as far away from the world as possible. The Gnostics also insisted that this God could not have created the world. The world is evil, after all, and therefore it must have its origin in an inferior spiritual essence, in which evil is to be found. This creator god, or demiurge, was said to be the God of the Old Testament—the Jewish God. Gnosticism was antagonistic toward the Old Testament; it also rejected the Law, insisting that man could acquire superior insights which would free him of dependence on it. It was for this reason, above all, that the church fathers fought against Gnosticism—to defend the Christian belief in the one God who created the world and revealed Himself to the prophets.
Gnosticism’s doctrine of God was related to high-flown speculations concerning the spirit world on the one hand and the origins of the material world on the other (the so-called “eon” doctrine). Valentinus, for example, estimated that 30 eons had proceeded out of the deity in a theogonic process. The material world was derived from the lowest of the eons as a result of a fall. The highest God, or the Progenitor, formed the first eon, which was also known as βυθος (abyss). Out of the “abyss” came “the silence,” or “the idea” (σιγη or εvvοια), and from these two, “the spirit” and “the truth” (vους and αληθεια). From the last-named, in turn, came “reason” and “life” (λογος and ζωη), and from these “man” and “the church” and 10 other eons appeared. “Man” and “the church” together produced 12 eons, the last of these being “wisdom” (σοφια). The eons, working in concert, formed the world of the spirit, the Pleroma, which contains the archetype of the material world. The last of the eons fell from the Pleroma as a result of a seizure of passion and anxiety, and it was because of this fall that the material world came into being. The demiurge who created the world came forth from this fallen eon.
Christ and the Holy Spirit originated in one of the highest eons. Christ’s task is to restore the fallen eon to the Pleroma, and, at the same time, to free the souls of men from their captivity in the material world and to bring them back into the world of the spirit. It was on this basis that the Gnostic concept of salvation developed. Salvation was said to consist in the release of the soul from the material world so that it could be cleansed and brought back to the divine sphere from whence it came. As is true in Neoplatonism, which had much in common with the system of Valentinus, the history of the world was thought of in cyclical terms. The soul of man was drawn into this cyclical process. Man fell from the world of light and was held captive in the material world. His salvation consists of release from the material world so that he can ascend once again into the spirit world, the world of light, from which he came.
According to Gnosticism, salvation of this kind was possible because of the higher insight (γvωσις, “gnosis”) available to the Gnostics; this insight was a form of mystery-wisdom which provided knowledge concerning the Pleroma and the way which led thence. But not everyone could attain this salvation; only the so-called “pneumatics,” who were equipped with the necessary power to receive this knowledge, were able to do so. All other men, whom the Gnostics called the “materialists,” were unable to utilize this knowledge. The Gnostics occasionally referred to a category between the pneumatics and the materialists, the so-called “psychics,” in which category the Christians were commonly placed. It was thought possible that the psychics could obtain the knowledge needed for salvation. Gnosticism therefore taught a form of predestination: only the pneumatics could be saved. This separation of men into different classes was opposed by the church fathers. They also repudiated the Gnostic concept of a higher knowledge, which was elevated above the level of faith and pretended to elevate man into the sphere of divinity.
Gnosticism did borrow certain elements from Christianity and introduce them into its general concept of salvation. Christ, for example, is referred to in Gnosticism as the Savior, inasmuch as He was said to be the one who brought the saving knowledge into the world. But this is not the Christ of the Bible; the Christ of Gnosticism was a spiritual essence who emerged from out of the eons. This Christ could not have taken on the form of man. When He appeared on earth, said the Gnostics, He only seemed to have a physical body. At the same time the Gnostics also taught that this Christ did not suffer and die. Gnosticism, in other words, proclaimed a Docetic Christology.
The suffering and death of Christ was of no importance to Gnosticism; what He did to enlighten men, on the other hand, was emphasized to the exclusion of all else. He was the conveyor of that knowledge which man needs in order to be able to launch forth on the journey back to the world of light, “the journey to the Pleroma.”
Gnosticism taught that salvation came to man by means of the mysteries which were characteristic of the Gnostic approach. Chief among these mysteries were Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (distortions of the Christian sacraments) plus a number of additional sacred rites of similar nature. Through these the Gnostics were provided with the secrets of salvation resident in the higher knowledge. The mystical formulae thus acquired protected them against the powers which stood watch on the way through the spirit world. Furthermore, by virtue of their participation in the mysteries, the Gnostics received an inner strength (provided in a purely physical sense through the sacraments), and it was this which enabled them to conquer evil and ascend to the Pleroma.
The ethics of Gnosticism were related to its basic dualism. If salvation consists of the release of the spirit from the material world, it is natural that the ethical ideal should be conceived in ascetic terms. Certain sects preached a very strict form of abstinence, as, for example, the so-called Encratites (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 28–29). But the very opposite point of view was also supported by some. In view of the fact that the spirit had nothing to do with the material, it was thought that external deeds were of no importance. Some said that independence from the material could be won only if one gave free rein to the lusts of the flesh (libertinism).
Gnosticism’s thoroughgoing dualism (between the spiritual and the material) reflected its relationship to Greek thought. The latter was characterized by a deistic concept of God, and Gnosticism assimilated this too. In the light of these convictions, we can understand why Gnosticism was unable to accept the claim that Christ is both God and man (cf. the Ebionites). Gnosticism wanted to transform Christianity into a mythological speculation. Its doctrine of salvation implied a denial of that which is most essential to the Christian faith. The simple faith of Christianity was to be superseded by the higher knowledge of the Gnostics, which took the form of a personal conviction concerning the realities of the spiritual world. With this, for all practical purposes, Gnosticism became a religio-philosophical form of speculation, which either rejected or reinterpreted the basic content of Christianity. Gnosticism opposed the Christian belief in a divine creation: the creator, it said, was not the most high God, and the creation itself was looked upon as something base and evil (blasphemia creatoris). The Second Article of the Creed was rejected or reinterpreted by the Gnostics on the basis of their Docetic Christology, which denied Christ’s earthly existence and His atonement. Christ was looked upon as the transmitter of gnosis, while His suffering and death were dismissed as inconsequential. The purification which came through the mysteries was based on a mythological foundation. The Gnostics also repudiated the content of the Third Article of the Creed. The Holy Spirit was inserted into their mythology as a spiritual essence which had emerged from out of one of the eons. Irenaeus said of the Gnostics that they never received the gifts of the Holy Spirit and that they had contempt for the prophets (Epideixis, 99 f.). They also denied the resurrection of the body, on the basis of the idea that everything physical or material is evil and unspiritual. Gnosticism was, therefore, an idealistic reinterpretation of Christianity, which they sought to insert into a syncretistic system. This is particularly clear in their blasphemia creatoris, their Docetic Christology, and their denial of the resurrection of the body. Gnosticism had no eschatology: Instead of accepting the fulfillment of life in terms of the second coming of Christ, they spoke of the sours ascent into the Pleroma.
Many Gnostic ideas reappeared later on in the form of Neoplatonism and other related idealistic schools of thought. In addition to this, certain theological concepts which were strongly influenced by Greek philosophy reveal tendencies which remind us of Gnosticism.
Marcion’s contemporaries thought of him as a Gnostic, and so far as basic points of view (blasphemia creatoris, Docetism, denial of the resurrection of the body) are concerned, Marcion was in agreement with the Gnostics. But in other respects, he was an independent thinker, and he propounded many ideas which did not correspond with Gnosticism. Marcion was not syncretistic, for example; he wanted to reform Christianity by discarding everything which in his opinion did not belong in the Gospel. Furthermore, Marcion did not accept any of the mythological speculations which were characteristic of Gnosticism. Neither did he allude to any particular gnosis which was accessible only to the socalled pneumatics. All he wanted to do was to proclaim a very simple faith. He said nothing about the division of mankind into different classes. The points at which Marcion differed from the Gnostics have recently been given much critical attention (especially by Adolf von Harnack), and he has now been clearly distinguished from the Gnostics. He is now looked upon as a reformer, who rediscovered the otherwise forgotten Paul and who proclaimed salvation by faith alone in an age when moralism was a pervasive tendency in theology.
When the church fathers say that Marcion was the most difficult of all heretics, we sense that other facets of his theology, such as his doctrine of God and Christ, plus his radical separation of Law and Gospel, were most prominent in their estimation. It was in these areas that Marcion was linked with the Gnostics, and this suggested a denial of the church’s basic teachings. Both sides of the story have their place in a presentation of Marcion’s theological position, and those aspects which mark him off from the Gnostics impel us to consider him on his own merits.
At the outset Marcion embraced the faith of the church, but then he came under the influence of a Syrian Gnostic named Kerdo, and thus began the process of forming his own unique theology. He arrived in Rome about 140; when he was expelled by the congregation there, he started his own church, which soon became quite large. Vestiges of this organization were to be found in various places as late as the sixth century.
The basic point of departure in Marcion’s theology is to be found in the distinction he made between Law and Gospel, between the Old Covenant and the New. Paul spoke of the Christian’s freedom from the Law, and Marcion interpreted that to mean that the Law had been vanquished and that the Gospel was to be preached without any reference to the Law. The Law, he said, had been replaced by a new order. The Gospel, to him, was a new, previously unknown message, which not only replaced the Law but stood in opposition to it. Tertullian characterized this attitude in the following words: “The separation of the Law and the Gospel is the characteristic and principal work of Marcion.” (Contra Marcionem, 1, 19)
This trend of thought related Marcion to the Gnostic teaching of the two Gods. In Marcion—and this was characteristic of him—the creator God of the Old Testament was the God of the Law, whom he thought of as a God of severity and wrath, who took revenge on His enemies and kept His followers in thrall under the Law. The Most High God, as Marcion conceived of Him, was not so much an abstract spiritual essence, an infinitely transcendent God; He was rather the unknown God who revealed Himself to the world in Christ. Marcion thought of Him as the God of grace and mercy, the God of pure love. This God, said Marcion, fought against and conquered the God of law and justice and, out of pure grace, saved those who had faith in Him. This facet of Marcion’s theology was a biased (or one-sided) and therefore distorted interpretation of Paul’s concept of justification. According to Marcion, the God of love had nothing at all to do with the Law. He made a radical distinction between justice and mercy, between wrath and grace.
Christ was the one who proclaimed the Gospel of the God of love. As a matter of fact, He was truly this God Himself, who manifested Himself here on earth during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. He appeared, however, as a ghostly figure. Because He was different from the Creator God, He could not have assumed the mantle of human flesh. Marcion’s Christology was Docetic, and yet he believed in the redemprive significance of Christ’s suffering and death. This, of course, is a contradiction of his Docetic Christology, but it also marked him off from the Gnostics. This was observed by Irenaeus: “How could He have been crucified, and how could blood and water have flowed from His pierced side if He were not truly man but only apparently a man?” (Adversus haereses)
Marcion’s God was a God whom the faithful did not have to fear, inasmuch as He was thought of as pure goodness. In view of this, one might expect that Marcion would have been completely indifferent with respect to morality. Quite the opposite was true, however, for in this matter Marcion, like the Gnostics, was strongly ascetic. He felt, for example, that marriage was something evil. Marcion taught that an ascetic code of ethics could help free man from the Demiurge, the Creator God, the God of law.
Marcion is also remembered for his radical alteration of the canon. He rejected the Old Testament on the ground that it was the proclamation of the God of law, the Jewish God, alone. The Messiah of the Jews had nothing in common with Christ. Marcion would not even permit an allegorical interpretation. With respect to the New Testament, Marcion desired that everything associated with Judaism or the Law be discarded. He retained only 10 of the epistles of Paul (the Pastoral Epistles were rejected) and a truncated version of the Gospel according to Luke. In so doing, Marcion made a radical attempt to determine, on the basis of his own understanding of the essence of Christianity, which writings should be normative.
The opposition of the church fathers to Marcion involved the same points of doctrine as the struggle with Gnosticism in general. They opposed him for denying that God created the world and for teaching that there was a God other than the God who created the heavens and the earth. Marcion’s rejection of the Incarnation, based on his Docetic Christology, was another point at issue. Furthermore, the fact that he denied the resurrection of the body was strongly challenged. Marcion believed that only the soul could be saved; the body, which belongs to the material world, could not be.
The term “Jewish Christianity” means many different things, and it is used in various ways by those engaged in research. It can refer to the Palestinian Christianity of the post-Ascension period, that is, the Christians of Jewish birth, who lived in Palestine and had their center in the congregation at Jerusalem—in contrast to the Christians who came out of a pagan background. On some occasions, however, the term is used to identify certain sectarian groups which emanated from the Jerusalem congregation after the Christian community there was driven into the area east of the Jordan about the year 66. It is in this sense that the term will be used here. One of the prime characteristics of this heretical Jewish Christianity, which is also known as “Ebionism” (after the Old Testament termevjonim, “the poor,” originally a name honoring the Christians of Jerusalem), was their confusion of Jewish and Christian elements. According to what has been reported, the Jewish Christians may have assimilated the Essene monks, who have become well known in recent years through the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. The history of Ebionism is, for the most part, cloaked in darkness. Neither the fragments of literature which have been preserved, nor the references found in the church fathers provide us with a detailed picture of the ideas and customs of this group. Certain main lines of thought can, however, be reconstructed.
The Ebionites held fast to the validity of the law of Moses; one faction held that this applied only to them, but another, more militant faction insisted that Christians who came out of a pagan background were also obligated to the law of Moses. Another prominent idea associated with the Ebionites was that they expected a Messianic kingdom to be established with its center in Jerusalem. This reflects their identification of Judaism and Christianity.
It is certainly true that the universal church considers itself to be a continuation of the Old Testament community, the true Israel, but this does not prevent a strong denial of “Jewishness” and the Jewish interpretation of the Law. Paul, for example, fought against those who wished to reintroduce circumcision (cf. Gal. 5), and he demonstrated how freedom in Christ excluded adherence to the way of righteousness which depended on the Law. The Ebionites, who held fast to Jewish precepts and considered them valid for congregational life, repudiated Paul’s interpretation of the Law, as a result, and refused to accept his epistles.
In the writings of the Jewish Christians (the most important of which is the so-called “Pseudo-Clement,” which contains, among other things, “The Preaching of Peter,” plus a number of apocryphal gospels) Christ is put on the same level as the prophets of the Old Testament. He is here described as a new form of revelation of “the true Prophet,” who appeared earlier in Adam and Moses, among others. The concept of Christ as the new Moses expressed the unity of Judaism and Christianity which was prominently emphasized in Ebionism. Christ was said to be “a man born of men” (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, p. 48), or, as it was often put later on, “simply and only a man.” The Ebionites therefore denied the preexistence of Christ; some of them also denied the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. They assumed that Jesus received the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism and was thereby chosen to be the Messiah and the Son of God. Salvation was not associated with Christs death and resurrection; it was rather thought that it would first become a reality at the time of Christ’s second coming, when, according to expectations, an earthly millennium would begin.
On the basis of these ideas, Ebionism provided the prototype of a Christology which conceived of Christ in purely human terms and which assumed that He was not the Son of God until he was “adopted as such at the time of His baptism or resurrection” (the “adoptionist Christology”). Christ’s divine attributes were thereby rejected.
As seen in the light of history, Jewish Christianity did not exert a great influence on the development of Christian theology. It was divided into various groups, and rather soon died out. In all likelihood it did not exist for more than 350 years at the most. On the other hand, however, it exerted a strong influence on Mohammedanism, in which some of its ideas reappeared in a new form. One of these was the concept of the “true prophet”; another was the parallel between Moses and Jesus.
If Jewish Christianity represents a confusion of Jewish and Christian elements, Gnosticism involved a combination of Hellenistic religion and Christianity. Ebionism was quite different from Gnosticism, therefore; it was particularly opposed to Marcion and his repudiation of the Law (see the next section). In spite of this, however, we shall see in certain areas a combination of Gnostic and Jewish Christian ideas. This is true, for example, among the Elkesaites, who were probably named for a certain Elkesai, who might have been the author of a document which bears his name. Another example involves the adversaries mentioned in Col. 2, who also seem to have united Gnostic and Jewish ideas (cf. the reference here to “philosophy and empty deceit” (v. 8) and “an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion” (v. 23). It would not be correct, however, to say that the main concepts of Jewish Christianity were Gnostic in form and origin. (Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, 1949)
Gnosticism
Gnosticism is the common name applied to a number of different schools of thought which developed in the first centuries of the Christian era. Insofar as the Christian “gnosis” is concerned, this refers to an attempt to include Christianity in a general religio-philosophical system. The most important elements in this system were certain mystic and cosmological speculations, plus a distinct dualism between the world of the spirit and the material world. Its doctrine of salvation emphasized the freeing of the spirit from its bondage in the material realm. This cult came equipped with its own mysteries and sacramental ceremonies, in addition to an ethic which was either ascetic or libertine.
Origins. The question of the origin of Gnosticism has been discussed at great length, and there does not seem to be any simple answer. Most of the Gnostic literature has been lost. However, some of it has been preserved in a Coptic translation in Egypt, e. g., the “Pistis Sophia,” the “Gospel of Thomas,” and the “Gospel of Truth.” The two last-named writings were included in the significant manuscript discovery made at the village of Nag Hammadi (near Luxor) in 1946. Among the items found there, in an earthenware jug preserved in the sand, were 13 codices, including no less than 48 writings, all of Gnostic origin. This discovery has not yet been completely evaluated or made available to researchers. For the most part, our knowledge of Gnosticism has come down to us from the writings of the church fathers. They cite Gnostic authors, or refer to their teachings from time to time in their polemical sections.
The church fathers agreed that Gnosticism began with Simon Magus (Acts 8), but apart from this their reports vary. According to a certain Hegesippus, who was quoted by Eusebius (IV, 22), Gnosticism began among certain Jewish sects. The later church fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus), on the other hand, were of the opinion that Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Zeno) was the chief source of the Gnostic heresy. If we are asking here about the Gnosticism which developed on Christian soil, these accounts need not be in hopeless contradiction. For this type of Gnosticism was a syncretistic system which combined widely disparate streams of thought.
When we speak of Gnosticism, we usually have in mind the system which developed in the Christian period, the “Gnostic heresy” which the church fathers opposed so strenuously. But Gnosticism was already present when Christian history began; it was then a rather vague religious phenomenon, a speculative doctrine of salvation with contributions from a number of different religious traditions. It came from the Orient, where it was influenced by the religions of Babylonia and Persia. The cosmological myths testify to its Babylonian origins, while its thoroughgoing dualism relates it to the religion of Persia. Mandaeanism is an example of a Gnostic religious formation in the Persian area. Subsequently Gnosticism appeared in Syria and on Jewish soil, particularly in Samaria, and there absorbed a Jewish coloration. It was this form of Gnosticism which existed at the beginning of the Christian era, and the apostles encountered it in Simon Magus, who was present in Samaria. From that point on a Gnostic school began to develop in the Christian sphere, with elements derived from Christianity. Because of this similarity, Gnosticism did not appear as an enemy of Christianity. It rather intended to blend Christianity and the other speculative elements already present within it into some kind of a universal religious system. It was in this form that Gnosticism appeared in the second century, with its chief exponents in Syria (Saturninus), Egypt (Basilides), and Rome (Valentinus). This later system was also deeply influenced by Greek religious philosophy. For a long time Gnosticism was Christianity’s most dangerous opponent. The Christian polemic against Gnosticism was accompanied by a development of theological thought which had no parallel within the history of the church up to that point.
Tendencies. As we have already noted, many different tendencies were found within Gnosticism. The mythologies and systems which appeared under its general auspices were numerous and disparate.
According to Acts 8:9–24 Simon Magus appeared in Samaria, where Gnosticism had one of its roots. Simon identified himself as the “power of God” and pretended, therefore, to be a Messiah-figure. He also proclaimed freedom from the Law. He taught that salvation came, not through good works but through faith in him. According to the church fathers Simon Magus’ teaching was the prototype of all heresy.
Saturninus appeared in Syria in the early years of the second century. His Gnostic system betrays an oriental influence.
Basilides worked in Egypt around the year 125. His Gnosticism was more philosophical in nature, and the Greek influence was stronger.
Valentinus, who was active in Rome from 135 to 160, has provided us with the classical presentation of the Gnostic system. The Greek contribution is also prominent in his work.
Marcion was included among the Gnostics by the church fathers. His teaching is similar to Gnosticism at many points. He was at the same time, however, the founder of his own unique school of thought, and his system was, in many respects, his own creation. As we shall see more clearly in what follows, the theological position held by Marcion and the Gnostics was frequently identical. But there is a difference, as Adolf von Harnack emphasized in his History of Dogma. For while Gnosticism is a religious potpourri, in which Christianity and Greek philosophy are blended together, Marcion attempted a radical reorganization of Christianity on the basis of certain ideas gleaned from Paul plus the elimination of all Jewish elements.
Chief concepts. Apart from Marcion, Gnosticism contains certain major concepts held in common by all of the schools and systems associated with it, even though the mythology and the cultic customs vary.
Gnosticism’s fundamental metaphysics, which was defined most specifically in the work of Valentinus, has been described by the church father Irenaeus (Adversus haereses, I) and others. It is presented in mythological form under the hypostatization of a number of abstract concepts such as truth, wisdom, and reason. The basic point of view is dualistic in nature, which is to say that it proceeds from a contrast between the world of the spirit and the material world, together with a contrast between good and evil and between a higher and a lower sphere.
Because of this dualism, Gnosticism distinguished between the highest God and a lower deity, and it was the latter, they said, who created the world. The highest God was conceived in completely abstract terms as the ultimate spiritual essence; attempts to describe this God more specifically were not made, and He was not associated with any revelation. He was thought to be as far away from the world as possible. The Gnostics also insisted that this God could not have created the world. The world is evil, after all, and therefore it must have its origin in an inferior spiritual essence, in which evil is to be found. This creator god, or demiurge, was said to be the God of the Old Testament—the Jewish God. Gnosticism was antagonistic toward the Old Testament; it also rejected the Law, insisting that man could acquire superior insights which would free him of dependence on it. It was for this reason, above all, that the church fathers fought against Gnosticism—to defend the Christian belief in the one God who created the world and revealed Himself to the prophets.
Gnosticism’s doctrine of God was related to high-flown speculations concerning the spirit world on the one hand and the origins of the material world on the other (the so-called “eon” doctrine). Valentinus, for example, estimated that 30 eons had proceeded out of the deity in a theogonic process. The material world was derived from the lowest of the eons as a result of a fall. The highest God, or the Progenitor, formed the first eon, which was also known as βυθος (abyss). Out of the “abyss” came “the silence,” or “the idea” (σιγη or εvvοια), and from these two, “the spirit” and “the truth” (vους and αληθεια). From the last-named, in turn, came “reason” and “life” (λογος and ζωη), and from these “man” and “the church” and 10 other eons appeared. “Man” and “the church” together produced 12 eons, the last of these being “wisdom” (σοφια). The eons, working in concert, formed the world of the spirit, the Pleroma, which contains the archetype of the material world. The last of the eons fell from the Pleroma as a result of a seizure of passion and anxiety, and it was because of this fall that the material world came into being. The demiurge who created the world came forth from this fallen eon.
Christ and the Holy Spirit originated in one of the highest eons. Christ’s task is to restore the fallen eon to the Pleroma, and, at the same time, to free the souls of men from their captivity in the material world and to bring them back into the world of the spirit. It was on this basis that the Gnostic concept of salvation developed. Salvation was said to consist in the release of the soul from the material world so that it could be cleansed and brought back to the divine sphere from whence it came. As is true in Neoplatonism, which had much in common with the system of Valentinus, the history of the world was thought of in cyclical terms. The soul of man was drawn into this cyclical process. Man fell from the world of light and was held captive in the material world. His salvation consists of release from the material world so that he can ascend once again into the spirit world, the world of light, from which he came.
According to Gnosticism, salvation of this kind was possible because of the higher insight (γvωσις, “gnosis”) available to the Gnostics; this insight was a form of mystery-wisdom which provided knowledge concerning the Pleroma and the way which led thence. But not everyone could attain this salvation; only the so-called “pneumatics,” who were equipped with the necessary power to receive this knowledge, were able to do so. All other men, whom the Gnostics called the “materialists,” were unable to utilize this knowledge. The Gnostics occasionally referred to a category between the pneumatics and the materialists, the so-called “psychics,” in which category the Christians were commonly placed. It was thought possible that the psychics could obtain the knowledge needed for salvation. Gnosticism therefore taught a form of predestination: only the pneumatics could be saved. This separation of men into different classes was opposed by the church fathers. They also repudiated the Gnostic concept of a higher knowledge, which was elevated above the level of faith and pretended to elevate man into the sphere of divinity.
Gnosticism did borrow certain elements from Christianity and introduce them into its general concept of salvation. Christ, for example, is referred to in Gnosticism as the Savior, inasmuch as He was said to be the one who brought the saving knowledge into the world. But this is not the Christ of the Bible; the Christ of Gnosticism was a spiritual essence who emerged from out of the eons. This Christ could not have taken on the form of man. When He appeared on earth, said the Gnostics, He only seemed to have a physical body. At the same time the Gnostics also taught that this Christ did not suffer and die. Gnosticism, in other words, proclaimed a Docetic Christology.
The suffering and death of Christ was of no importance to Gnosticism; what He did to enlighten men, on the other hand, was emphasized to the exclusion of all else. He was the conveyor of that knowledge which man needs in order to be able to launch forth on the journey back to the world of light, “the journey to the Pleroma.”
Gnosticism taught that salvation came to man by means of the mysteries which were characteristic of the Gnostic approach. Chief among these mysteries were Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (distortions of the Christian sacraments) plus a number of additional sacred rites of similar nature. Through these the Gnostics were provided with the secrets of salvation resident in the higher knowledge. The mystical formulae thus acquired protected them against the powers which stood watch on the way through the spirit world. Furthermore, by virtue of their participation in the mysteries, the Gnostics received an inner strength (provided in a purely physical sense through the sacraments), and it was this which enabled them to conquer evil and ascend to the Pleroma.
The ethics of Gnosticism were related to its basic dualism. If salvation consists of the release of the spirit from the material world, it is natural that the ethical ideal should be conceived in ascetic terms. Certain sects preached a very strict form of abstinence, as, for example, the so-called Encratites (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 28–29). But the very opposite point of view was also supported by some. In view of the fact that the spirit had nothing to do with the material, it was thought that external deeds were of no importance. Some said that independence from the material could be won only if one gave free rein to the lusts of the flesh (libertinism).
Gnosticism’s thoroughgoing dualism (between the spiritual and the material) reflected its relationship to Greek thought. The latter was characterized by a deistic concept of God, and Gnosticism assimilated this too. In the light of these convictions, we can understand why Gnosticism was unable to accept the claim that Christ is both God and man (cf. the Ebionites). Gnosticism wanted to transform Christianity into a mythological speculation. Its doctrine of salvation implied a denial of that which is most essential to the Christian faith. The simple faith of Christianity was to be superseded by the higher knowledge of the Gnostics, which took the form of a personal conviction concerning the realities of the spiritual world. With this, for all practical purposes, Gnosticism became a religio-philosophical form of speculation, which either rejected or reinterpreted the basic content of Christianity. Gnosticism opposed the Christian belief in a divine creation: the creator, it said, was not the most high God, and the creation itself was looked upon as something base and evil (blasphemia creatoris). The Second Article of the Creed was rejected or reinterpreted by the Gnostics on the basis of their Docetic Christology, which denied Christ’s earthly existence and His atonement. Christ was looked upon as the transmitter of gnosis, while His suffering and death were dismissed as inconsequential. The purification which came through the mysteries was based on a mythological foundation. The Gnostics also repudiated the content of the Third Article of the Creed. The Holy Spirit was inserted into their mythology as a spiritual essence which had emerged from out of one of the eons. Irenaeus said of the Gnostics that they never received the gifts of the Holy Spirit and that they had contempt for the prophets (Epideixis, 99 f.). They also denied the resurrection of the body, on the basis of the idea that everything physical or material is evil and unspiritual. Gnosticism was, therefore, an idealistic reinterpretation of Christianity, which they sought to insert into a syncretistic system. This is particularly clear in their blasphemia creatoris, their Docetic Christology, and their denial of the resurrection of the body. Gnosticism had no eschatology: Instead of accepting the fulfillment of life in terms of the second coming of Christ, they spoke of the sours ascent into the Pleroma.
Many Gnostic ideas reappeared later on in the form of Neoplatonism and other related idealistic schools of thought. In addition to this, certain theological concepts which were strongly influenced by Greek philosophy reveal tendencies which remind us of Gnosticism.
Marcion’s contemporaries thought of him as a Gnostic, and so far as basic points of view (blasphemia creatoris, Docetism, denial of the resurrection of the body) are concerned, Marcion was in agreement with the Gnostics. But in other respects, he was an independent thinker, and he propounded many ideas which did not correspond with Gnosticism. Marcion was not syncretistic, for example; he wanted to reform Christianity by discarding everything which in his opinion did not belong in the Gospel. Furthermore, Marcion did not accept any of the mythological speculations which were characteristic of Gnosticism. Neither did he allude to any particular gnosis which was accessible only to the socalled pneumatics. All he wanted to do was to proclaim a very simple faith. He said nothing about the division of mankind into different classes. The points at which Marcion differed from the Gnostics have recently been given much critical attention (especially by Adolf von Harnack), and he has now been clearly distinguished from the Gnostics. He is now looked upon as a reformer, who rediscovered the otherwise forgotten Paul and who proclaimed salvation by faith alone in an age when moralism was a pervasive tendency in theology.
When the church fathers say that Marcion was the most difficult of all heretics, we sense that other facets of his theology, such as his doctrine of God and Christ, plus his radical separation of Law and Gospel, were most prominent in their estimation. It was in these areas that Marcion was linked with the Gnostics, and this suggested a denial of the church’s basic teachings. Both sides of the story have their place in a presentation of Marcion’s theological position, and those aspects which mark him off from the Gnostics impel us to consider him on his own merits.
At the outset Marcion embraced the faith of the church, but then he came under the influence of a Syrian Gnostic named Kerdo, and thus began the process of forming his own unique theology. He arrived in Rome about 140; when he was expelled by the congregation there, he started his own church, which soon became quite large. Vestiges of this organization were to be found in various places as late as the sixth century.
The basic point of departure in Marcion’s theology is to be found in the distinction he made between Law and Gospel, between the Old Covenant and the New. Paul spoke of the Christian’s freedom from the Law, and Marcion interpreted that to mean that the Law had been vanquished and that the Gospel was to be preached without any reference to the Law. The Law, he said, had been replaced by a new order. The Gospel, to him, was a new, previously unknown message, which not only replaced the Law but stood in opposition to it. Tertullian characterized this attitude in the following words: “The separation of the Law and the Gospel is the characteristic and principal work of Marcion.” (Contra Marcionem, 1, 19)
This trend of thought related Marcion to the Gnostic teaching of the two Gods. In Marcion—and this was characteristic of him—the creator God of the Old Testament was the God of the Law, whom he thought of as a God of severity and wrath, who took revenge on His enemies and kept His followers in thrall under the Law. The Most High God, as Marcion conceived of Him, was not so much an abstract spiritual essence, an infinitely transcendent God; He was rather the unknown God who revealed Himself to the world in Christ. Marcion thought of Him as the God of grace and mercy, the God of pure love. This God, said Marcion, fought against and conquered the God of law and justice and, out of pure grace, saved those who had faith in Him. This facet of Marcion’s theology was a biased (or one-sided) and therefore distorted interpretation of Paul’s concept of justification. According to Marcion, the God of love had nothing at all to do with the Law. He made a radical distinction between justice and mercy, between wrath and grace.
Christ was the one who proclaimed the Gospel of the God of love. As a matter of fact, He was truly this God Himself, who manifested Himself here on earth during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. He appeared, however, as a ghostly figure. Because He was different from the Creator God, He could not have assumed the mantle of human flesh. Marcion’s Christology was Docetic, and yet he believed in the redemprive significance of Christ’s suffering and death. This, of course, is a contradiction of his Docetic Christology, but it also marked him off from the Gnostics. This was observed by Irenaeus: “How could He have been crucified, and how could blood and water have flowed from His pierced side if He were not truly man but only apparently a man?” (Adversus haereses)
Marcion’s God was a God whom the faithful did not have to fear, inasmuch as He was thought of as pure goodness. In view of this, one might expect that Marcion would have been completely indifferent with respect to morality. Quite the opposite was true, however, for in this matter Marcion, like the Gnostics, was strongly ascetic. He felt, for example, that marriage was something evil. Marcion taught that an ascetic code of ethics could help free man from the Demiurge, the Creator God, the God of law.
Marcion is also remembered for his radical alteration of the canon. He rejected the Old Testament on the ground that it was the proclamation of the God of law, the Jewish God, alone. The Messiah of the Jews had nothing in common with Christ. Marcion would not even permit an allegorical interpretation. With respect to the New Testament, Marcion desired that everything associated with Judaism or the Law be discarded. He retained only 10 of the epistles of Paul (the Pastoral Epistles were rejected) and a truncated version of the Gospel according to Luke. In so doing, Marcion made a radical attempt to determine, on the basis of his own understanding of the essence of Christianity, which writings should be normative.
The opposition of the church fathers to Marcion involved the same points of doctrine as the struggle with Gnosticism in general. They opposed him for denying that God created the world and for teaching that there was a God other than the God who created the heavens and the earth. Marcion’s rejection of the Incarnation, based on his Docetic Christology, was another point at issue. Furthermore, the fact that he denied the resurrection of the body was strongly challenged. Marcion believed that only the soul could be saved; the body, which belongs to the material world, could not be.
No comments:
Post a Comment