Gnosticism in the Early Church[1]

7/31/2019 Gnosticism in the Early Church[1]

1/11

James Robinson Page 1 8/7/2004

Gnosticism in the Early Church

By: James Robinson

McCormick Theological School


2/11


Gnosticism is a generic term for a variety of religious movements of the first

centuries of the Christian era. Although the theology, ritual practice, and ethics

of these groups differed considerably, all purported to offer salvation from the

oppressive bonds of material existence through gnosis, or knowledge. The

purpose of this paper is to highlight the implications of Gnosticism in the early

church.

What is known about Gnosticism traditionally depended upon reports in the

church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Epiphanius,

who are opponents of Christian Gnostic teachers.

1

Irenaeus was above all a pastor. He was not particularly interested in the

philosophical speculation or in delving into mysteries hitherto unsolved, but rather

in leading his flock in Christian life and faith. Therefore, in his writings he did not

seek to rise in great speculative flights, but simply to refute heresy and instruct

believers. The writings of Irenaeus are an excellent witness to the faith of the

church towards the end of the second century. 2

An example of his written works was his insight on how heretics follow neither

scripture nor tradition. He expresses that heretics confuted from the Scriptures

turning them around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not

correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that those

who are ignorant of tradition cannot extract the truth from them. For [they allege]

that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv voce:

1 Paul J. Achtemeier and others, eds.,Harpers Bible Dictionary (New York: HarperSanFrancisco,

1985), 349.2 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation

(New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984), 68.


3/11


wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are

perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."

Irenaeus continues that this wisdom alleges to be the fiction of his own

inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at

one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then

afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,

who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. It was his hypothesis that for

every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the

system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

3

Hippolytus was the intellectual disciple of Irenaeus and a Greek speaking

Christian who settled in Rome. He wrote an influential work called Refutation of

all Heresies. A copy of the work was discovered in 1832 at Mount Athos and is

important for its summary of heretical doctrines, which Hippolytus rejected

outright as blasphemous. The work is in two parts: the first part traces the origins

of heresy to pre-Christian Greek philosophy, which he describes as erroneous,

and the second part gives an account of thirty-three Gnostic systems.

He declared that the basis of Gnostic doctrine was not Christian and therefore

all who believed it were godless. He substantiated this claim by highlighting the

false doctrines of Simon Magus, especially what he regarded as his false

teaching of the Infinite Force as the original force or the principle of the universe.

A particular emphasis on his teaching is the unsound notion that Gods love is

unconditional and immeasurable. As an advocate of the Logos Christology, he

3 Irenaeus Against All Heresies Book III, chapters 2- 5


4/11


also believed strongly in the virgin birth of Jesus, which he linked to the doctrine

of the Logos. Jesus was fully man, and so Hippolyus stated, Let us believe then,

dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God, the Lord came

down from heaven (and entered) into the holy virgin Mary, assuming also a

human, by which I mean a rational soul and becoming then all that man is with

the exception of sin, he might save fallen man and confer immorality on men who

believe in his name.4

Tertullian, who was a lawyer, affirmed that once one has found the truth of

Christianity, one should abandon any further search for truth. As Tertullian, sees

the matter, a Christian who is still searching for further truth lacks faith. His

beliefs were that if any quest for truth goes beyond that of the body of doctrine is

dangerous. All outside sources were to be rejected. This is particularly true of

pagan philosophy, which is the source of all heresy, and is nothing but idle

speculation.

In short, Tertullain condemns all speculation. To speak, for instance, of what

Gods omnipotence can do is a waste of time and a dangerous occupation. What

we are to ask is not what God could do, but rather what is it that God has in fact

done. This is what the church teaches. This is what is to be found in Scripture.

The rest is idle and risky curiosity.

For all these reasons, Tertullian is a unique personality in the story of

Christianity. A fiery champion of orthodoxy against every sort of heresy, in the

end he joined one of the movements that the church at large considered

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

147-149.


5/11


heretical. And, even then, he produced writings and theological formulas that

would be very influential in the future course of orthodox theology. Furthermore,

he was the first Christian theologian to write in Latin, which was the language of

the western half of the empire, and thus he may be considered the founder of

western theology (Gonzalez 1984, 73-77).

Origen draws a distinction between the gnosis of the advanced or perfect

and the belief of the simple Christians. According to Origen, these simple

Christians concentrated their faith on the man Jesus Christ who was crucified.

But without denying this faith, he thinks that what really matters is knowledge of

Jesus Christ who is spiritually present as Gods Word and Wisdom. Origen

understands the apostle Paul as having had a message on two levels, for the

simple and for the advanced.

He thought that the Bible had to be interpreted allegorically. This starting point

gave him the possibility of interpreting all kinds of texts from the Old and New

Testaments spiritually, with reference to his own views. Allegorical interpretation

contributed to the preservation in the church of the Old Testament, which was

sometimes felt to be difficult.

It is evident from some of Origens views that he interpreted Christian faith in

a way, which sometimes suggests the Gnostics. However, is it important that he

attributes the creation of this world to the one God and not to a lower Creator.

According to Origen, the fact that human beings live on this earth is a result of

the choice, which the soul once made when it joined in the rebellion against God

(as nous). In his view, the soul is thus itself responsible for its existence in the


6/11


earthly body. He thought that the fact that the fallen soul has found its way into a

body it could learn to return to God again through Christ. Thus Origen opposes

the view that he encountered in Gnostics, namely that by nature they were

already spiritual and elect. However, Origens view that the purpose of the

human beings is once again to be completely spiritual and to leave the material

body behind them is akin to the Gnostics.5

Apart from a few hints that can be found in the Ecclesiastical History of

Eusebius of Caesarea (d.339), we have to wait until the second half of the fourth

century to find another important writer engaged in the hunt for heretics,

especially Gnostic heretics. This is Epiphanius, born c. 315 at Eleutheropolis, not

far from Gaza in Palestine. As a young man he visited the most celebrated

monks in Egypt; he returned to Gaza and founded a monastery, over which he

presided for about thirty years. This helped to provide him with an aura of

sanctity, an advantage when the bishops elected him as Metropolitan in 367. He

thus became Bishop of Constantia (ancient Salamis). And from there he fought

his battles, both theological (he was an implacable opponent of Origen and his

followers) and heresiological.

With his Panarion (Medicine Chest) (374-7) he intended to offer a reliable

antidote to those who had been bitten by the poison of heresy, as well as

protection and encouragement to those who had remained true to the faith. That

heresy flourished at that time there can be no doubt: one has only to think of the

endless theological controversies begun by Arius. That Gnostic groups continued

5 Riemer Roukema, Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity: An Introduction to Gnosticism

(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999) 153-155.


7/11


to flourish is a matter of less uncertainty. Nevertheless it is significant that

Epiphanius in some cases has had firsthand experience of his opponents. That

the heresies from Simon Magus to those of his contemporaries, the Messalians,

reappear and are rounded up to the prophetic number eighty, to which

Epiphanius limits them, is a further example of the ancients love of arithmetical

speculation (cf. the parallel of the eighty concubines in Song of Songs 6:8) and

certainly not an actual historical fact. The heresiological material is subdivided or

multiplied according to this numerical scheme, with results and problems for the

modern scholar that may easily be imagined. Moreover, Epiphanius, with his

Tertullian-like hatred of over-audacious philosophical or theological speculation

(to which may be added his failure to understand it, unlike the African writer),

appears as the exact antithesis of modern scientific method. The heretics are

finally consigned to an increasingly fantastic genealogical pedigree, painted in

the gloomiest colors, charged with the sins and condemned to the harshest

penalties.6

Over the centuries many have denied that the Gnostics can properly be

described as Christian. Their own leaders certainly rejected the teachings of

Catholic Christianity. Nevertheless, Gnostics always claimed to be followers of

the Christ. They often considered themselves outside, or above, the Catholic

wing of the Christian movement. Gnostic teachings sought to open the adherents

to those higher spiritual realms that exist beyond the material world. Their truths

were not for the uninitiated and the common people but were reserved for the

6 Giovanni Filoramo,A History of Gnosticism, trans. Anthony Alcock (Cambridge: Basil

Blackwell, Inc., 1990), 6-7.


8/11


intellectuals and the elite. Set against the background of Alexandrian intellectual

and spiritual life in the second century, as exemplified by a thinker such as

Clement, the Gnostics do not look like entire strangers to the Christian way, only

seekers after a mystical higher life.

As for the Gnostic party, by the third century its numbers proportionally had

dwindled. The causes for this were more than simply the opposition expressed

by the Catholic party. Despite the vehement character of the Catholic writers

attacks, we have little evidence that books alone caused the Gnostic movement

to diminish. Catholic leaders had no power other than that of persuasion to

employ against the Gnostics or any other party that they considered to be

unacceptably deviant in the second and third centuries. Gnosticism died down

not because the Catholic party suppressed italthough that did come later, in

the fourth centurybut because the Catholic party simply swallowed it up with its

numbers. The increase in members in Catholic Christianity in Alexandria and

elsewhere eventually proved to be too great.7

The attempt to picture Gnosticism as a mighty movement of the human mind

towards the noblest and highest truth, a movement in some way parallel to that of

Christianity, has completely failed. It has been abandoned by recent

unprejudiced scholars such as W. Bousset and O. Gruppe, and it is to be

regretted that it should have been renewed by an English writer, G.R.S. Mead, in

"Fragments of a Faith Forgotten", an unscholarly and misleading work, which in

7 Dale T. Irvin and Scott W. Sunquist,History of the World Christian Movement Vol.1: Earliest

Christianity to 1453 (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001), 89-90.


9/11


English-speaking countries may retard the sober and true appreciation of

Gnosticism as it was in historical fact.

Gnosticism was not an advance it was retrogression. It was born amidst the

last throes of expiring cults and civilizations in Western Asia and Egypt. Though

hellenized, these countries remained Oriental and Semitic to the core. This

Oriental spirit -- Attis of Asia Minor, Istar of Babylonia, Isis of Egypt, with the

astrological and cosmogonic lore of the Asiatic world -- first sore beset by

Ahuramazda in the East, and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness of

Jesus Christ in the West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism and

Christianity with itself. It tried to do for the East what Neo-Platonism tried to do for

the West.

During at least two centuries it was a real danger to Christianity, though not so

great as some modern writers would make us believe, as if the merest breath

might have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as against orthodox, Christianity.

Similar things are said of Mithraism and neo-Platonism as against the religion of

Jesus Christ. But these sayings have more piquancy than objective truth.

Christianity survived, and not Gnosticism, because the former was the fittest--

immeasurably, nay infinitely, so. Gnosticism died not by chance, but because it

lacked vital power within itself; and no amount of theosophistic literature, flooding

English and German markets, can give life to that which perished from intrinsic

and essential defects.

It is striking that the two earliest champions of Christianity against Gnosticism-

- Hegesippus and Irenaeus-- brought out so clearly the method of warfare which


10/11


alone was possible, but which also alone sufficed to secure the victory in the

conflict, a method which Tertullian some years later scientifically explained in his

"De Praescriptione".

Both Hegesippus and Irenaeus proved that Gnostic doctrines did not belong

to that deposit of faith which was taught by the true succession of bishops in the

primary sees of Christendom; both in triumphant conclusion drew up a list of the

Bishops of Rome, from Peter to the Roman bishop of their day; as Gnosticism

was not taught by that Church with which the Christians everywhere must agree,

it stood self-condemned.

A just verdict on the Gnostics is that of O. Gruppe (Ausfhrungen, p. 162): the

circumstances of the period gave them a certain importance. But a living force

they never were, either in general history or in the history of Christendom.

Gnosticism deserves attention as showing what mention dispositions

Christianity found in existence, what obstacles it had to overcome to maintain its

own life; but "means of mental progress it never was".8

8The Catholic Encyclopedia


11/11


Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J., Roger S. Boraas, Michael Fishbane, Pheme Perkins,

William O. Walker, Jr., eds. Harper Bible Dictionary. New York:

HarperSanFrancisco, 1985.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity Vol.1: The Early Church to the Dawn

of Reformation. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984.

Harris, John Glyndwr. Gnosticism: Beliefs and Practices. Portland: Sussex

Academic Press, 1999.

Roukema, Riemer. Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity: An Introduction to

Gnosticism. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999.

Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism, trans. Anthony Alcock. Cambridge:

Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990.

Dale T. Irvin and Sunquist, Scott W. History of the World Christian Movement

Vol.1: Earliest Christianity to 1453. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001.

The Catholic Encyclopedia

Irenaeus Against All Heresies Book III, chapters 2- 5

Documents

Gnosticism in the Early Church[1]