Posted on 09/22/2009 10:48:30 AM PDT by Teófilo
PING!
Good comparison!
Thanks! :-)
Verrrryyyy Interrreeesssttttinnnnnggg.
Gnostics were a diverse and rather heterodox group. I think trying to lump them all into one theology is disingenuous. Most of the books the Church disagreed with were destroyed by the Church, so we mostly know what the Church says the Gnostics believed. In other words, we are reading only the case made by the prosecution and not the defense. Pretty one-sided, don't you think?
Gnostics actually pre-date Christianity. Some Gnostic groups were attracted to early Christian proponents, especially to SS. Paul and John, in whom they found many of their own beliefs, because there are aspects in their writings that suggest the line between Gnostic beliefs and early hellenized Christian beliefs were not always clear cut, because Christian theology was not clearly defined for the first 300 years after Christ, especially regarding the nature of God, the concept of Trinity, and Mariology.
We could just as easily collect some of the contemporary saying and writings of various posters on FR, diverse Internet sites identified as Christian, or actual churches in existence today, and make comparable charts that show that an amazing array of what those who who call on Christ as their Savior believe regarding any of these topics, and the spectrum of the list would not be too far from what you posted.
Which Gnostic books "were destroyed by the Church"? And, why is it that what the Fathers said about the Gnostic can't be trusted?
To answer your question, I can't. The table seems to be a distillation of what the author says in the book. Fortunately, the book is online in Google. The table is found on Chapter 10 and may be accessed here.
Check out also the Bibliography and the chapter notes.
-Theo
Not just Gnostic books, Teofilo, all non-orthodox books. There are no Arian writings that survived, no Pelagian manuscripts. We only know about Arian beliefs and Pelagian heresy from their accusers, as they paraphrased them. The Book of Enoch, which was originally red in churches and was very popular among early Christians (and is in fact part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) has been destroyed to the last copy at least in Greek and Latin versions, etc.
Even Gospels whose versions did not conform to the 4th century orthodoxy as established by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils and the subsequent late 4th century Christian canon, have disappeared. We know they existed indirectly from quotes of various Christian writers who quote from Gospel versions no longer extant. An example is Eusebius, who quoted Matthew's Great Commission no less then 17 times without the Trinitarian formula prior to the First Ecumenical Council and five times with Trinitarian formula following the Council.
Thanks for the links. I will review them.
I can think of two reasons: 1., No one thought she was going to be taken seriously and, 2., I was too young! ;-)
-Theo
I have no problem with your criticism of Elaine Pagels, and her agenda, but let's not try to diminish the anti-Semitism of the Church as well, because then your criticism of her questionable schoalrhsips becomes equally questionable.
Nothing Irenaeus wrote can be taken for granted since the oldest surviving copy of his complete works is a later 4th century Latin copy. So, using Irenaeus to prove or disprove anything is equally dubious. A scholar should know that. That Elaine Pagels doesn't is not surprising.
Most of the books the Church disagreed with were destroyed by the Church, so we mostly know what the Church says the Gnostics believed.
This is not true. Anybody can read the Gnostic Nag Hammadi writings, I have the book, “The Nag Hammadi Library” myself, moreover, I haven’t tried, but I suspect it is available on the net somewhere.
I have read them and they are bizarre occult-like drivel.
There were, in fact, 40 other writings which where called "Gospels." I've read a bunch of them. They are clearly pseudoepigraphical and dependent on the four canonical Gospels. They are also very arid reading.
We know they existed indirectly from quotes of various Christian writers who quote from Gospel versions no longer extant. An example is Eusebius, who quoted Matthew's Great Commission no less then 17 times without the Trinitarian formula prior to the First Ecumenical Council and five times with Trinitarian formula following the Council.?
Isn't that an argument from silence? Just because Eusebius didn't quote it doesn't mean he didn't know about it. The verse is quoted by other Fathers before Eusebius.
And to my knowledge, there are several Pelagian manuscripts, just not contemporary with the controversy. Most Augustinianists know and quote from them. I believe that a bibliography of them is contained in Peter Brown's Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (New Edition, with an Epilogue). You are right on the Arian books, I can't think of any right now. But the assertion that there was a systematic book-burning by the Catholic/Orthodox Church is one that needs to be substantiated to my satisfaction. After all, we still have those books around.
-Theo
Gross misinterpretation of Gnostic views and bad comparison...distorting Gnostic views by lumping in a hodge-podge of others, with no sourcing.
Link to the sources has been provided. Look it up on the thread.
The table is a summary of the author’s research. The book is also good. A link has been provided both to Amazon and to Google Books for your inspection.
With very few reservations of a Catholic nature, I recommend the book. Its indictment of Gnosticism is devastating.
-Theo
Again, the contents are a gross misinterpretation of Gnostic cosmology, and include other beliefs from several esoteric “groups”. I encourage you to educate yourself independently on Gnostic views for a true comparison. There is no specific sourcing for each or any of the contents, a link to a book on Amazon (sic) notwithstanding.
I have read them and they are bizarre occult-like drivel.
I might add, I have also read Ireneaus’ rebuttal of Gnostism. Irenaeus was spot on, reading the Nag Hammadi writings, only recently discovered, validates Irenaeus. In his writings against Gnosticism, he was making an accurate representation of what Gnostics believed.
My critique of PagelâÂÂs casual dismissal of Gnostic anti Semitism has no relevancy to any such prejudices exhibited by institutional churches. It is an entirely discrete matter. Any attempt to conjoin the two is a project of flawed interpretation. As for the common complaint the the âPureâ Gnostic sources have been destroyed and we are forced to rely on the adversaries of the Gnostics, this complaint has been registered and found wanting by many scholars. To mention just one common refutation of your comment, Phillip Jenkins in his work the âHidden Gospelsâ mentions this banal criticism and replies that the writing of Irenaeus was one of the most comprehensive polemics on this subject. Jenkins states that while Irenaeus writings made no pretense at objectivity, they were richly informative about the core ideas of various Gnostic movements and as more heretical texts have been found scholars can see that the early church fathers were quoting their enemies opinions quite fully and accurately . Orthodox writers plausibly felt that the views they were quoting were so contorted and ludicrous that the Gnostics were best condemned out of their own mouths. Given judgments rendered on this subject by present day scholars, and absent the introduction of empirical evidence to refute the his credibility of Irenaeus , your contentions must be summarily dismissed as having no substantive basis.
Ping!
Nag Hammadi scrolls were hidden lest they be destroyed like the rest. That they survived is a miracle, which is what makes them that much more valuable.
The Nag Hamamdi collection represents only one of the many heterodox Gnostic groups and only some of the Gnostic many beliefs.
From the Christian point of view, Gnostic as well as any other belief is "drivel," so that's hardly an objective assessment.
To outsiders, the idea that one eats the flesh of a dead man and drinks his blood may seem occult-like drivel too. Obviously, such an assessment would be a superficial and inaccurate characterization of the theology behind it.
Awareness that condmenations are often based on ignorance should be a guiding principle when approaching any belief on a superficial level, such as thisd article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.