John The Baptist And The Roots Of Christian Gnosticism

[Tod Stites]

As long ago as the 1950s Oscar Cullmann was defending the idea that Christianity derived
from a sort of Jewish Gnosticism which existed on the fringes of Judaism (1), and more
recently Gnosticism has been defined as a religion of salvation based on revealed knowledge
(2).
Of course knowledge of God had been linked to the forgiveness of sins under the new
Covenant promised by God through the prophets (Jer 31:33-34), a link very much like the
one associated with John the Baptist in the New Testament (Luke 1:77), while the time of
renewal promised by God meant that he would sprinkle clean water upon his people while
placing His Spirit within the (Ezek 36:25-27).
At Qumran it was believed God would sprinkle His chosen with the spirit of truth like clean
water for impurity (3), raising some interesting questions regarding the traditions that grew
up around John the Baptist. For several scholars (4) have read the report on the Baptist as
given by Josephus as indicating that John had called those that were already practicing
virtue (5), suggesting that others, even if fellow Jews, were looked upon as outsiders.
Thus John the Baptist, like the Qumran sectarians, may have believed that only God's
chosen should receive the spirit of truth, and be sprinkled with water, prior to receiving
God's Spirit within them, and the knowledge that went with it. In this light we can better
understand John's belligerent question to the crowds who came out to him: "Who warned
you to flee from the wrath to come ?"(Matt 3:7=Luke 3:7).
Within this question is the Greek "hupodeiknumi", a word which can be used as a technical
term for revealing something hidden, viz. an eschatological secret, as in the teachings of the
sage Sirach (Sir 48:25):(6). And if Gnosticism is a religion of salvation based on revealed
knowledge (2), then we can understand why Rudolf Bultmann believed that the apostle Paul's
later understanding of baptism had been "determined by Gnostic thought"(7).
And if divine forgiveness was to be linked with knowledge of God under the new Covenant
(Jer 31:33-34), as affirmed in the New Testament (Heb 8:11-12), and was from the beginning
a concomitant of the baptism offered by John, then we can understand why the church father
Justin in the mid-second century looked upon Christian baptism as one of "repentance and
knowledge of God"(8).
It seems the Jews who gathered around John the Baptist may have considered themselves
"chosen", as did the sectarians at Qumran, and were perhaps committed to not revealing
certain things to outsiders.
In the fourth century, the Church Father Epiphanius knew of a sect called "nasoraioi", who
claimed to descend from followers of John the Baptist, and it seems that their reported
ascetic practices are consistent with those attributed to John (9). In this vein it is significant
to note that "Nazoraios"(cf.Matt 2:23) likely derives from "nasorayya", one of the names of
the later sect of the Mandeans, and is in turn derived from Hebrew "natsar", meaning "to
guard","to observe", with the Babylonian derivation of "nasorayya" meaning "keepers of the
mysteries"(10).
And of course the Mandeans looked to "Yuhuna", John the Baptist, as their progenitor,
while the term "manda" is synonymous with "gnosis"(knowledge):(11).The Mandean task
as mediators of revelation was to bring saving revelation (12), and it is thus important
to note that the second century Valentinian Gnostics adopted the same baptismal
formula as that used by the later Mandeans (13), while the third century Gnosticizing
"Psalms Of Thomas" show dependency on Mandean-style poetry (13).
All of this throws an interesting light on the patristic and Jewish-Christian traditions
that the first founders of Christian Gnosticism, Simon Magus and Dositheos of Schechem,
emerged from the circle of John the Baptist (14).
And if such figures emerged from the waters of John's baptism convinced they were
the prophecized Christ, or the Great Power of God, then it is no doubt possible that
other figures emerged from the same baptism convinced that the Holy Spirit had come
to rest upon them (cf.Mark 1:9-11), and that "all things" had been handed them by their
Father in heaven (cf.Matt 11:27=Luke 10:22).
Ultimately however, the soteriological significance of John's baptism had to be
attenuated, and John made to decrease, so that Jesus could increase (cf.John 3:30).
Instead the vocabulary of baptism came to be associated with the death of Jesus
(Rom 6:3-6), because neither the cleansing waters of baptism, nor the forgiveness of
sins, nor the knowledge of God, could derive from any other source but the blood of
Christ.

Notes
1.Cullmann in (ed.) Stendahl "The Scrolls And The New Testament" (p.19)
2.Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" (vol.1,p.313)
3.1QS 4.20-22.Flusser "Judaism And The Origins Of Christianity" (p.64)
4.Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" (vol.1,p.300)
Brownlee in (ed.) Stendahl "The Scrolls And The New Testament" (p.39-40)
Meier "A Marginal Jew" (vol.2,p.58-9)
Theissen and Merz "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" (p.188/n2)
5.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.5.2
6.Marshall "Gospel Of Luke" (p.139)
7.Bultmann "Theology Of The New Testament" (vol.1,p.141)
8.Justin "Dialogue With Trypho" (14.1)
Oepke "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" (vol.4,p.306)
9.Epiphanius "Heresies" 19.1;29.1,6-7
Black "An Aramaic Approach To The Gospels And Acts" (p.199-200)
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" (vol.1,p.281n51)
10.Black "An Aramaic Approach To The Gospels And Acts" (p.198)
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" (vol.1,p.281)
11.Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" (vol.1,p.314)
12.Rengstorf in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" (vol.1,p.607)
On Gnostic influence on the Mandeans generally,cf.Conzelmann
"Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" (vol.7,p.436-7)
13.Buckley in (ed.) Horsley "Christian Origins" (p.109)
14.Pseudo-Clement "Recognitiones" 1.54.1-3
Pseudo-Clement "Homilies" 2.18-32
Origen "Commentary On John" 13.27
Origen "Contra Celsus" 1.57
Brown "Anchor Bible" (vol.29:intro.:p.68)
Painter in (eds.) Neusner and Chilton "The Brother Of Jesus" (p.36-7)
Dahl in (ed.) Charlesworth "The Messiah" (p.384)
Wink "John the Baptist In The Gospel Tradition" (p.84n2)
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" (vol.3,p.527n65)

[Peter Kirby]

Interesting stuff. I especially like the quote regarding "the idea that Christianity derived from a sort of Jewish Gnosticism which existed on the fringes of Judaism."

Welcome to the forum.

[Tod Stites]

Thank you, prof. Kirby..

[rakovsky]

Good post.

ἰδὼν δὲ πολλοὺς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς;

"forewarned"
Matt 3:7

STRONG'S: "Short Definition: I show plainly, teach, warn
Definition: I indicate, intimate, suggest, show, prove.

to show secretly, to show by tracing out, to teach, make known"

The Greek word is in Luke 6:

The House on the Rock
46Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them: 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid his foundation on the rock. When the flood came, the torrent crashed against that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

Sirach 48 says:
24 He comforted the mourners in Jerusalem. His powerful spirit looked into the future, 25 and he predicted what was to happen before the end of time, hidden things that had not yet occurred.

Still, I don't see this phrase used by John the Baptist as any evidence he was any more gnostic than Jesus and the orthodox Christian Bible writers were, since the gospels and Acts use this word for teaching too (eg. Luke 6).

the knowledge that went with it. In this light we can better
understand John's belligerent question to the crowds who came out to him: "Who warned
you to flee from the wrath to come ?"(Matt 3:7=Luke 3:7).
Within this question is the Greek "hupodeiknumi", a word which can be used as a technical
term for revealing something hidden, viz. an eschatological secret, as in the teachings of the
sage Sirach (Sir 48:25):(6).

John is asking "Who 'taught/explained' you to flee from the wrath?" This same kind of expression is used repeatedly in Luke's writings and Acts in the same way (eg. revealing, giving parables, etc), so it's misleading to see this expression in Matt 3:7 as a special indication of John's supposed gnosticism.

See here for more Biblical usages:
http://biblehub.com/greek/5263.htm

[rakovsky]

Big problem is clearly and definitively distinguishing "gnostics" and "Essenes" from orthodox Christianity, 1st c. Christianity, John's movement, and orthodox phariseeism, because of major overlap and because of the risk of overgeneralizing.

Did John the Baptist teach ONE BAPTISM for the remission of sins that was unlike that of Essenes, Mandaens, and pharisees? It sounds that way because the Christians in Acts notice that some of those Baptised by John got "John's baptism" already. It means John had some special form of baptism that was definitely different from the pharisees', which was a repeated baptism throughout one's life. And if that's true, it suggests that John is set in some category of Essenes, but was his own unique movement. At least what we read claimed as generalizations about Essenes would have us believe 1st c. Christianity even in Jesus' time was not "Essene", since they had some rituals or observances different from Christianity IIRC.

[rakovsky]

I can see major similarity between gnostics and Mandaneans, and with gnostics and Simon Magus, who got John's baptism. I also find it relevantly interesting that Mandeans and Simon Magus both adhere to John Baptist and are in rejection of Christianity.
To say that John the Baptist is Mandaen or in agreement with Simon Magus however is not clear. Simon Magus got Christian baptism, but then got estranged from the Christians. I am unaware of John Baptist getting Christian baptism. Mandaenism has some vastly different teachings from what we know of the gospels and NT, like its Manicheanism and dualist idea of the world, which it shares with gnosticism.

I would expect that if John Baptist had those ideas, it would have shown in the NT or Josephus, and anyway Jesus was John Baptist's cousin , and Jesus was very close to the Tanakh in his loyalty. Gnosticism however vastly departs from Tanakh theology, and AFAIK also was in opposition to Tanakh, with Marcion even theorizing that Tanakh and the NT were under separate Gods.

I don't totally rule out overlap between Jesus, John, and gnosticism, but there definitely needs to be more clarity and precision on what gnosticism means in order to make a full decision.

[rakovsky]

As far as I can tell, Jesus was openly very loyal to Tanakh, using it in parables and reading it openly in the synagogue, whereas gnosticism makes a clear, generally recognized departure from Tanakh's theology.

[Tod Stites]

Thank You for that constructive criticism..
*Initially I can only say that I cannot assume certainty regarding Jesus' "loyalty" to Tanakh,
though I agree it is strongly suggested in Q (Matt 5:18)=(Luke 16:17), in Mark (7:6-8),
and in John (15:10).
*I think the casting of John the Baptist as "Elijah"(Mark 1:6)=(2 Kings 1:8)=(Mark 6:15)=
(9:13),and his Law-based criticism of Antipas (Mark 6:18)=(Lev 18:16), points to a
John the Baptist who was remembered as fervent for the Law, since Elijah was also
fervent for the Law according to pre-Christian tradition (1 Macc 2:58).
*I am glad you (prudently) think that the tradition of Jesus teaching in the synagogues
points to a Jesus concerned with issues related to Torah and "halakah", since this is
exactly what Wolfgang Shrage found in his perusal of the issue, concluding that:
"Without the Law there would have been no synagogues"(Theological Dictionary Of
The New Testament vol.7, pp.821,826,829-30,832,848-9).
*I am afraid I must reserve judgment on John and Jesus being "cousins", since
the older Q tradition recalls John as having doubts about Jesus being the "coming
one"(Matt 11:2-3)=(Luke 7:18-19).This does not prove that they were not cousins
but it does compel me to hesitate before accepting this as historical.
*The problem with "Gnosticism" is that it is a term automatically taken as referring
to the full-blown Gnostic belief systems of later times, while I am trying to trace the
"roots" of Gnosticism. Now scholars such as James Robinson that have carried out
investigations in this area have concluded that "Gnosticism" is a term that should
be restricted to the full-blown Gnostic belief systems of the second and third centuries
and should be avoided when discussing first century documents, because the
appropriate term here is "gnosis", something both older and more widespread than
early Christianity.(Robinson in "The New Testament And Gnosis" ed. Logan and
Wedderburn p.34-5).
*The emphasis in John's question may be on YOU according to Schurmann (as
cited in Marshall,ib), as if outsiders had no business knowing this secret, only those
already practicing virtue. In any case "hupedeixen" is posited for Q according to
Kloppenborg, though it is evidently a hapax in that text ("Q Parallels" p.8,232).
It does not always have to be used as a technical term for revealing something
hidden.

[rakovsky]

Tod,

"Gnosticism" first needs to be clearly defined and in a way that it can be separate apart clearly from Judaism and Biblical canonical patristic Church Christianity.

A) If we are going to say that gnosticism just means some kind of saving knowledge / information, then Judaism and patristic Christianity are "gnostic" both. In Judaism, Maimonides laid out his 13 precepts all Jews must have in order to get the life in the world to come, like belief in God and Mashiach. Judaism also had a major emphasis on belief that humans sin, including the tribes of Israel, and for the latter a special ritual was imposed under a Contract to cleanse the tribe's sins via "atonement". To some skeptics, these theories of course are just bunk, but nonetheless, they can be found in Torah as a centerpiece. So just the idea that some things must be believed in order to get blessings from God or to get sins atoned for or to get in the world to come are not enough to distinguish "gnosticism" from the worship religions of Judaism and patristic Christianity.

B) Some scholars identify certain traits they use to separate out "gnosticism", including beliefs in a demiurge or Zoroastrian style Manichean Dualism with two "gods", a good and bad one, that kind of thing. Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Mandaenism, IIRC have dualistic philosophies. Another trait was the gnostic Marcionist idea that the Tanakh and NT had two separate "gods", the first angry, the latter compassionate. That's a bit dualist an idea too. Hence gnosticism one scholarly theory says was not Tanakh-loyal. I don't know how far to take that claim, since there are gnostic Gospels of Eve and Apocalypse of Adam, two characters in Tanakh.

If we are going to use definition D) for gnosticism then to the best of my knowledge from the available information, John Baptizer was not gnostic. He seemed Tanakh loyal, via the mold of Elijah the Tanakh prophet. He could have been quite realistic-minded in terms of not being a charismatic magician (unlike Simon "Magus", who was hence a magician), since the NT claims John never did any miracles himself, but left them instead to the One to Come whom he prophesied about.

His preaching against Herod for breaking Torah via adultery seems Torah OT prophet in style. Living in the desert also is the kind of thing the OT prophets did. Neither the gospels nor Josephus records the kind of things I mentioned in definition B) for gnosticism.

Simon Magus got baptized by Jesus' followers, but then had a falling out with them, like the main followers like Peter. Mandaenism ended up bashing Jesus too. Therefore neither - Magus' movement or Mandaenism seems to be an organizational continuation of Jesus' own disciple-led Church. Jesus' main disciples and Church-designated successors appear to be his brother James, who would have a good handle on Jesus' actual teachings, and Peter and "the beloved disciple" John, especially. From this information it appears that Magus' movement and Mandaenism, which bashes Jesus, are not the continuation of Jesus' own ministry of Jesus' lifetime.

Now were Simon Magus' movement and Mandaenism an "orthodox" continuation of John Baptist's movement, or were they a pickup that evolved with reactions to Jesus. John Baptizer seems to have been apocalyptic and so for that matter do the Essenes both seeming to look for some Messiah type figure. Such a figure however doesn't seem to be taught by Simon Magus' movement or by Mandaenism. So it looks like they are not orthodox continuations of John Baptizer. Plus, Mandaenism has numerous mikvah style baptisms, whereas John seems to have been about "one big baptism" per individual. So the available information suggests that Mandaenism is a pickup from John Baptizer's movement that adapted some of his ideas, but probably predated him too as some kind of Mithraic / Zoroasrtian religion. You also have the issue of Manicheanism and a possible connection between mandaens and the Manicheans too.

[rakovsky]

*The problem with "Gnosticism" is that it is a term automatically taken as referring
to the full-blown Gnostic belief systems of later times, while I am trying to trace the
"roots" of Gnosticism. Now scholars such as James Robinson that have carried out
investigations in this area have concluded that "Gnosticism" is a term that should
be restricted to the full-blown Gnostic belief systems of the second and third centuries
and should be avoided when discussing first century documents, because the
appropriate term here is "gnosis", something both older and more widespread than
early Christianity.(Robinson in "The New Testament And Gnosis" ed. Logan and
Wedderburn p.34-5).

If we go by definition B that I mentioned, the roots you are looking for would be Mithraism (a mystery school like gnosticism, BTW), Zoroastrianism, and other "mystery schools" in the Near East before Christianity appeared.

Christian Gnosticism was big in Egypt, and Celsus hypothesized Jesus learned magic in Egypt, which regardless of whether Jesus did, you would still want to look to Egyptian preChristian mystery schools too as a "root". If we go by the Torah, Egypt had magic and mystery stuff, like the changing of snakes into staffs and vice verse. Egyptians IIRC also had hypnotherapy. (Check it online if you don't believe me.)

John the Baptist who didn't do healings or miracles but instead told Herod to follow Torah marital relations ("It is not lawful for you to.... " etc., Mark 6, matt 14) and got killed for it doesn't seem to be in that gnostic mold that was a major deviation from Torah.

John baptiser could have had Essene influence or overlap though, and maybe the Christians did too. Who knows, but that's not the same as the gnostics AFAIK, at least per Definition B with the Dualism, etc.