John The Baptist And The Roots Of Christian Gnosticism

[Giuseppe]

Hi Tod,
feel free to answer when and how you would like.
1) can you describe shortly your view of Christian origins?
2) Are you historicist? Why?

Thank you

[Tod Stites]

Giuseppe,
Thank you for your cordial reply.
I would say that Christianity originated most likely as an Essene-like apocalyptic movement
begun by the Baptizer John, but became a world religion by offering an antinomian form of
Hellenistic Judaism to gentile "God-fearers" already attracted to the theodicy offered by the
God of Israel but with no desire to assume the full "yoke" of the Mosaic Law let alone the
"halakah" imposed by the rabbis.
It's Christology developed rapidly because Christ had to quickly become the Wisdom of God,
that existed before the world was created (Prov 8:22-23), and before the Law was given to
Moses on Sinai. Christ therefore existed before the Law and was thus superior to the Law,
so that justification (for sinful gentiles) came from faith in him rather than observance of
law. This to me explains the success of Christianity in a nutshell, and I am thus prone to
agree with Rudolf Bultmann that it was Paul who was the real "founder" of Christian
theology ("Theology Of The New Testament" vol.1,p.187).
I am indeed one who "places great importance on cautious, rigorous, and contextualized
interpretation of information", because faith must be alloyed with truth, and because
those who claim to "see" may in fact be "blind" (cf. John 9:39-41).

[Tod Stites]

rakovskii,

*Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply.
*I must agree with Albert Dihle that "Gnosticism is made up of many doctrines of salvation
both inside Christianity and outside it. The relevant texts are highly varied in speech and in
origin"(Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.9,p.656). It is therefore important,
as you say, to arrive at precise definitions, in the words of Helmut Koester: "We have to
make clearer distinctions"("Paul And His World" p.85).
*But what has to be questioned first, and has been questioned, is the assumption that
"orthodoxy" has always been first, and that "heresy" entered later (cf.James D.G. Dunn
"Christianity In The Making" v.1,p.11).For "the hypothesis that the Gnostic movement is
a secondary aberration from Christianity still operates with the assumption of an original
and unique Christian truth"(Koester "Paul And His World" p.277).
*I believe that part of the ethos of embryonic Gnosticism was not just the concept of
"gnosis", but the restriction of gnosis to the chosen, an idea with the potential to bloom
into the kind of elitist mentality that evidently confronted Paul at Corinth (cf.1Cor 8:1),
and which was one of the chief dangers threatening the early church according to
Koester ("Introduction To The New Testament" v.1,p.191).
*Now certain strands of Hellenistic Judaism were comfortable with the idea that he who
knows wisdom is qualified to be a mediator of divine revelation (Wis 7:13-14), and that
the wise man is like Wisdom, entering into union with God and even divinization (Philo
"Migration Of Abraham" 175).
*But Palestinian Judaism also yields examples of such exalted self-perception (Sir 24:33),
as we see from the redactor of the Qumran Temple Scroll, bold enough to substitute "I"
for "the Lord", conveying not interpretation of Scripture but immediate divine revelation
(Schiffman "Qumran And Jerusalem" p.173), and redolent of the choice of words attributed
to Jesus, where discourses sometimes begin not with "Thus says the Lord..", but with "I say
unto you..", suggestive of a Jesus portrayed as having spoken with God's authority
(Raymond E. Brown "Introduction To New Testament Christology" p.70/n94).
*And so the Master at Qumran was to "impart true knowledge and righteous judgment to
those who have chosen the way"(Vermes "Dead Sea Scrolls In English" p.121), because
the Community leader(s) understood the prophets in ways over and beyond what the
prophets themselves had understood (Schurer "History Of The Jewish People In The Age
Of Jesus Christ" v.3,p.421).
*I propose that such exalted self-perception is the requisite starting point for the later
Gnostic belief systems. But such an ethos need not be restricted to the "gnostics", for
the belief that prophets might not always understand everything they prophecized was
rooted in Tanak (Job 42:3), and seems to have been exploited by the Pharisees as well
(Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 17.2.4.41).
*Orthodox Judaism, orthodox Christianity, and Gnosticism, have a common origin then,
in this professed ability to understand the deeper meaning of Scripture. Such charismatic
exegesis is inextricably intertwined with the origins of Gnosticism, was exploited by the
Christians in their mantra that the Christ was destined to die for our sins, "according to
the Scriptures", when in fact there appears to be no such Scripture.
*Intensifying such an exalted self-awareness would be the conviction that the world was
passing into the last days, that the end times had come upon the earth, and certainly
the Baptist was remembered for harboring such a conviction. Thus the Similtudes of
Enoch (48.7) say that wisdom manifests the Son of Man, preexistent and kept hidden
by God until the last days. This passage (though not certainly pre-Christian) throws an
interesting light on the claims attributed to Jesus: that "No one knows who the Son is
but the Father"(Matt 11:27=Luke 10:22), and that at the end of days the Son of Man
would be "revealed"(Luke 17:30).

[Bernard Muller]

I would say that Christianity originated most likely as an Essene-like apocalyptic movement
begun by the Baptizer John, but became a world religion by offering an antinomian form of
Hellenistic Judaism to gentile "God-fearers" already attracted to the theodicy offered by the
God of Israel but with no desire to assume the full "yoke" of the Mosaic Law let alone the
"halakah" imposed by the rabbis.
It's Christology developed rapidly because Christ had to quickly become the Wisdom of God,
that existed before the world was created (Prov 8:22-23), and before the Law was given to
Moses on Sinai. Christ therefore existed before the Law and was thus superior to the Law,
so that justification (for sinful gentiles) came from faith in him rather than observance of
law. This to me explains the success of Christianity in a nutshell, and I am thus prone to
agree with Rudolf Bultmann that it was Paul who was the real "founder" of Christian
theology ("Theology Of The New Testament" vol.1,p.187).

Agreed

Cordially, Bernard

[rakovsky]

rakovskii,

*
*I believe that part of the ethos of embryonic Gnosticism was not just the concept of
"gnosis", but the restriction of gnosis to the chosen, an idea with the potential to bloom
into the kind of elitist mentality that evidently confronted Paul at Corinth (cf.1Cor 8:1),
and which was one of the chief dangers threatening the early church according to
Koester ("Introduction To The New Testament" v.1,p.191).
*

The concept of the Chosen exists in both Judaism and Christianity, as well as The Elect.
The Jewish people see themselves as God's Chosen, to whom God revealed himself on Mt Sinai and gave his law. If they keep this revealed law, Hashem protects them. He cleanses their sins on Yom Kippur, and in contrast the foreigners who lack the revealed teachings and laws are ritually unclean.

Further, the oral torah, kaballah, and Jewish mysticism are full of off the record, ie outside the tanakh, teachings and secrets. There has been a rabbinical ban on teaching torah to gentiles iirc.

Further, patristic Christianity has the saving holy "mysteries" that are taught to catechumens.

The issue of the Chosen and saving mysteries and teachings for the Chosen does not seem unique enough to clearly and totally distinguish gnosticism.

[Tod Stites]

rakovskii,

Thank you for your response.
*I am in full agreement that revealed knowledge to the chosen does not distinguish
Gnosticism from other doctrines, but I think "a religion of salvation based on revealed
knowledge"(Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" vol.1
p.313) should remain a part of the definition, even if Gnosticism holds this in common
with other systems.
*I find it interesting that it has been "disputed" whether or not Marcion was a Gnostic
(Schussler-Fiorenza "In Memory Of Her" p.270), and that scholarly opinion on the
apocryphal "Gospel Of Thomas" ranges from "gnostic" to "Gnosticizing" to "no reason
to call it Gnostic"(Marjanen in "Thomas At The Crossroads" ed. Risto Uro 108-9)=(cf.
Goodacre "Thomas And The Gospels" p.191).I cannot help but suspect that such
scholarly disagreement is due to the failure of scholars to arrive at a consensus on
just exactly what is "Gnosticism".
*But one of the problems Paul, and the orthodox church after him, had with "gnosis"/
"Gnosticism" was it's tendency to subordinate the primacy of the cross to the
importance of revelatory knowledge, which, under the Gnostic scheme, was given to
all "Gnostics".And I think this tendency should be part of the definition of Christian
Gnosticism.
*But while any member of a Gnosticizing church could claim to have, and be recognized
as having, "gnosis", in the orthodox churches such egalitarian notions would never do,
for "gnosis", certainly by the second century, was the prerogative of those who held
office in the church.
*We see an example of this in John, where originally Jesus was to baptize with the
Holy Spirit (1:33), but that the story needed to be changed, so that Jesus does not
baptize (4:2), because the Spirit had not yet been given (7:39), only later to the
disciples (20:22),i.e. the church hierarchy. (cf.Meier "A Marginal Jew" v.2,p.196n75).

[rakovsky]

rakovskii,

Thank you for your response.
*I am in full agreement that revealed knowledge to the chosen does not distinguish
Gnosticism from other doctrines, but I think "a religion of salvation based on revealed
knowledge"(Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" vol.1
p.313) should remain a part of the definition, even if Gnosticism holds this in common
with other systems.

OK, it should remain part of the definition, but gnosticism by definition still needs to be easily distinguished from Christianity and Judaism if we are going to say whether John the Baptist or Jesus' own teaching in 30-33 AD would count as gnostic.

I do think that such a think as "gnosticism" existed, "Sethian gnosticism" being a good example.

*But one of the problems Paul, and the orthodox church after him, had with "gnosis"/
"Gnosticism" was it's tendency to subordinate the primacy of the cross to the
importance of revelatory knowledge, which, under the Gnostic scheme, was given to
all "Gnostics".And I think this tendency should be part of the definition of Christian
Gnosticism.

I think that this is not an easy distinction. The cross is primary in patristic Christianity, but the cross is also a revealed teaching. So it's hard or even impractical to talk about subordinating one to the other when in fact one includes the other.

Second, if subordinating the cross to the broader category of revealed knowledge makes something gnostic, them plenty of patristic writings could be mistakenly labeled gnostic. Some patristic writings could easily see the Trinity as a primary revealed teaching (rabbis don't accept Trinity, but it's been revealed in Christianity). They would not say the cross is unimportant, but they could make the cross one part of theology, with maybe some of their writings focusing more on Trinity. Or a patristic writing could focus most on faith, Or a writing could pick one of a myriad of other subjects to focus on, even if the author didn't think the cross was unimportant.

[Tod Stites]

Rokossovski,

*The cross may also be revealed teaching but it was not necessary under the baptism offered
by John. Hence John says nothing about the cross. The "one to come" may or may not have
been the Messiah, but John says nothing (certainly not in the Synoptics) about the coming
one suffering and dying for the sins of the world, even as the concept of a suffering, dying
and resurrected Messiah is not explicit in the Tanak nor in any other certainly pre-Christian
Jewish writing that we know of.
*Therefore it should occasion no surprise that those who knew the Scriptures, the Jews,
weren't buying. But those who did not know the Scriptures, the gentiles, swallowed it all,
hook, line, and sinker.
*It should also come as no surprise that Baptist sectarians, Nazarene Jewish-Christians,
and Ebionite Jewish-Christians never adopted the theology of the cross into their belief
systems. There were some who emerged from the waters of John's Baptism equipped
with enough "gnosis" to assure them of salvation, with plenty of support from the
prophets (Jer 31:33-34)=(Ezek 36:25-27), and as taught at Qumran, with no need for
an atoning sacrifice on anyone's part.
*What I am suggesting, and have been suggesting, is not that John or Jesus were
"Gnostic", or that they taught "Gnosticism", only that what John offered stands at the
base of later developments that embarked on different trajectories. It was not because
of John or Jesus that Simon Magus came to be regarded as the "supreme power" who
came down from heaven, and from whom gnostics received "gnosis" and were freed from
angelic forces, according to the combined witness of Acts, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus.
*Now "all pre-orthodox Christian literature shares to some extent the idiosyncratic and
heterodox character of Gnostic literature"(Wisse in "The New Testament And Gnosis"
eds. Logan and Wedderburn p.143), for incipient Gnosticism seems to have been an
ethos before it was a belief system, and one that enveloped all contemporary religious
and philosophical thought (Robinson in "The New Testament And Gnossis" p.23).Ideas
later stigmatized as "Gnostic" may not have seemed "heretical" to an earlier period
(Robinson in "The New Testament And Gnosis" p.23), and "Gnostic" in earliest times
may have often referred to a member of a distinct group or school rather than a kind
of doctrine (Layton in "The Social World Of The First Christians" p.334), because "no
sharp lines of differentiation can be drawn between popular religion, mysticism,
Gnosticism and philosophy"(Oepke in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament"
vol.3,p.963).

Perhaps many have given up trying to separate the "weeds" of Gnosticism from the
"wheat" of orthodoxy. For there exists a whole catalogue of works which make the
case for dismantling the whole category of "Gnosticism"(Dunn "Christianity In The
Making" vol.3,p.35-6/n143).

[rakovsky]

*What I am suggesting, and have been suggesting, is not that John or Jesus were
"Gnostic", or that they taught "Gnosticism", only that what John offered stands at the
base of later developments that embarked on different trajectories. It was not because
of John or Jesus that Simon Magus came to be regarded as the "supreme power" who
came down from heaven, and from whom gnostics received "gnosis" and were freed from
angelic forces, according to the combined witness of Acts, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus.

To do that, you really need to show major unique special overlap between John the Baptist and Gnosticism that is not shared with other major known sects like Christians or Jews.

Saying that John the Baptist and Gnostics share a lack of a major belief in a suffering, killed, resurrecting Messiah is not enough for two reasons.
1. In your theory, Jews do not share that belief either. Therefore, lack of such a belief does not show closeness between gnosticism and John Baptist in such a way as to separate their commonality apart from Judaism. Just because John supposedly lacked belief in suffering Messiah doesn't mean gnostics got their lack of belief from him any more than they got it from any other Jews.

2. John the Baptist and gnostics could have feasibly had belief in a suffering, killed Messiah. In John's gospel, John Baptist calls Jesus the lamb who takes away the sins of the world.(John 1:29) In Judaism of that period, lambs were sacrificial animals and taking away sins was commonly performed through animal sacrifice, as with the Yom Kippur Temple sacrifice. Throughout the gospels, Jesus refers to himself as being fated to undergo the suffering and resurrection, and so Jesus' claim about this (supposing that he did in fact teach this) reasonly could have gone back to his time with John the Baptist.

Marcion's gospel was a rewriting of the NT, IIRC, and in the regular NT, the cross has a center role. I would expect Marcion to have included that in his own gospel. I expect that if I go through gnostic writings I can find Jesus' death playing some major role as a theme. Doesn't it have that kind of role in the gnostic Gospel of Judas, with Jesus' death and betrayal being some kind of gnostic secret knowledge?