Thought on Pre-Christian Gnosticism and Extra-biblicals
Most of the readers of this blog are simply awesome believers in Jesus Christ and have not had an interest, or had their fancy captured with, delving into the weeds of the origin of our faith, Frankly, I can’t blame you, it can be maddening to see what man has done with the simple idea of One Creator, One Savior and One Helper that are personalities of One God. After all, we created beings have different personalities that are brought out at different times, for different purposes as the need arises. Indeed, Genesis 1:26. ‘let us make man in our image’ is clearly stated. So, if we know this about ourselves, different personalities that are brought out at different times, for different purposes within each of us – and we are created in the image of the Creator Himself – doesn’t it just seem to follow? The truth and simplicity of understanding this, though it sounds both arrogant and naïve at the same time, nonetheless, is evident to me.
I start with this because the above topic has “caught my fancy” as I put it. I find it helps with my worship. Actually, I find it helps me live with joy. So, I am hopeful that for a moment, you might indulge me. I pray this adds to your understanding and joy.
This is a personal response to about a year of study that included the so-called Gnostic Gospels, other extra-biblical writings from antiquity to (in a limited sense) more modern writings.
I am not one who has been privy to the reading or studying of the original scrolls found at Qumran or Nag Hamadi, I must rely on those who had that privilege. I must count on those who have much better scholarship than I, and one of those I have great respect due to his methodological system, communication with many of the authors/scholars cited in those studies, and consequent reporting is Professor Edwin Yamauchi.
I went into this recent reading of the Edwin Yamauchi book Pre-Christian Gnosticism © 1973 thinking that the term Gnostic Gospel was more of an ambiguous category in which to place some of these extra-biblicals because they did not fit into any other established category, therefore they were relegated to a category that does them no justice as to what truth they contain, lessons to be learned or conjecture to consider. That said, spoiler alert, my conclusion, rather than create a question as to the veracity, efficacy or even the divine inspiration of the established canon of the 66 books we Protestants call the Bible, my credence in that book was bolstered insofar as the only unadulterated account of the God of the Universe, the Creator, The Redeemed Redeemer, and the Helper/Advocate/ Companion that is the omnipresent Holy Spirit – what we call the Trinity.
I am sure I am but one of very many believers in the Messiah who has had questions about the written material. In my case, not the veracity or efficacy as much as the completeness of the canon. I do believe the canon is inerrant, I just have always felt there was more. As I am apt to cite often 1 Corinthians 13:12
“Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
As long as the material I am studying does not conflict with that canon, I am likely to consider it with some credence (see the above scriptural cite). My new study source is the Ethiopian Bible. Which I will concurrently consider along with Eastern Orthodoxy. Where this leads me only God knows, as of yet.
It is interesting that so many after Christ tried to improve upon the recorded history of His life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension. Why is that? To think that after all Christ did, again recorded, written by those who witnessed it, to dispute, or certainly to try to improve upon the story is simply proof that man wants to be god.
The Gnostic writings that followed Christ’s time on earth that have ever been discovered have categorically proven to be subsequent, not antecedent, to His first coming. Of particular importance is that it has been categorically proved, according to lengthy research by Edwin Yamauchi, et al, there are no other accounts regarding the salvation imparted by God to a few which constitutes a “special knowledge only for a few elites”, which is what Gnosticism boils down to. All the writings that Bultmann, Reitzenstein and others have used as proof were all writings from the late first and second centuries. Pre-Christian Gnosticism is clearly a myth, in this case myth being used in the context of a false story. Given that the word myth doesn’t necessarily mean false, though it is one of the definitions. MY AI tells me:
“A myth is a traditional story involving gods or heroes that explains a culture's beliefs, history, or natural forces. In everyday language, the word also means a popular idea or belief that is false.”
The more I read about Gnosticism and other religions, other than Christianity, it impresses me how all the others seem to be syncretistic, and they are all syncing with Judeo based Christianity. The one all the others give the most credence to is the religion we know was established by Jews who knew Jesus. The more I study how these other religions came about (their tenets, beliefs and practices) the more the Bible holds its truth, proof, and purity of message.
There are so many treatises, thoughts, studies and writings about the cosmological beginnings that they all must be taken with a grain of salt, in my opinion. My conclusion is that the only pure, unadulterated view of creation (allegorical as it may be) is the Word of God as we know it, the Bible. On the surface I am aware that sounds contradictory, but, if I take that Word as God’s Word, even His allegorical method sheds light on the beginning and the fall. This where I remind myself, I am not God. To me it seems as if there are those studied, respected scholars who forget that. The nature of the communication is less important than the veracity. We often get lost in the methodology and wind up not seeing the forest through the trees. God’s truth is never changing, man’s understanding of it, on the other hand seems to change with the direction of the wind.
