Welcome

The Gnostic writings: The Nag Hammadi find uncovered many gnostic writings.

They include among others: “The Secret Book of James,” the “Secret Book of John,” “The Gospel of Thomas,’ “The Gospel of Philip,” “The Revelation of Peter,” “The Gospel of Mary,” “The Acts of Peter,” and “The Gospel of Judas.” As noted in the previous post, those who seek to discredit Christianity wish that these writings would replace the biblical gospels.

Of these writings, “The Gospel of Thomas” is probably the most important. A copy of it was obtained by the Jesus Seminar, smuggled out of Egypt, and then published by them in "The Five Gospels." According to the Jesus Seminar, “The Gospel of Thomas” is the oldest and most authentic gospel.

In “The Five Gospels,” they are honest enough to admit their dishonest approach. They had already determined that Jesus was merely an illiterate peasant who uttered pithy sayings and got in trouble with both the religious and political leaders. As such, he never claimed to be God. Therefore, any text in the Gospels attributed to Jesus that indicated anything different, had to be by definition, later legendary additions by various Christian communities.

“Thomas” has none of that, and therefore it had to be the oldest most authentic gospel. Since in “Thomas,” Jesus mostly uttered pithy, often obscure, sayings, that helped cement its status. As we saw in the previous post, the historical and archeological evidence point to a much later compositional date than the biblical gospels. But, Jesus being both fully God and fully human is not an allowable option for these “scholars,” and therefore something else must be true.

As mentioned, of all the Gnostic writings, “Thomas” is probably the best known. But some of the others have been quite influential as well. In this brief overview, looking at all the Gnostic writings is not possible, but a couple will be mentioned briefly before we take a more detailed look at “Thomas.”

One of the famous passages from the Gnostic gospels comes from “The Gospel of Philip.” That passage states, and doesn’t state, due to holes (lacuna) in the manuscript: “And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her […] on her […].”

The idea that Jesus didn’t die, had children with Mary Magdalene, and Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” nonsense, stem in essence from that passage.

The most common reconstruction of that phrase is: “used to kiss her often on her mouth.” That is just a logical guess. No one knows the answer.

Another important Gnostic gospel is “The Gospel of Judas,” written probably around 150 AD. The hero of that gospel is, as expected, Judas Iscariot. In essence, Jesus gives secret information to Judas, information he alone understands. The other disciples believe in the false god, the demiurge. They will do all sorts of evil. Jesus tasks Judas with betraying him. While Judas will be reviled, even killed by the other disciples, he will ultimately be vindicated.

In 2008, Peter Rollins wrote, “The Fidelity of Betrayal,” a book built upon the “Gospel of Judas.” It it, he states that the best way to honor and maintain fidelity to Jesus is by betraying him.

Rollins’ book became a key work within the emergent/progressive church, helping birth pyrotheology (an incendiary system that emphasizes approaching life by faith, but minus belief in anything) Pyrotheology is another key within progressive Christianity. One recently recommended practice was to encourage people to give up God for Lent, to embrace atheism (pyrotheology is a form of religious nihilism).

The Gnostic gospels have significantly impacted our contemporary culture. As we will see in the next post, arguably in some ways, “Thomas” is even worse.

The Gnostic Writings. In 1945, near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, a treasure trove of new “Biblical gospels” and other writings were discovered. As the writings never claim that Jesus was God, many “scholars” ever since have touted them as the “true biblical accounts,” defeating the now proven to be false version of the Bible imposed on others by the winning “orthodox” Christians (see Bart Ehrman, the earlier Jesus Seminar, among others).

The Gnostic gospels and other Gnostic writings found at Nag Hammadi have been dated from between the mid-second and the fourth centuries. They were written considerably later than the books of the New Testament. That actual history is rejected by those who seek to deny Jesus Christ, and historic biblical Christianity.

Who were the Gnostics and what did they teach?

The Gnostics were prominent from the mid-second through the fourth centuries. They believed that physical matter was evil, that only one’s spirit was important. Since matter was evil they split into two camps regarding one’s behavior: either extreme asceticism or extreme license was ok. The former view reflected the rejection of matter; the latter, the idea that since only the spirit was important, how one behaved physically was of no real consequence.

They believed that salvation was through knowledge, particularly secret knowledge and wisdom that only they possessed. One had to be deeply involved with them before being taught that special salvific knowledge (we see the Masons using a similar approach today). They were particularly prominent in Alexandria, Egypt, but also elsewhere.

Since the Old Testament God created matter, a “god” known as the Demiurge, that God was seen as more of a self-focused bumbling idiot. That god was prone to making mistakes, since no real god would have made the error of creating physical matter. The chief goal of the Gnostics was to realize and recover their true identity as spiritual beings, beings imprisoned in a body.

As for Jesus, the Gnostics tended in one of two directions: Jesus was either a special type of human mystic who uttered spiritual pithy sayings, or he merely appeared to be human but was strictly a spiritual being. In no case was Jesus both fully God and fully human. Enlightened, yes; God, no.

As stated, gaining special knowledge was key. The very name of the movement declares it: gnosis is Greek for knowledge.

Unfortunately, we see some of their beliefs infiltrating and infecting the church today, just as they did in the past, particularly the ancient church at Alexandria via Clement of Alexandria and especially Origen. Origen held that the literal meaning of Scripture was the least important. Those who wanted to go deeper in Christ would recognize the more important allegorical and spiritualized meanings of the text, meanings that were often kept hidden from basic unenlightened Christians.

We possibly see a forerunner of gnostic tendencies in Revelation 2:24, in the letter to the church at Thyatira:

Revelation 2:24 (ESV): “But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden.”

The teaching, the deep things of Satan, by definition a type of special knowledge, mirrors what the Gnostics would teach.

Currently, we see at least some of the key leaders of the NAR downplaying the literal contextual meaning of Scripture, replacing the literal meaning with either symbolic readings of it or new “prophetic” words, prophecies and knowledge only their prophets possess. While their teachings are different, the underlying commonalities are most concerning.

We’ve noted what the Gnostics believed and taught in a general sense. What did some of their writings directly claim? We will start to address that topic in the next post.

What do the apocryphal writings teach? In this post, we will continue to summarize them.

The additions to Esther: The additions to Esther claim to give the details about how Mordecai uncovered the plot to murder the king, as well as Esther’s prayers during her fast, along with various other details.

Both Wisdom and Sirach mimic Proverbs, but neither have the same force. Baruch is supposedly by Jeremiah’s scribe, but as we’ve seen, given the time frame of the apocryphal writings, that is not the case.

The additions to Daniel: Among other things, the additions to Daniel tell of the rise of Daniel, in part due to his rescue of Susannah from false charges of adultery. It also details a story of Daniel and the dragon: how he spent a week in the lion’s den as he rejected a false dragon god. During that time, God supernaturally has Habakkuk bring him food.

Prayer of Manasseh: The Prayer of Manasseh supposedly records Manasseh’s prayer of repentance, something Scripture does not provide.

1 and 2 Maccabees: 1 and 2 Maccabees have some historical value as the books tell of the Jewish revolt under the Maccabees against Antiochus IV. But, as we discovered in the previous post, it contains material that is unbiblical, but is used to support the Roman tradition of purgatory.

Tobit: We are looking at Tobit last, as it also contains egregious errors. The story is self-conflicted with an impossible timeline. The text of Tobit states that he lived 158 years (variant: 112). Tobit 1:4–5 requires him to be alive in 922 BC, at the time of the division of the kingdom of Israel into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.

However, based on his experiences, and the kings he lived under after the Northern Kingdom was conquered by Assyria, he also had to be alive at least until about 675 BC. That math doesn’t work, does it? He lived to be 158 years old, but he experienced events that took place 247 years apart. The book of Tobit is therefore self-contradictory.

What are we to make of the Apocrypha? Why are the writings not part of the Protestant Bible? As we’ve seen, the Apocrypha contains numerous errors, legends, and considerable unbiblical material. As we saw, the writings were never considered part of the Old Testament by the Jews. The writings are, by biblical definition, not inspired. They are not Scripture.

Why were apocryphal writings added to Scripture by the Council of Trent? As we’ve noted, some of the writings support Roman tradition. But, I wonder if there isn’t another reason. Admittedly, the following comments are pure speculation: By including these books in the Canon of Scripture, it becomes easier for Rome to disregard the sole authority of the Bible, given the errors these books contain. It also becomes easier for Rome to elevate their tradition as being equal to Scripture. Both serve as means of countering the Protestant Reformation, and their insistence of Scripture alone.

Should Christians spend time reading the Apocrypha? As we saw, for most of church history, the Apocrypha was viewed as being of some use as devotional reading. The difficulty is that all too many of us spend far too little time reading Scripture as it is. Given that situation, it is arguably better to spend one’s time reading actual Scripture rather than writings regarded as suitable only for devotional reading. Worse, the writings sometimes contradict Scripture. They therefore run the risk of introducing confusion. In addition, many of them seek to provide answers to things God doesn’t tell us, filling in the blanks. That attempt to do so, biblically speaking, is not wise.

As for Apocrypha, as we have seen, there are good reasons why Protestant Bibles exclude them.