The history of Gnosticism is subject to a great deal of debate and interpretation. The complex nature of Gnostic teaching and the fact that much of the material relating to the schools comprising Gnosticism has traditionally come from critiques by orthodox Christians make it difficult to be precise about early sectarian gnostic systems, although Neoplatonists like Plotinus also criticized "Gnostics." Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses described several different schools of 2nd century gnosticism in disparaging and often sarcastic detail while contrasting them with Christianity to their detriment. Despite these problems, scholarly discussion of Gnosticism at first relied heavily on Irenaeus and other heresiologists, which arguably has led to an 'infiltration' of heresiological agendas into modern scholarship; in fairness to the first investigators this was not by choice, but because of a simple lack of alternative sources. This state of affairs continued through to modern times; in 1945, however, there was a chance discovery of a cache of 4th century Gnostic manuscripts near Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The texts, which had been sealed inside earthen jars, were discovered by a local man called Mohammed Ali, and now this collection of texts is known as the Nag Hammadi library; this allowed for the modern study of undiluted 'Gnostic scripture' for the first time. The translation of the texts from Coptic, their language of composition, into English and other modern languages took place in the years approaching 1977, when the full Nag Hammadi library was published in English translation. This has clarified recent discussions of gnosticism, though many would agree that the topic still remains fraught with difficulties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gnosticism
Yes, there is, The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition, The definitive new translation of the Gnostic scriptures, complete in one volume, James M. Robinson- General Editor. Translated and introduced by the members of the coptic gnostic library project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont, California. or: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
Even though their texts predate the Nicean Bible? What is the difference between the two? Gnosticism and Christianity?
The Gnostics viewed the nature of Jesus not as divine, but one in which a spiritual Christ dwelt. By following the spiritual path of Gnosticism, one could experience the same knowledge or "gnosis", as Jesus.
In one gnostic text the Goddess Sophia cuts off God's balls. Not too many Xians thought that was all that funny, I guess they didn't get the joke Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Especially because their texts predated the Nicean Bible - the rejection of them, in the compilation of that Bible, was definitive in establishing their blasphemous nature.
Its all very confusing. Surely the closer the date to the Gospels the more likely they are to be similar to the original? What is the yardstick for measuring the veracity of the apostle's writings? Where does gnosticism come in ?
He he, Yep. These were the 2 main Christian sects that were battling it out in the first 200 years AD. The anti Gnosticsm groundswell started with St Justin Martyr around 165 AD. It was proclaimed a heresy by the Catholic Church soon after. Sad that...
Hi all, What on earth is the "Nicean Bible" ? The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with creating the Bible. The Council did not choose the books of the Bible. It's just an Urban Myth, endlessly repeated on the 'net. Here you can actually check the decisions talen by the council : http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm Note that not one of the canons concerns the books of the Bible. Iasion
Sorry about that - I did not know taht anyone was actually proposing that the Council of Nicea wrote or physically compiled the book. It seems to me like a reasonable name for the Bible as compiled, which was indeed in accordance with the regularization of the Faith by the Council of Nicea, and its rejection of balsphemy. But if you have another, that would be good too.
There was no single ecumenical discussion of canon. Issues of canon begin in the early second century with Marcion who is the first known person to attempt to compile a canon list. However, the heretical nature of his canon created a backlash that brought canon issues to the forefront of Christian thought. Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian are the first to make an apologetic for the four gospels which are rejected by Marcionites, Ebionites, and Valentinian Gnostics. The four-fold gospel tradition is universal from that point on. All of the New Testaments books are used and most are recognized as canonical in the second century. Some dispute existed even within what is termed "orthodox" or "pre-Catholic" Christianity, but it was over the least significant books such as Jude, Philemon, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and some others which have little unique theological value. There is no indication that there is ever reasonable dispute after the mid second century about the four gospels, Acts, the non-pastoral epistles of Paul, and 1 Peter. The Murtorian canon at the end of the second century has an almost complete list of the modern New Testament and most scholars assume that Origen is using a complete copy of today's New Testament. As a previous poster said, that Nicaea dealt at all with the canon is utterly fallacious, a myth that needs to stop being perpetuated by ignorant people.
That would put it in conflict with the work of Jesus on the Cross. The idea that man could save himself ultimately conflicts with the God of perfect justice, since all who sin must pay the price, and all are guilty of sin. When the subject came up in my church, they also focused on two or three additional points of conflict... The Gnostic belief that the world 'as created' is flawed, not as a result of man's fall, but by the very nature of it's creation from the Divine. The very fall of man was not through man's choice but through God's agency.
