GNOSTICISM
As we saw in the last Chapter, we continually find in the Epistles, especially in Galatians, references to some rival form of Christianity; and it has always been recognized that Pauline Christians and Petrine Christians were in bitter opposition to each other. In some of the apocryphal writings the dispute is more clearly brought to light and more acrimoniously carried on.
For example, in the Clementine Homilies Peter is reported as explaining that, though usually the best and purest doctrine appears first, in the case of Christianity the second form was better than the first, coming like light after darkness, and as knowledge upon ignorance; and in other passages it is argued that the former (Pauline?) doctrines were the work of the Evil One, and that the later doctrines are the true religion as revealed by God.
That the former doctrines were Gnostic cannot, at this interval of time, be proved; but that the leaders of the sect which afterwards grew into the Catholic Church inveighed with equal vehemence against Pauline doctrines and against Gnosticism suggests that these doctrines had something in common, even though they were not absolutely identical. In that case Gnosticism was most probably the first form of Christianity, Pauline Christianity being the halfway house to Catholicism. It is not intended to infer by this that Christian Gnosticism was older than the cult of Jesus, but that Gnosticism played an important and early part in turning the Jesus cult into Christianity.
It must be remembered that the name "Christian" was not given to any sect, nor to any members of a sect, until long after the institution of the Jesus cult. According to the Acts (xi, 26), the name was first used in Antioch, when Paul and Barnabas were preaching there; but, as can be seen from the Epistles, the contemporaries of the first teachers of what we now term Christianity called themselves by a variety of names, such as "the saints," "the brethren," "the elect," though never by the name of Christians.
To the Jews this Latinized form of a Greek word would have meant nothing. "The Anointed One," or Messiah, meant to the Jews one selected to do the work of God. "The Anointed One," translated into Greek, was "The Christ"; and "The Christ" somehow came to have a more personal meaning than "The Anointed One" originally had. It was in Greek circles, or in circles influenced by Greek ideas, that the title "Christ" came to have its new meaning; and it seems that in preChristian Gnosticism that meaning, of a pre-existing spirit-an aeon-would be found. In this sense it appears probable that Gnosticism turned the Jesus cult into Christianity.
These Clementine Homilies, referred to above, describe Peter as heaping scorn upon the teacher (Paul) who claimed to have had a vision of Jesus, as if a vision- real or pretended-could authorize a man to teach the true doctrines better than those who actually knew and saw the living Prophet! As these Homilies were probably not written until the end of the second century, the scorn is not Peter's, but that of a writer who was upholding the newer form of Christianity-the form said by its adherents to be founded upon the teaching of actual disciples of Jesus-against the older Pauline form of the religion.
In the second century a very large proportion of Christians were undoubtedly Gnostics. There is no foundation for the assumption usually made, that Catholicism was either the older or the more genuine form of Christianity. The sect which is now referred to as orthodox, since its doctrines eventually became the foundations of Catholicism, denounced Paul as much as it denounced the Gnostics. It was itself founded upon the Gospels, both canonical and apocryphal, which were written long after the Epistles, and which were later than, or possibly contained revised versions of writings used by, the Gnostics. The latter were eventually classed as apocryphal, and lost or destroyed. Only fragments of them survived the fires of the eventually triumphant Catholic Church. One of the Gnostic Gospels, "The Ascent of Paul," purported to give an account of everything which Paul had done and seen when he ascended into the third heaven, and most of them-so far as we can judge from surviving fragments-had much in common with Pauline theology.
It is necessary for the student of Christian origins to be acquainted with these Gnostic theories, for, as we shall see later, the real problem which confronts him is to determine whether the first Christians believed that Jesus was a man who became Christ by inspiration, "adoption," or some other method, or whether they believed that Jesus was God, who became man by a miraculous conception or by some other means. Further, he will have to determine exactly what was meant by the various authors of our New Testament when they identified Jesus with Christ, or with "The Word." An acquaintance with the Gnostic theories teaches us what the doctrines of some sects of Christians were, and that these doctrines certainly influenced, even if they did not entirely guide, some of the New Testament authors. As our examination of the final doctrines proceeds it will become more and more apparent why it is necessary to refer to this old type of Christianity, which may at first sight appear to have only a pedantic interest. The Catholic doctrines, which the Church of England inherited, are a development of a blend of Gnosticism with some other form of Christianity, to which we shall refer more fully hereafter.
It is often said that Gnosticism was unknown until much later than orthodox Christianity; but in the middle of the second century it was undoubtedly a doctrine of great importance, with a large number of followers; since Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others, are busily engaged in inveighing against it from various points of view, and some of the Fathers of the Church were actually converts from Gnosticism.
Naturally, when the Catholics triumphed, Gnosticism was spoken of as a heresy which had arisen in comparatively modern times, and Catholicism as the true and original faith. Equally naturally, that form of Christianity would not be spoken of as the Gnostic heresy at an earlier date if it was the principal or only form of the Christian religion.
Our knowledge of the teaching of the various Gnostic sects is not great, depending as it did until quite recent years entirely, and as it still does chiefly, upon the biased and fragmentary refutations of "Fathers of the Church," who appear to have written most about the Gnostics when they were furthest removed in situation from them. During the last century, however, a few hitherto unknown manuscripts have been discovered in the East, and we have learnt a little more about the doctrines of those early Christians who were called Gnostics. We have discovered, among other things, how greatly they were misrepresented by those who wrote to refute their doctrines. That they were misrepresented by their opponents is not a matter for surprise, and perhaps not even for condemnation. In doctrinal or political polemics men seek to find out their opponents' weakest points, not to discuss their strongest; and in the case of religious, as well as of political, doctrines, disputants are generally unaware of, or unable to understand, each other's real theories. Moreover, at one time Gnosticism was itself sub-divided into more than fifty sects, each with its own bishops, organizations, and accepted books, and each with some divergency of doctrine from its fellows. From that mass of doctrines, surviving only in fragmentary forms, it has been possible to disentangle the principal theories held by these early Christians; and from various indications, as well as from the writings of the Fathers of the Catholic Church, it has been possible roughly to date the rise and fall of Gnostic Christianity.
Gnosticism dates from the first century B.C., and was originally a Theosophic movement, which attempted to reconcile such diverse elements as Judaism, Greek philosophy, Indian metaphysics, and Egyptian mythology. The problem which has hitherto been unsolved, and is probably insoluble, important though a solution would be, is whether from this blend sprang a Gnostic Christianity which formed the origin of Gospel Christianity, whether Gnosticism became Christian by assimilating part of the doctrines of an otherwise arising Gospel Christianity, or whether to a certain extent both of these processes took place, a Gospel Christianity (though prior to our Canonical Gospels) influencing and Gnosticism at the same time reacting upon this Gospel Christianity. We can trace the latter influences. Can we trace the former ? Did the former ever exist? Gnosticism existed, as we have just stated, in the first century B.C.; the Pauline Epistles were probably written in the second half of the first century A.D.; and the Synoptic Gospels, as we shall see later, were not written before the first quarter of the second century A.D.
Thus in point of time the Epistles came between some form of Gnosticism and the Christianity which we are now distinguishing as Gospel Christianity. And in matter as well as in time the Epistles occupy this midway position.
But these facts do not entirely settle the question, as Christian Gnostics had adopted, in the earliest of their writings with which we are acquainted, some purely Christian, though not orthodox, doctrines which were foreign to the Gnosticism of the first century B.C., and it is not clear whence these doctrines came-whether they were conceived in the bosom of Gnosticism, or adopted from some gospel story founded upon the facts alleged in the Gospels or upon the legends of some other religions.
That the attacks on Gnosticism made by the Fathers of the Church do not begin until well on in the second century need not have been due, as alleged by the orthodox, to the fact that Gnosticism began only then. It could have been, and probably was, due to the fact that Gospel Christianity began only then to compete with Gnostic Christianity. In the middle of the second century Gnostic Christianity and Gospel Christianity do not seem always to have been clearly distinguished. Valentinus, the leader of the Christian sect which was afterwards anathematized by the Catholics as heretic, was, on the evidence of the "Fathers" themselves, a member of the same Church as that considered by them as orthodox.
Gibbon's words on this subject are well worth recalling: -
"It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the Church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ. We may observe with much more propriety-that during that period the disciples of the Messiah were indulged in a freer latitude both of faith and practice than has ever been allowed in succeeding ages."
The schism which eventually divided these two great branches of Christianity may, it is true, have been caused as much by a change in one as in the other. Gnosticism may have become more mystic, while Gospel Christianity became more materialistic. The one may have developed its symbols into a system of transcendentalism mixed with cabalistic words and signs, while the other more fully developed its story of a life. Whether that was so or not, they doubtless from one religion became, on diverse lines of evolution, two widely differing religions.
But before, and even after, the final rupture between Gnosticism and the sect which afterwards called itself Catholic each had borrowed from the other doctrines formulated after they had begun to branch away from each other.
In the fourth century the Emperor Constantine adopted the Catholic form of Christianity as the established State religion; by the middle of the fifth century Gnosticism, except for occasional recrudescences of minor importance, had disappeared-persecuted out of existence by its successful rival.
The Gnostics claimed, as their name indicates, to be those who knew the Truth. Many of their various doctrines require careful consideration by those who wish to inquire into the origin and development of Christianity. At present it is proposed only to consider the fundamental theory of Gnostic theology and two special forms of Gnosticism In one of these, a very early form known as Docetism (Doketism), the Gnostics altogether repudiated the history of a living Jesus of flesh and blood, and regarded him as a phantasm (Dokesis). Their Jesus was a spiritual being who had appeared on earth in a spectral body-like a ghost. Later than this sect, but still at the beginning of the second century, another sect of Gnostics, known as the Adoptionists, believed that the Christ spirit entered Jesus-and sometimes enters other men in much the same manner-at his baptism. They believed that Jesus had become a Son of God (or had been adopted by God as his Son) when he was baptized by John in the wilderness.
The Adoptionists believed that the prophet Jesus during his lifetime was the temporary abode of the Christ spirit, and that this spirit left him shortly before the Crucifixion, subsequently visiting the disciples who had fled to a cave on the Mount of Olives. And, apart from these two particular sects, the Gnostics in general believed that Christ was a spirit, a celestial being and not a human being, though some of them believed, as we have just seen, that this spirit was immanent in a living prophet, Jesus.
Generally the Gnostics believed in a Supreme God utterly transcending human comprehension, unknown and unknowable, but not responsible-since hypothetically He must be perfect-for the imperfections of matter or for the evil which exists in the universe. Hence He must himself be, as regards this world, inactive; and the creation of matter was believed to be the work of, and the government of the world the business of, some lesser divinities, or spiritual beings, which had emanated from the Supreme God himself. These "Powers," "Archangels," "Elements," "AEons," and "WorldRulers of this Darkness" had created this world, and from on high they still governed it.
Among these spiritual beings, or subordinate gods- for such in effect they were, though not so called-were Logos (the Word), Sophia (Wisdom), Nous (Mind), Phronesis (Judgment), and Dynamis (Power), attributes of the Supreme God, but emanating from Him as separate entities.
These and other "AEons," together with the Supreme God himself, formed the "Pleroma," or "Fullness of the Godhead," as we frequently find it translated in our New Testament.
As we shall see later, the Epistles are full of references to these spiritual beings-the AEons; and in one Gospel -that according to St. John-Jesus is explicitly identified with "the Logos." But before the Epistles were written, and long before any Gospel was written, the Gnostics had elaborated this theosophical system of a Supreme God and his emanations. The minds of Egyptians, of Greeks, and even of the dispersed Jews, were saturated with this Western development of the yet older Eastern theosophy of Hindus and Buddhists. Later on, as Christian Gnostics, they added to their lists of these AEons, or everlasting beings, the name of Christ.
The Gnostics spoke of Christ as "the joint fruit of the Pleroma"-that is to say, of the eight or twelve AEons which together formed the Supreme Being. The spirit Christ was said to have been formed by this octoad or dodecad in its joint capacity, each individual member of it contributing some "Light" towards His making.
"For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily "' is a text which does not appear, to the ordinary orthodox Christian, to mean much beyond connecting Jesus with God; but to the Gnostic it was a definite statement of much more than this. It explained the Christ Spirit's origin from a corporation of Spiritual Beings who were themselves emanations from, and portions of, the Supreme Being.
This Christ had neither a local nor a chronological origin, as he was, according to the Gnostics, a Spiritual and Eternal Being, conceived, though indirectly, in the Mind of God-according to the anti-Gnostics, conceived in the Mind of the Gnostics themselves.
Gnosticism was an esoteric religion. Its doctrines were "Mysteries" into whose real meaning only the most learned and most worthy were ever initiated. The stories the Gnostics told were allegories, and not meant to be accepted as history save by the ignorant, who were not regarded as capable of understanding the mysteries. Their Logos was not made flesh, but was an abstract conception representing the Word or the Will of the Supreme God, just as Sophia represented his Wisdom.
In the earlier stages of the Logos theory, "the Word" was distinctly differentiated from God. "The Word" was not only not God, but not even a God; only a spiritual effect proceeding from God. Eventually the Logos came to be regarded as a person. And later still the author of the Gospel according to St. John identified this Logos with the Jesus of whom the other evangelists had written.
There is nothing unusual in the gradual personification of an abstract idea; Greek mythology was built up by such processes. Neither is there anything strange in people who recognize the process as it took place in Greek mythology, overlooking its progress in Christian doctrine, since we seldom subject our own inherited conceptions or misconceptions to the same analysis as we do those of other people, and we are still less likely to do so when such an analysis is regarded as sacrilegious and the necessary data for such an analysis have been carefully concealed by several generations of theologians in control of education. The only thing that is strange is that any men who have examined the remaining extant data should refuse to apply in this case the same methods of judgment as they habitually use in corresponding pagan cases.
"The Word," according to some, was an angel-a messenger-from God, neither divine nor human, but something intermediate between God and man. The Epistles frequently contain a doctrine of that nature. For example, 1 Timothy ii, 5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"-a text which, it may be noticed, flatly contradicts the Trinity and many other Christian doctrines.
But "the Word," in the original home of such metaphysical doctrines, among the philosophers of India, was not a person. There they spoke of Antar Atma, that part of each individual man's spirit which is a portion of the "Universal Soul." This spark of the Divine Spirit is the better part of men's natures, that little speck of divinity which prompts men to do good, which teaches them to recognize true wisdom, which makes them brothers of their fellow men and "sons of God." It was only the incurable materialism of the lesser breed of theologians which gave other meanings to words expressive of an awakened human soul. It was only theologians ignorant of Eastern theosophy who could interpret a claim to be one with God as a claim to be supernatural or unique. A realization of his oneness with God is the aim of every Oriental sage, and it is claimed that some have attained that realization. A Yogi may, they say, eventually attain to Samadhi, which corresponds to the Gnosis of the Gnostics, and to the Dhyana of the Buddhists. He thus becomes one with God, a portion of the Atman or Universal Soul, an Enlightened One, a Son of God, a Christ, free from all desires, or passions, or thoughts of self, and capable of seeing all things as one whole- the Infinite Reality. Finally the Yogi hopes to be absorbed in God, the Universal Soul, and thus attain Nirvana. But even before he reaches that final end a sage so enlightened, so imbued with the Christ spirit, or so awakened to Reality, speaks in the name of the Absolute, of God the Father, or of the Universal Spirit, the Brahman himself.
That is the doctrine common to all these religions in their ancient and pure form; but the theologians of each have evolved further and particularistic doctrines out of it, and have laid down these peculiar doctrines for the flocks whom they considered incapable of appreciating so lofty and so poetical an allegory. Because this doctrine was common to all these religions, it is not necessarily true. The points to be noticed are that it was not peculiar to the Gnostic form of Christianity, nor to that particular form of Christianity professed by the author of the Gospel according to St. John; that it was also taught in the pagan creeds which we deny; that it was not new when Christianity was founded; and that it has-though still surviving in the canonical John-been entirely overlaid by the Christ theories taken from Matthew and Luke.
The ancient allegorical meaning has been forgotten, and, except for a few students of the ancient theosophies, there are no longer any initiates.
All the cults which were contemporary with primitive Christianity had their occult "mysteries." The general body of their adherents knew only the outlines of the mythologies connected with their particular religion. The more cultured members of each society were gradually initiated into the secret science of their faith. This was the knowledge of things seen and unseen, once revealed by the divine founder of the religion, and thereafter handed down, by the priests and initiates, to those fitted to receive it. This knowledge was the Gnosis of the pre-Christian, and afterwards of the Christian, Gnostics. The "mystery" plays which represented to the public the story of the life on earth of their god were only fully comprehended by those who had been initiated into the hidden allegorical meaning of the story. These initiates alone understood the real meaning of the various symbols exhibited, and of the various words and phrases used in these dramas; and to the initiates alone were fully explained the cosmological, transcendental, and ethical theories of the learned professors of the faith. The vulgar revelled in the rites of the cult; the intellectually inclined sought for knowledge in its secrets.
The esoteric meaning of these cults has not been revealed to us. The secrets were well kept, and probably, like most secrets which are really well kept, were not very wonderful. We can only guess, from fragmentary hints found in the works of ancient authors, the nature of the spiritual meanings which were gradually unfolded to the probationer, as he passed the various grades of initiation, in place of the natural crude meaning of the ceremonies and creeds. By the uninitiated, for example, Mithra was regarded as a semi-human, semi-divine being, who had actually lived on the earth; by the probationer he might be identified with the Sun; to the fully initiated he was probably the Spiritual Light which illumines the minds of wise men.
The ignorant thought only of the external appearance of the actors in the mystery plays; the initiate studied the more significant inner meaning of the characters and actions represented.
They interpreted "their ancestral code allegorically, for they think that the words of the literal meaning are symbols of a hidden nature which is made plain only by the under-meaning.'' The Gnostics, however, though they had their occult mysteries, were not-generally speaking-worshippers of gods or demi-gods like those worshipped by the adherents of these other cults. Some of them were followers of Plato, or of Pythagoras, or of Aristotle, or of some other human and historical philosopher. Plato has even been described as one of the founders of Gnostic Christianity, and is referred to by orthodox Christian Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Clement as "a Christian before Christ."
Knowledge and wisdom were their aims; to understand all things-visible and invisible-and to learn how to live wisely, were the objects of their studies. They called themselves by various sectarian names, but the Catholic Fathers eventually lumped them all together as Gnostics and as the "first-born of Satan."
Though the Catholics suppressed the Gnostics, they were not able-indeed, they do not seem to have made any great effort-to purify Catholicism from its Gnostic elements. There still remain in some of the Epistles many passages which can be interpreted only by means of Gnostic doctrines, besides those in other Epistles, which are evidently aimed at Gnosticism. These letters are remarkable, not only because they contain little or nothing about the life and sayings of the Gospel Jesus, but also because they contain much which is expressed in phraseology so essentially Gnostic as to be meaningless apart from Gnostic doctrines. To the student of Christian origins it is of the utmost importance to note and appreciate this fact. The vast majority of Christians read, or hear read, much in the Epistles which they either carelessly pass unnoticed, or wonderingly set down as archaic phraseology, with no definite modern meaning -mere theological rhetoric maybe. Gnostic terminology, involving acceptance of Gnostic mysticism, abounds in these writings, and is meaningless to those who have learnt only the doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
A few examples will now be given of the kind of expressions which were used in a Gnostic sense continually by the Epistle writers, occasionally by the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, frequently by the author of the Gospel according to St. John. With these before him, the student will be able to recognize others, and to interpret texts which may have previously appeared to him enigmatical.
It will be noticed that, generally speaking, the earlier Epistles show signs of Gnostic influences, while the later show signs of anti-Gnostic bias. In the earlier, Christ is spoken of as a spiritual being who has always existed. He was the Rock which followed the Israelites in the desert and supplied them with water to drink. The passing through the sea; the baptism unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; the tempting of Christ during the wanderings in the desert, fifteen hundred years before Paul preached: what meaning have these things apart from Gnostic allegorizations of the Jewish traditions? How can these theological ideas be reconciled with what subsequently became, and still remains, orthodox doctrine?
This Christ spirit was in Paul himself, just as it had been in Jesus: "Christ liveth in me." And it might enter into his hearers: "Christ formed in you." God had sent forth his Son "that we might receive the adoption of sons.'' This seems to be a distinct reference to, and acceptance of, the Adoptionist doctrine referred to above.
His Son is the creator of all things, including those essentially Gnostic beings "thrones," "dominions," "principalities," and "powers"; and, being the "firstborn of every creature," He had existed " before all things.
In the margin of the Authorized Version of our Bibles we find a reference, regarding this expression " the firstborn of every creature," to Revelation iii, 14; and there we read of " the beginning of the creation of God." In Colossians the expression is used with reference to Jesus; in Revelation with reference to "the Amen." There is no orthodox doctrine to which these phrases can be referred; there is no meaning in them without reference to Gnosticism. Both evidently refer to the Gnostic AEon, "the First Man"-an AEon at one time identified by some Gnostics with a pre-existing spiritual being, called Jesus.
The "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers," are referred to in other passages in the Epistles. In one place they are mentioned after angels, and their names are followed by the phrase, "Nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature"; and in another we are told that in heaven Christ will be placed "far above all principality, power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named . . . . which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." The Gnostic meaning is quite plain. Christ is, in heaven, to be placed above all these other spiritual beings, called Thrones, Principalities, and so on, who together with himself form the Pleroma-the complete fullness of the godhead. Outside of these mystic theosophical doctrines of Gnosticism these terms have no meaning whatever in the connection in which they are used.
The Pleroma, or "fullness of the godhead," is constantly referred to in the Epistles. "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell" means nothing unless it refers to the Pleroma-a Pleroma in which the author of the Fourth Gospel tells us all would share. It is a pantheistic doctrine of the universal soul, the Atma of the Hindus, which contains all things and is contained in all.
In Colossians ii we are again informed that the Pleroma dwells in Christ; and we once more hear of principalities, powers, rudiments, or elements. In Colossians iii we find expressed the same pantheistic view of the Christ Spirit as we have referred to above: "Christ is all, and in all"-the spirit existing in all things, and in whom all things exist.
What, again, is the mystery which has been hid even from the AEons (ages) and kept secret since the world began, but which is now being made manifest and gradually to be disclosed until all men become "perfect" -or, in other words, reach the highest stage of initiation? Can it be anything else than the esoteric doctrine about the Supreme-the name which cannot be named? In addition to these references to the Pleroma and the AEons which are to be found scattered throughout the Epistles, there are references to other Gnostic conceptions, which, to those who have not studied Gnosticism, appear to have a quite simple meaning, but are, by all theological scholars, acknowledged to have evidently been written as technical expressions taken from Gnosticism, the philosophy which was so widely known, at the time when these words were published, that no explanation of their meaning was either given or required. Such are the words "wisdom" and "knowledge," which generally stand for "Sophie," one of the principal AEons, and for " the Gnosis," or the "knowledge of the mysteries." Wherever these words or such phrases as "The Word," "The Light," "The Way," "The Dove," "The Truth," or " The Life," are used in the New Testament it may be presumed that they are being used in a technical sense, and that they have an allegorical meaning, probably connected with some celestial member of the Gnostic Pleroma.
Paul's position midway between the Gnostic and Gospel forms of Christianity is shown, too, in his reference to Apollos as a rival teacher; this Apollos being he who "taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John," a native of Alexandria, the very centre of Gnosticism. He designates four contending sects: first his own, secondly that of Apollos, thirdly that of Peter, and fourthly that "of Christ." The latter were presumably a sect which wisely refused to label themselves as the followers of any of the contending teachers; but the three first are evidently the Pauline Christians, the Gnostic Christians, and the Gospel Christians, or rather the sect which subsequently grew into the Gospel and Catholic Christians. We have in this chapter a glimpse of the process that was going on. The Sophia (Wisdom) doctrine of the Gnostics is being modified. Sophia and Dynamis (Power) are identified with Christ, and a new doctrine is being taught which is not accepted by those generally regarded as wise men. If it be asked, "Why should Paul inaugurate a new doctrine?", he himself supplies the answer. The people he is addressing are "babes in Christ," unspiritual beings incapable of comprehending the symbolism and metaphors of the Gnostics. Throughout the Epistle this note is struck. The new doctrines are designed for those not yet able to understand the complicated metaphysics taught to the initiated. Even in the Gospels we sometimes hear an echo of this note. Jesus is said to speak only in parables, and to have said that "that which is holy" "must not be given to dogs," nor "pearls cast before swine."
But, though Paul's exact position with regard to Gnosticism is doubtful, the fact that he was acquainted with it and habitually used its technical expressions is incontrovertible. In addition to those terms to which we have already referred, he uses one expression which is conclusive evidence of his familiarity with Gnosticism.
In the well-known chapter in which Paul-at other times so curiously silent about the person of Jesus-sets forth a list of the resurrection appearances, he finishes that list with the words: "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time"; and from the margin of our Bibles we learn that the words "one born out of due time "are a paraphrase for "an abortive," or what we usually speak of as "an abortion."
Now, that Paul should describe himself as "an abortion" seems meaningless to us unless we regard his doing so as an act of excessive humility. But the phrase, which should read, as it was written, "the abortion," is a well-known Gnostic technicality, meaning chaotic matter before it has been enformed-shaped and perfected-by the spirit. So Paul implies that he was, until the Christ Spirit entered into him, mere matter. According to the Gnostics, matter was evil, and spirit alone was good. Till matter was touched and organized by the pre-existing spiritual being, the Logos, or whatever it was by different sects called, it was "the abortion."
Though in this chapter Paul speaks, almost for the only time, about something mentioned in the Gospels, that one phrase suffices to show that it was through Gnosticism that he had arrived at his theological position.
The list of resurrection appearances does not at present concern us, and therefore need not be discussed here. The problem with which we are now dealing is that of Paul's relationship to the Gnostic Christians on the one hand, and to the Gospel Christians on the other. We have no definite proof that any Christian form of Gnosticism existed so early, but we have much negative evidence to show that Gospel Christianity certainly did not yet exist. The members of the well-established Churches to whom Paul addresses his Epistles are not Gospel Christians, but Gentiles probably influenced by some Jewish form of Gnosticism. When Paul told the men of Athens that he declared to them that very "unknown God" whom they already ignorantly worshipped, to whom can he refer save to the Ineffable or Unknowable God of the Gnostics?
When we come to the later Epistles we still discover references to Gnosticism, but now the references are distinctly hostile. At the end of the first Epistle to Timothy we find the writer warning Timothy to avoid the science (Gnosis) "falsely so-called." And again in the first Epistle General of John we find teachers who are evidently Gnostics being inveighed against. It begins with the assertion that "the word of life" has been manifested; the "eternal life, which was with the Father," has been handled by them; and later on the author condemns those who do not believe "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.'' The references are obviously to Gnostics who still believe that Christ is a spirit-the eternal Logos-and who deny that this spirit became flesh and blood, as the writer of this Epistle himself believes.
Throughout the Epistles there are references to disputes between various unnamed sects of Christians; and, in the later Epistles, signs that their authors are hostile to one of those forms which were more or less accepted by the authors of the earlier Epistles.
For the present we shall not pursue our investigations into this matter any further. The Pauline theology will have to be referred to again later. But we must remember, as we continue our study of these Christian origins, that the doctrines found in the Epistles are by no means identical with those formulated after the appearance of the Gospels and the subsequent rise of that Christian sect which became the Catholic Church. We are not yet in a position to judge whether these Gospel doctrines were founded upon earlier though, for a long time, unrecorded Christian beliefs. Before we can do so we must investigate many other matters, of which one of the most important is the origin of our Canonical Gospels.
Next: CHAPTER IV THE GOSPELS