Elaine Pagels stated in her book, The Gnostic Gospels, “it is the winners who write history – their way.” All throughout history, no matter what war or fight, there is always two dominant sides, one always wins. Because of this much of history is seen through one side. If someone was to look in a history book and examine a war, there is almost always a clear right and wrong side and typically the side that is viewed as “right” is the winner. Because of this often times the history books tells stories that make the losing side look bad. But this portrayal is not always true. This is the same within Christianity and the numerous issues it faced, especially with Gnosticism and its heresy. Since Gnosticism went against many Christian teachings, the Christian church wanted them to fail. Because of this, the history of Gnosticism has been tainted by the way Christians have portrayed it and ultimately because of this society does not necessarily get accurate, non-biased information, and shows the world the true nature of Christianity and their push for a unified movement.
Gnosticism has a complicated and criticized history that formed a sub-belief within Christianity. Gnosticism is a heresy, or teaching that denies one or more essential beliefs of the Christian faith, claiming that salvation could be gained through secret knowledge or the knowledge of transcendence. The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “to know” or “knowledge”. The sect of Christianity generally “believes that knowledge into humanity’s real nature is divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence.” Gnosticism has five core teachings that sum up the majority of its beliefs. The first is that all matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit realm is good. There is tension between the spirit world and the material world and Gnostics believe that this evil material world was not solely created by God, but rather an emanation of him. This is due to all the imperfections and tragedy in the world. A good God would never create the world the way it is, so a lesser, evil God had to be responsible for this. The second core teaching is that there is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons. It is thought that God created the first beings, Aeons, who held a great deal of power and the divine spark but were still less powerful than God himself. Again, in this teaching, Gnostics emphasize the idea that these emanations of God were the ones who created the material universe. There is even a story that is told in the Gnostic tradition, Sophie, an Aeon, traveled the universe seeking knowledge and wisdom and, in an attempt, to create her own emanation, she created someone that believed he was the supreme God and created the physical world infected with his evil and suffering. Another teaching is that one evil, lower spirit being is the creator of the universe. A major part of this teaching is that some, but not all humans have the same “spark” of spiritual substance that God has. This spark allows them to recognize flaws in the world around them and their mission is to escape the entrapments of the physical body. Death is not an escape from physical bodies, but rather the secret knowledge that Gnostics emphasize. Ultimately after death, if the spirit is not ready, it will return to Earth and become another living being. The fourth teaching is Gnosticism does not deal with sin, but rather ignorance. We are trapped by our bodies and matter, subjecting us to sin, but the true issue from the Gnostic perspective is that we are ignorant to our true spiritual nature. “Gnosticism values, above all, knowledge – the self-knowledge which is insight. They agree that, lacking this, a person experiences the sense of being driven by impulses he does not understand.” The point of Gnosticism is to resist these impulses because a man understands that they are sins and should not be part of his true spiritual nature, that is when salvation is achieved. The fifth and final major teachings is, to achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge. The point of salvation is “to escape from the bondage of the material existence and travel back to the home from which souls/spirits have fallen.” There is a process where God initiates salvation by sending an emanation of himself. This emanation attempts to teach people of their divine sparks of spirit and true nature and where their real home lies. If this teaching is successful, people will awaken to the idea and begin their journey back home through self-knowledge.
The origins of Gnosticism are not completely known, but influences can be seen as far back as second and first centuries BCE in things such as the Jewish Apocalyptic Writings and Hebrew scriptures. Gnostic documents, such as the Gospel of Thomas and others, were found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt back in 1945. These documents represented a blasphemous view of Jewish religion and presents elements of Gnosticism long before Christianity. Although there is no determined origin of Gnostic beliefs , Valentinus invented Christian Gnosticism. Valentinus had the opportunity to become the Bishop of Rome, but after not receiving the honor he became angry and resentful of the Christian Church, ultimately leading him to heresy and Gnosticism. When first starting the movement, Valentinus wanted to present an apostolic authority for his teachings . He began to claim to people that he received instruction from a follower of Paul. Despite the fact that it was easier to lie about such a thing in that time, Valentinus’s plan was unsuccessful because Paul and other apostles had warned people of those who may try to wreak their faith. Overall the portrayal of Gnosticism in history today often has a down casted and sinful view, especially when looking at it from a Christian point of view.
Gnostic beliefs often went against typical Christian belief resulting in harsh criticism and rejection from the Christian church, breaking the “unified” movement of Christianity. Gnosticism did not square up with most of what was being taught in the Christian faith, because of this tension was created in the church. Christians felt that Gnostics were spreading lies about Christianity and were attacking the sacred faith. Leaders feared that Gnostic “cults” would deceive members of the Christian church and lead them to hell. They also feared that with members would follow due to possible books and writings from apostles and other figures from the Gospels and Acts supporting Gnosticism. The criticism stemmed as far as the Christian church connecting Gnosticism to Satan. This was due to the fact that Christians believed that Gnostics has an “anti-god philosophy” similar to Satan. They also felt that Gnostics were using the same tactics to deceive people as Satan did in the Garden of Eden. Ultimately because of this the Christian church went on a crusade to end Gnosticism at its start. The church wanted to draw clear lines between themselves and Gnosticism. They did this by increasing the emphasis on apostolic succession and tightening the church hierarchy. They also clearly defined the scriptural canon by excluding anything that could allude to Gnosticism. They also preached the idea that Christianity was the true religion in this situation. They did this by emphasizing that “as a church leader you had the truth because you had been trained by a man who was trained by a man who had been train by an apostle who had been trained by Christ himself.” The Christian church so strictly rejected and fought against Gnosticism which is well within their right to protect themselves, however there is question if this was ethically sound. Technically Gnosticism is a new form of Christianity and it may be unfair to reject them from preaching their teachings. Despite this idea, Christianity had apostles and associates that supported their teachings and these teachings had been passed down for generations. When a new sect of Christianity comes in demanding changes and denying traditional teachings, the church has no obligation to satisfy the demands, but rather the new sect needs to prove itself as a worthy religion. In total because of the historically harsh relationship between Christianity and Gnosticism, Gnosticism has very sharp critics and ultimately has become a demonized religion that never really got a chance to thrive on its own.
The Gospel of Thomas is the most prominent Gnostic scripture found in Nag Hammadi. Though it is called a gospel it does not have the traditional gospel format as in the New Testament gospels. It is not an account of Jesus’s life, rather it is a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. It also mentions nothing of Jesus’s crucifixion or resurrection, but it does allude to his death. These sayings even reject some common Christian beliefs such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. There is also some debate about when the Gospel of Thomas was written. Some believe that it may have come earlier than other documents. This is mainly due to the fact that the format of the Gospel of Thomas, a sayings collection, is indicative of the first century. It is believed that it may have come around the time of Q and the book of Proverbs. This idea is also believed due to the fact that the Gospel of Thomas does not seem to be reliant on any of the synoptic gospels for information. However, the doubt of when it was written comes from the fact that there are many similarities between sayings in Thomas and sayings in the four New Testament gospels.
The New Testament gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are essentially biographies of Jesus’s life and all cover mostly the same material but with some variation. Each of the gospels have different variations of events due to the different purposes and audiences each gospel had. For example, Matthew was targeted toward a Jewish audience, so he often included references to the Old Testament. In contrast, Mark was written to the Gentiles and Roman world, where as Luke displayed a more traditional biography due to its orderly account and John presented a more mystical, faith driven account.
Ultimately, there are many similarities in sayings between the four synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, however the delivery of them are very different. In Thomas, readers get Jesus’s sayings, but leaves the reader with no context of what that saying comes from. The author is leaving the reader to figure out the meaning of the sayings. In contrast the New Testament gospels tell you exactly who Jesus is and tells what he desires very clearly. For example, in the Gospel of Mark it is said “for there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light” whereas Gospel of Thomas said, “there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”
Depending on which came first, the Gospel of Thomas or the Synoptic gospels, that changes made in the sayings shows what each author wanted to portray to the public and how they were supporting their theological agenda. Mark 14:58 says “we heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.” In the Gospel of Thomas saying 71 is incredibly similar, “I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it.” If looked at from a redactional criticism perspective and the perspective that the Gospel of Mark came before Thomas readers can see that there was a purpose to changing the saying. Thomas has a more forceful tone to the saying and seems to have less of a faith-based agenda. Instead of calling the building a temple, the way Mark did, Thomas calls it a house. Temple gives off a more faith-based context due to the fact that a temple is a religious sanctuary. House gives off a more general view of a building rather than a holy place. Another key difference between the two sayings is the end of the sentence. Mark says “in three day I will build another, not made with hands” whereas Thomas says “no one will be able to build.” Mark gives hope of another temple being built in only a few days, but Thomas portrays a very definite end to the house. Overall the two sayings portray very different meanings within the saying. Mark is very faith based and believes that Jesus can destroy and create things with ease, but Thomas gives a very down cast view of Jesus, he has the ability to destroy, but not create. This difference is due to the differences in their overall purpose as a gospel. Thomas is directly at Gnostics and their core belief is that God and Jesus could not have the ability to create the material world due to its imperfections and tragedy and they hold the belief that material things are evil, that is why the house could not be rebuilt. In contrast Mark is written to the Gentiles and Roman World and hold traditional Christian values that Jesus and God have an almighty power and ability to destroy and create everything in the world. Overall the differences in the two gospels and sayings have a specific purpose that aid the understanding of their specific readers.
When looking at the gospels from a literary criticism standpoint, there are some common themes and messages between both the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mark, for example, the idea that Jesus and God are not seen in the physical world, but rather he is everywhere and within the people. This is shown in both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Thomas. Mark 13:21 says “and if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’ – do not believe it.” In contrast Thomas 113 says “’when will the kingdom come?’ ‘It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.” The message of the saying from Mark tells readers that people, who are not true believers, will try to deceive true believers, however true believers will recognize the lie and know that the “messiah” is not physically there, but rather there spiritually there. A similar message is displayed in Thomas’s version of the saying. Thomas focuses more on the idea that the material world will not display the kingdom, but rather people have to search for it within themselves to find the true meaning, rather than the idea of deception within society. When look at these sayings in context with the entire gospels, both fit well with the broader messages. For example, Thomas’s saying emphasizes the irrelevancy and imperfection of the material world and calls people to focus more on the divine spark within them and their spirituality. Mark similarly portrays the message of true belief in one’s own faith, a common theme throughout the gospel. Overall, both gospels consistently portray messages throughout their passages that connect back to one larger theme targeted toward their specific audience.
When looking at both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Thomas in a canonical criticism perspective, there are many expectations that each gospel presents for their specific section of Christianity to follow. It is common for religious people to fast for their God, especially within Christianity and Gnosticism. Often fasting is done to deny something physical in an effort to worship God in a deeper sense and gain spiritual growth. Mark 2:18-20 says “Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” 19. Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day.” Thomas 104 has a similar message that says “they said to Jesus, ‘Come, let us pray today, and let us fast.’ Jesus said, ‘what sin have I committed, or how have I been undone? Rather, when the groom leaves the bridal suite, then let people fast and pray.” Both these passages emphasize the importance of fasting and when to fast. One interesting difference between the two sayings is that Thomas emphasizes on sin, and why he should fast if he has not committed a sin, Mark mentions nothing about sin. The main reason for this is that Gnosticism and Thomas focus a lot on sin and the material world, whereas with Mark and Christianity as a whole does not solely focus on that. Each saying and their message can be used as a way to prove leadership within each religion because they have different sets of beliefs. Overall, both Thomas and Mark have common themes in their gospel, and each prove points within their own religious beliefs.
As a whole, Christianity was unjust toward Gnosticism due to their harsh criticism and push to silence Gnostics and their beliefs. This ultimately caused society to have a demonized view of Gnosticism and most information is biased. This conflict in history shows the true nature of Christianity and their undying mission to portray a universal belief and unified movement. When looking at the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of mark through different criticisms, the final conclusion is that Gnostic traditions and texts are very similar to the New Testament gospels. They all portray a particular message for a particular audience under a particular set of religious beliefs. This leaves the question of why, if Gnosticism can be considered its own sect of Christianity, is it so demonized and criticized? This also leaves another popular question of whether the Gospel of Thomas belongs in the New Testament. The general consensus of this question is that no it should not be. This is because of the questionable origins and when it came into existence. The teachings with in Thomas also have Gnostic overtones that would not fit into the traditional Christian beliefs. Another reason is that there is no proof of a reliable author or first century witnesses. Overall people feel that including the Gospel of Thomas would confuse people or even damage people’s faith in the New Testament teachings. In today’s society Gnosticism is not as much of a threat to the Christian church since they were effective at stamping out any threat earlier in history, but there are still many people who follow Gnostic traditions. There is a new group of Neo-Gnostics within contemporary Catholicism, but the principles in neo-Gnosticism are not the same as earlier in history and from the church’s perspective neo-Gnostic principles seem to be confused and ambiguous. Despite Gnosticism not being a popular trend in today’s society there is still a lot of fear within the Christian church. This fear is evident to the point where some extreme Catholics are being mistaken for neo-Gnostics because they believe that they are saved because they live by extreme “doctrines” and moral codes. Overall, the fear and criticism of Gnosticism effected its personal history and is another classical case of the majority silencing the minority and their beliefs.