|
|
|
|
Gnosticism and the New Testament
|
| |
|
| |
This article discusses the relationship between Gnosticism and the New Testament.
The Gnostics were a rather diverse group of early movements finding a basis often in Christianity or Judaism. These people did not refer to themselves as "Gnostics" but rather the label was applied mostly by their opponents and modern scholars. The movements were strongly associated with mysticism, and the thread connecting them was the concept of gnosis, which refers to an intimately personal kind of knowledge (as in the Spanish conocer rather than saber or German kennen versus wissen).
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Gnosticism and the New Testament' Start a new discussion about 'Gnosticism and the New Testament' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
This article discusses the relationship between Gnosticism and the New Testament.
The Gnostics were a rather diverse group of early movements finding a basis often in Christianity or Judaism. These people did not refer to themselves as "Gnostics" but rather the label was applied mostly by their opponents and modern scholars. The movements were strongly associated with mysticism, and the thread connecting them was the concept of gnosis, which refers to an intimately personal kind of knowledge (as in the Spanish conocer rather than saber or German kennen versus wissen). The Gnostic movements were centered around gnosis of the divine rather than faith (pistis) and therefore are often associated with mysticism. While Gnosticism proper was stamped out in the 4th and 5th centuries, the Albigensian and Cathar movements of the Middle Ages are often linked to it, which is rather questionable from a historical and philosophical perspective. Many Gnostic movements made extensive use of allegory and metaphor in their interpretation of spiritual texts.
The Canonical Gospels
In academic circles, three of the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are regarded as so similar in wording and content that they are often treated as one unit, the synoptic gospels, and their similarity is seen as a problem that needs answering, known as the synoptic problem. According to the majority of scholars, the solution to the synoptic problem is the two-source hypothesis - that the three synoptic gospels are not independent but derive from two source texts, one being the Markan priority, the other being a theoretical and now lost collection of logia (sayings) known as the Q document, and the few remaining elements unique to Matthew or to Luke are known as M or L, respectively. No ancient gnostic text explicitly refers to an original document of sayings. The oldest extant fragments of gospels are of John, and by tradition Matthew was the first written.
Sayings in Matthew and Luke attributed to Q
Some of the scholars that study the Gnostics believe that of the four canonical gospels, the elements associated with Q show the clearest connection to Gnosticism.
Gnostic scholars believe that many of the sayings written in Matthew and Luke and attributed to Q have a distinctly koan-like obscurity; for example Luke 17:33: Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it and Luke 13:30:Some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last. Other sayings have reference to secret teachings and knowledge to be revealed, such as Luke 12:2: Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known, which are themes intrinsic to the idea of gnosis - secret knowledge that can be learned. Also, the question-and-answer format of Q was a main form of writing used by gnostics (for example, compare The Sophia of Jesus Christ).
(The Jewish rabbinical form of teaching was also in question and answer format. See reference.)
According to the gnostic theories, the sayings from Luke and Matthew are divided into three groups - Q1, Q2, and Q3 - Q1 the earliest group (dated by Burton Mack, professor of New Testament at Claremont, to ~50) and Q3 the latest group (dated by Burton Mack to ~80); and, each group is dispersed throughout Matthew and Luke rather than concentrated into one or another section or shown to occur prior to later groups. Q3 appears to show awareness of the fall of Jerusalem as well as to portray Jesus to be a divine figure; Q2 shows an apocalyptic aspect and evidence of opposition, whereas Q1 sayings are much more cynic-like wisdom teachings. Many of these sayings are difficult to argue to be gnostic, because they portray basic wisdom, such as no man may serve two masters, or simple asceticism, such as blessed are the poor, yet there is a substantial volume of evidence to support that many early gnostics, like Basilides, and Marcion, found gnostic interpretations of them.
The Gospel of Mark
There are theories that parts of the Gospel of Mark, can be attributed a gnostic interpretation. In narrative, the gnostics often presented gnostic and non-gnostic alternatives together so as to contrast the differences, and usually presented and contrasted the alternatives allegorically, as a pair of twins - one gnostic the other not. While not immediately obvious, it is possible to show the presence of twin themes in the Gospel of Mark.
According to the gnostic perspective, of Mark (and the other Synoptics), when Jesus was presented before Pilate, Pilate offered to the crowd a choice between Jesus and a man named Barabbas. The full name of Barabbas was, according to some ancient Christian texts [which ones?], including some ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew [which ones?] , Jesus Barabbas; Barabbas is the Greek form of the Hebrew surname bar Abbas, which means son of the father . Hence, Pilate offered the choice between Jesus and Jesus son of the father and Mark (and in consequence Matthew, Luke, and John) presents the choice between an earthly Jesus-son-of-the-father (as Barabbas was a thief and bandit) and a more spiritual version of Jesus-son-of-the-father, a highly gnostic reading. The crowd chose to save the earthly Jesus (i.e. Barabbas), which thus may be read as allegory in the gnostic view that the masses were carnal and not spiritual beings, since they did not have gnosis.
For the gnostics in Mark, Jesus is often portrayed to refer to secret teachings and secrets, even to assert that some teachings should be kept secret and deliberately obscured, all of which were attitudes shared with, and intrinsic to, gnosticism. For example, :
- "And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that “they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.” ’" (NRSV)
Nevertheless, Mark also contains a few clear descriptions of miracles that are difficult to interpret as having a gnostic subtext, thus implying that perhaps the entire work ought not to be interpreted as gnostic. However, Mark's underlying narrative structure is chiastic, and Mark contains over 150 different chiasms, a structure with which these miracles interrupt and jar, leading some textual critics, such as John Dart, to conclude that the descriptions of these particular miracles were not original but later additions to the text. According to Dart, the chiastic structure also points to the fragments known as the Secret Gospel of Mark as being original to Mark, since they complete several chiasms in the text, as well as filling what resemble gaps.
The Gospel of John
To the gnostics, the Gospel of John shows the clearest similarity to later gnostic writing style in general, and to them parts of the gospel have a similar dream-like quality to the writing (compare the Gospel of Truth, more especially the Trimorphic Protennoia). For them, the opening verses of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" allude to the Heraclitus and possibly Gnostic concept of the Logos (which translates as Ideal or Word), a divine presence. The themes of light and knowledge contrast with the themes of physical being and worldliness throughout John.
However, the phrase "and the Word became flesh, and dwelt amongst us" is clearly at variance with docetism, a belief that many Gnostics held that the human nature of Jesus was illusory, as the Perfect Saviour inherent in a Christ could not partake in the inherently corrupt (according to gnosticism) nature of matter. Also, the opening phrase is clearly at variance with Arianism, a very large second century sect of Christianity, later branded as heretical, which asserted that there was a time previous to Jesus' existence. Many theologians therefore believe that John states positions in order to invert them and counter-assert one of the positions that later became orthodox.
Much of John has this form, consistently drawing on positions held by later second century and early third century groups in order to contradict them and cast them as heretical.
In the case of these supposed third century groups P52, Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75 all have been dated to be before the third century. These groups frequently did not exist in the late first century and early second century, Arianism being a prime example, and it would be odd for them to arise if a gospel was circulating which so clearly condemned the positions that did not yet exist. For this reason, and since also the first quotations from the Gospel of John appear in the anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, many scholars like K.G. Bretschneider (1776 - 1848), Hegel and F.C. Baur (born 1792 - died 1860) cast doubt on the Authorship of the Gospel of John, and often consider it to have been a second century polemic by an author holding what later became the position of the orthodoxy.
Though most of the above is called into question by Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which contains a fragment from John chapter 18 dated with a fair measure of confidence to the first half of the second century. As well as the recent work of Charles Hill's The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. In which Charles Hill gives evidence that the Gospel of John was used between CE 90 and 130, the possible use of uniquely Johannine gospel material in several works which date from this period. These works and authors include Ignatius (c.107); Polycarp (c.107); Papias’ elders (c.110-120); Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles (c.120-132).
The Pauline Epistles
It has been hypothesized by some, such as Hyam Maccoby and Elaine Pagels - as well as Timothy Freke, that Paul of Tarsus (the Christian Saint Paul) was a Gnostic who developed the early Christian church as a mystery religion with a Jewish flavour, and that elements of this church forgot or misunderstood the mystery elements, largely abandoned its Jewish foundation, and took up literal interpretation of the text.
Their argument for Paul being a gnostic is based on arguments about the authorship of the Pauline Epistles. The pastoral epistles (those to Timothy and Titus), are generally acknowledged as being clearly anti-gnostic, and the second Epistle to the Thessalonians clearly refutes certain gnostic interpretations of the first Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Paul and Hellenic influence
Besides being a Jew (of the tribe of Benjamin), and a member of the conservative Pharisee party prior to conversion, Paul could also write in Greek, and also refer to the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament deviating from most modern bibles), rather than translating the Hebrew text (which later became the Masoretic text). He grew up in Tarsus, which was a centre (and possibly the origin, as suggested by Plutarch) of the Mithras version of mystery religions. Tarsus was also, at the time of Paul, the dominant centre for Hellenic philosophy, Strabo commenting that Tarsus had surpassed Athens and Alexandria in this extent.
Although educated in Jerusalem, Paul expresses in his writing many ideas seen on Hellenic thought, previously used by philosophers such as Plato. For example, Paul refers to the solar cycle known as the great year, as well as to the idea that one is only wise if one knows that one knows nothing. According to the book of Acts, Paul's ministry takes him to cities dominated by mystery religions, such as Antioch (a centre for the Adonis version), Ephesus (a centre for the Attis version), and Corinth (a centre for the Dionysus version).
Terminology adopted by Paul
When considering the question of whether Paul uses Gnostic terminology, or supports Gnostic ideas, it is important to refer to the original Greek form of the text. Translations often choose to translate words which are the names of things or concepts, rather than replacing them with the name for the equivalent concept, sometimes doing so to suppress information or support a certain point of view, and in other instances simply because the translator is unaware of any special significance of the term. For example, Isaiah 34:14 is usually translated ... the screech owl also shall find rest there ..., translating the Hebrew term lilitu as screech owl rather than as Lilith, the name of a Hebrew demon.
In not translating words which have meaning as concepts, it appears that Paul states to Christians (in Galatians) what has become of your makarismos , and makarismos (often translated praise) was a technical term that meant the manner in which those were considered blessed. Paul also refers to his teaching by terminology of gnostic significance - I long to see you, so that I may share with you a certain pneumatic charisma (Romans 1:11-12); pneumatic is the gnostic term for the class of people who were governed by their spiritual side and thus saved. As well as the koine Greek word for spirit, though no other alternative word for spirit in Koine Greek is suggested.
The fact that Paul does not write the knowledge in the letter, although he does long to share the knowledge with those he writes to in Romans, was explained by gnostics as Paul respecting the principle common to mystery religions of having secret teachings, which must not be shared openly (for example, in the event the letter was intercepted). Elsewhere, Paul makes use of a phrase that is also the vow of secrecy common to many gnostic groups, such use by gnostics being attested by Hippolytus in his criticism of the gnostic Justinus, as well as in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas; for example, in 1 Corinthians Paul states
- Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
The terms Paul uses for perfected Christianity, such as (in the standard translation) Mature and to the level of maturity and the perfect man, actually use the Greek word Teleioi, which means initiated or perfect, a principle also used in the Hellenic mystery religions. In particular, in 1 Corinthians, we speak wisdom amongst the perfected also translates we speak of Sophia amongst the initiated (Sophia being a spiritual entity to the gnostics as well as the usual Greek word for "wisdom"), something which the gnostic Valentinians quoted as proof that Paul initiated Christians into the gnostic ideas of Sophia. Though no other alternative word for wisdom in Koine Greek is suggested.
As for himself, in 1 Corinthians, Paul considers he is a Steward of the mysteries of God, which was also the technical term for a priest in the Egyptian version of the mystery religions where the central figure is the god Serapis. Paul also claims to know someone who ascended as far as the third heaven, a principle which in mystery religions represented the degree of initiation achieved (for example, in the Mithras version there were 7 heavens, one for each of the 5 known planets, the sun, and the moon). Paul's story appears to have been a one time event however, and he claims uncertainty as to whether the visit to the third heaven was in the body or out of the body.
Paul can also be construed as referring to the gnostic cosmos, at one point, stating the wisdom...which none of the rulers of this world knoweth, which if some words are just transliterated from the Greek, rather than translated, becomes the wisdom...which none of the Archons of this Aion knoweth, Archons being the gnostic concept of minions of the evil Demiurge. Though no alternate word for wisdom or ruler in Koine Greek is suggested. Elsewhere Paul refers to a god of this passing age, which non-gnostics interpret as referring to the devil, but gnostics considered (particularly since it clearly states god rather than some lesser creature) this to be a reference to the demiurge.
In Galatians 3:19-20, Paul states that the Law is the product of a mediator, and that the mediator is not one, God is one. The gnostics treated this as a reference to the standard gnostic teaching that the law should not apply since it was the product of the evil demiurge. Gnostics also referred to the demiurge as the mediator between God (whom they considered the only being to be singular and whole, and thus also referred to as Monad), and creation (which they considered intrinsically evil, rather than evil as the consequence of some human error). Though this does not hold true with the reference of the demiurge in gnosticism as blind and ignorant of his origin or the monad.
In Romans, Paul clearly speaks of creation as awaiting redemption, rather than treating it as something irredeemable. He also refers to the law as the 'instructor' or 'tutor' of the Jewish people, and as the beginning of God's work of turning people back to Himself, rather than as something opposed to God this being opposed to the works of Marcion who stated that the God of the Old Testament and law was the devil or demiurge.
Paul and the early church
The continual growth of Gnostic followings throughout the second century so troubled the non-Gnostics that to refute it Irenaeus wrote a vast five-volume book (On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis commonly referred to as Against Heresies). The significance of Paul's influence was sufficient for Irenaeus to consider it important to proclaim that Paul was never gnostic and never supported gnostic teachings, using the evidence of the Pastoral epistles and the Gospel of John to support it.
Despite Irenaeus' claims for Paul's non gnosticism, Valentinus, the leader of a large faction of gnostics, claimed that Paul had initiated his own teacher Theudas into the Deeper Mysteries of Christianity, which revealed a secret gnostic doctrine of God. Another gnostic leader, and the most powerful, Marcion, was the first person to construct a formal Biblical canon, and in it he included only the Gospel of Luke (in a version that differs from the orthodoxically known text), the Epistles of Paul (except the Pastoral Epistles), and the Book of Acts, which primarily recounts the activities of Paul. He excluded all of the Jewish text of the septuagint. The importance of Paul to Marcion's faction of gnosticism even led to one of the main anti-Marcion writers, Tertullian, going as far as to declare that Paul was the heretic's apostle.
Marcion himself claimed to be the rightful heir of Paul's authority, and although clearly at odds with the position taken by later orthodoxy, it was certainly true that Marcion was, in his time, the leader of the seven communities to which Paul's epistles were earlier addressed. Though it is possible that Marcion's movement had converted the communities in question from literalism to Marcionism, it is significantly more plausible for him to have gained control had the communities already been gnostic when Paul was writing to them. Ultimately the church even ex-communicated these communities - the communities to which Paul's epistles were addressed - in fear of the stance of the communities - Marcionism - completely defeating the position of the church from within it.
Early Christian narratives that supported the position which later became orthodoxy also exhibit a distaste for Pauline positions. The Book of Acts, which appears in the New Testament and mostly concentrates on Paul, contains what most biblical scholars view as veiled criticism of Paul. For example, by the criteria of Acts 1:21, Paul is undeserving of apostleship because he had neither been with Jesus during his lifetime nor seen the resurrected Jesus in the flesh, merely seeing him as a vision. Amongst biblical scholars, the prevailing view is that Acts favours the Jewish Christian Jerusalem Church, in conflict with a Gentile Christian Paul, though advocates of the idea that Paul is gnostic often argue that it was Paul's gnosticism that Acts was criticising.
From the beginning of modern biblical criticism with Ferdinand Christian Baur, it has been argued that the Pseudo-Clementines, texts that in early times were frequently regarded as part of Biblical canon, are a coded attack on Paul, fictionalising him under the name of Simon Magus, in deliberate contrast to Simon Peter. All surviving references to Simon Magus in ancient literature present him in a decidedly negative and highly caricatured light, frequently portraying him as adhering to gnostic theology, and figures in the 2nd century early church, such as Irenaeus, referred to Simon Magus as being the source of all heresies. Thus the conclusion that Simon Magus is a polemical parody of someone, not a real figure in itself, is quite plausible. A clearer connection between Simon Magus and Paul can be found in Marcion's teacher - Marcion claimed he had obtained his teachings from Paul, while Irenaeus stated that Marcion's teacher was Simon Magus, a man whose existence Marcion never even mentions.
Though as Paul is traditionally considered to have died in 67 and Marcion was born in 110, apologists argue that it is quite implausible for the two to ever have met; this also applies to Simon Magus who was said by the Book of Acts to have been teaching during the time of Simon Peter, and was said to have died during Peter's preaching (Clement of Rome attests to Peter himself dying before 90). Thus it is clear that neither Irenaeus nor Marcion himself can have been suggesting that Marcion was literally the immediate heir of Simon Magus or Paul, respectively, but instead must have been suggesting that Marcion was the latest in the line of heirs; and so the potential connection between Simon Magus and Paul still stands.
Gnostic interpretations of Paul's teachings
The followers of Valentinius systematically decoded the Epistles, claiming that most Christians made the mistake of reading the Epistles literally rather than allegorically. Valentians understood the conflict between Jews and Gentiles in Romans to be a coded reference to the differences between Psychics (people who are partly spiritual but have not yet achieved separation from carnality) and Pneumatics (totally spiritual people).
The Valentians argued that such codes were intrinsic in gnosticism, secrecy being important to ensuring proper progression to true inner understanding. In 2 Corinthians, Paul states he had heard ineffable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter, a position that gnostic initiates supported with respect to the higher gnostic teachings. However, Paul does also suggest Gnosis puffeth up (often this passage is found with gnosis translated - knowledge puffeth up), which appears to diminish support for gnosticism, but Clement of Alexandria offered the explanation that this meant to entertain great and true sentiments and was a reference to the magnitude of the effect of receiving it.
Grades of revelation
In , Paul goes on to state I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able, which Gnostics interpret as the suggestion that the Corinthians were still Hylic (i.e. had not passed even the first level of understanding). Paul previously stated in But psychic anthropos receiveth not the things of the Spirit of the God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are pneumatic anakrino, offering an explanation which coincides with the gnostic teaching of levels of comprehension (Psychic and pneumatic are usually translated rather than left alone - with psychic translated as natural, anthropos as man, pneumatic as spiritual, and anakrino as discerned).
Gnostics viewed scripture as allegory, only serving a literal meaning to Hylic (i.e. uninitiate) people, partly for the purpose of advertising. Gnostics thus interpreted Paul's statements, that the Old Testament acts as our examples in and that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life in , as supporting this view, with understanding more important than rigid adherence. Gnostics also took to a more gnostic interpretation the phrase though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more in as indicative of Paul's progress from Hylic, rather than the understanding of Christ's time being in the past.
Paul states in that Christ came in the homoioma of human flesh. means image or representation (the text is usually translated in the likeness of human flesh). Some gnostic groups treated this as admittance of Docetism, with the Christ being the divine wisdom which revealed gnosis, which would help humanity escape the evil creation (the world) of the demiurge, and having no physical existence. Though Paul never speaks of the creator or nature as evil.
In Galatians ,, Paul states of his conversion that God revealed his Son in me, rather than to me, which Gnostics
interpret as a reference to Christ being the divine gnosis sent to save humanity, rather than a physical creature or person. In the same letter, Paul also states in that I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, which gnostics took as further evidence of Paul supporting their stance.
Resurrection
The gnostics took an esoteric view of death, and therefore of resurrection. When Paul states in Romans that he that is dead is freed from sin, and that we are buried with him by baptism into death, the gnostics assumed it was a reference to the teaching that the body is the work of the evil demiurge, and that death would release the divine part of a person from the demiurge's power.
Gnostics also took death to be symbolic for the death of the part of a person tied to the demiurge, and the consequential resurrection as a new entirely spiritual being, understanding resurrection as an awakening of spiritual enlightenment. In Philippians, Paul refers to himself as partaking in the same death as Christ, and thence partaking in the resurrection of the dead, which suited gnostic interpretations. Paul's references to reaping and sowing of crops, in 1 Corinthians, was also a common image from the mystery religions symbolising the esoteric death and resurrection of initiates.
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, however, during chapter 15, Paul appears to give credence to a more literal idea of the physical resurrection of the dead. However, as noted by many gnostics, Paul also states flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Irenaeus complained that all heretics always introduce this passage. It is widely thought by scholars that the presence of the issue proved such a problem that someone felt the need to forge a third letter to the Corinthians, which explicitly states the dead are resurrected physically. Despite this, 3 Corinthians was rejected from biblical canon, and thus became part of the New Testament apocrypha.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul also refers to baptism for the dead (15:29), a concept according to Elaine Pagels, was easily explained by gnostics. Since the gnostics argued that the text was allegory, their stance was that baptism for the dead refers to pneumatics (i.e. gnostics) taking the place of psychics (i.e. literalists), who were dead to gnosis. Tertullian wrote about Marcion gnostics in his work Against Marcion indicating that there they believed in baptism of the dead. The doctrines of Marcion were so similar to the Gnostics that the church father Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp in the 180s regarded him as one of them.
John Gill in his commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:29 remarked, "...some think the apostle [Paul]has in view a custom of some, who when their friends died without baptism, used to be baptized in their room; this is said to be practiced by the Marcionites in Tertullian's time, and by the Corinthians in the times of the Apostle John; but it does not appear to have been in use in the times of the Apostle Paul; and besides, if it had been, as it was a vain and superstitious one, he would never have mentioned it without a censure..."
Jameison-Faussett-Brown commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:29 mentioned, "...Paul, without giving the least sanction to the practice, uses an ad hominem argument from it against its practitioners, some of whom, though using it, denied the resurrection: "What account can they give of their practice; why are they at the trouble of it, if the dead rise not?"[So Jesus used an ad hominem argument, Matthew 12:27]. The best punctuation is, "If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for them" (so the oldest manuscripts read the last words, instead of "for the dead")?"
Ethics
One feature that was contested amongst the gnostics was that of ethics. Gnostics believed that since the world was intrinsically evil, so was anything the human body did. Some gnostics concluded that this meant that one could engage in gross immorality since it demonstrated the knowledge that the body was a prison for the soul. Most gnostics, however, considered that instead one should suppress the urges of the body as much as possible and live a highly ascetic life. One consequence of this view was a lack of care to social status (exhibited noticeably in Mithraism), or for that matter not caring about being/not-being a slave, a criticism also levied at Paul for his lack of raising the issue in Philemon.
Paul also appears to many scholars to exhibit a strong distaste for sexuality of any kind, supporting the principle of celibacy, which gnostics interpreted as due to the idea of the world as evil, though non-gnostics took it to be merely a rigid and strict adherence to the Old Testament. Paul himself elsewhere states that he teaches righteousness without the Law (Rom 3:21), which gnostics used as a counter argument to the claim he adhered to the Old Testament, and also supported the idea that laws were ultimately the product of the demiurge as a trap.
Though once again Paul never mentions an ignorant or evil creator or demiurge.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul does recommend celibacy, but also recommends marriage for those who are not suited for celibacy. Later (1 Cor. 9:5), he defends the right of Peter and the other apostles to be married and to travel accompanied by their wives, although he himself was unmarried. In contrast, he condemned sexual immorality of all kinds, in various epistles (Romans 13:13, 1 Cor. 6:18, 1 Thess. 4:3), along with several other categories of sins, and making no exceptions for these. Paul's attitude to sexuality, his companionship with Timothy, and his statement that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak has led some commentators, including the Foundry Methodist Church attended by Bill Clinton in December 1995, and the Bishop John Shelby Spong, to argue that Paul was a self-hating homosexual.
Counter-arguments
Irenaeus argued that the use of scripture by Gnostic groups, such as the Valentinians, was flawed, and demonstrated his argument by taking arbitrary passages from various writings of Homer to compose a new story about Hercules. While the individual passages were authentic, the connected story was not of Homer's composition, and in fact the passages featured a number of different characters instead of just Hercules. Irenaeus compared this abuse of Homer to the abuse of the New and Old Testaments by the gnostics.
See also
External links
|
| |
|
|
