The Gnostic Gospels and the Establishment of Christianity

The discovery of the ancient scrolls at Nag Hammadi sent the calendar rolling back to the earliest struggles of Christianity; struggles between the various sects to unify the new religion into one vision and one voice. Since the victory of what would become the orthodox Catholic Church over the so-called heretics, and the successful eradication of most of the so-called heretical texts, Christianity has been for the most part unified in its vision. Some may question that claim in light of the multitudes of denominational differences and the enormous upheaval that took place after the Reformation, but in fact denominations as varied as Lutherans, Baptists and Mormons all agree on the basic tenets of the original Catholic canonical texts. This unification of belief stands in stark relief to the early struggles to define that consistency, and as well to contemporary arguments and debates taking place since the discovery of texts that have raised serious questions about the authority of the New Testament. History, of course, can never be unraveled to fulfill a pure truth, because-as the saying goes-it is always written by the winners. Christianity may never have developed into the unified, universal religion it became had the struggle among its multiple sects not eventually been won. In particular, if the sect known as the Gnostics had been capable of organizing as well as the Catholic sect, Christianity could well have become just another ancient religious cult falling by the wayside due to its inability stand united.

The key is in trying to make connections between what is contained within the Gnostic gospels and what is contained within the Biblical canon in order to more fully realize and understand the authority of the traditional Church. After all, Christianity is not simply an arrangement of spiritual or religious beliefs. The Catholic Church was and is a political and bureaucratic entity and one must understand just how heirarchical a structure it really is in order to become aware of how important order was in the establishment of the church. The real strength of the Catholic Church that allowed it to emerge as the winner in the struggle over who would be the mouthpiece for Christ was its ability to impose order and structure. Very early on, the Church established a triumvirate heirarchy of priests, bishops and deacons that stood as the curator of the faith. The importance of the establishment of this heirarchy cannot be overstated. Any organization wishing to build membership must imbue itself with authority, with orthodoxy, and further it must be able to convince potential members of the legitimacy of that authority.

Early in the process, the Church realized the advantages of ritual and organization as a methodology of convincing. While the Gnostics were attemptint a somewhat elitist and definitely complex qualitative method for inclusion, the Catholic Church was instituting a much simpler system marked by a clear doctrine based on strict ritual. The point was that the doctrine and ritual inherent in the Catholic Church served the purpose of turning the idea and structure of the religion into something more concrete that the more fantastical ideas of a church that were being presented by the Gnostics. The Gnostics basically were selling the idea of a heavenly church whereas the Christians exhibited shrewd judgment in bringing the church down to earth. The Gnostics perceived the church as an invisible entity that only those who were able to see it could join. As wonderful an idea as a religion without a church might be to entertain, it is clearly unlikely that any religion could ever achieve anything beyond cult status by maintaining such a point of view. In essence, the Gnostics undid themselves by clinging to their beliefs.

The establishment of a more concrete and authoritative church was the final result of a struggle between opposing viewpoints springing from the early Christian movements. If the multiple early Christian sects had survived and continued battling amongst each other, Christianity as we know it today would be significantly different, if present at all. Establishment of a concrete church as a political entity was the most crucial development in establishing what we today call the Christian Church. Of significant importance in establishing authority and orthodoxy was creating the aura of heresy in any writings or beliefs that did not coincide with the dominant beliefs. What is most strange about the retention of certain Gnostic beliefs into the amalgamation of Christian tenets is why some were excluded. Many Gnostic texts contain some quite bizarre and unbelievable contents, but that’s not why they were excluded and defined as heretical; the exclusion came about because the ideas behind the strange stories threatened the view of Christianity that was beginning to develop.

The fundamental difference between the Gnostics and the early Christians lay in the manner of salvation. For the Christians, humans must have a divine guide to salvation; for the Gnostics, not so much. In addition to creating a spiritual divide, it also creates a significant political chasm. Essential to the divide between the Gnostics and the Church is the central belief of Christianity, the one aspect of this religion that separates it from all other religions: the resurrection of Jesus. Oddly enough, the established version is the more wildly imaginative and unbelievable. The Gnostics held several different views of the resurrection, but none included earthly appearances. For the Gnostics the resurrected Jesus was essentially a spiritual vision, yet the literal fleshly resurrection version is what became doctrine. Although it may not seem like a political decision, the acceptance of this doctrine is rife with political implications having to do with apostolic succession within the church based on the scriptural witnessing of Jesus by Peter, who took over the role of leader of the church following Jesus’ death. Needless to say, there is also political implication stemming from this that play a part in the decisions to systematically exclude women from leadership positions within the Church. Further complicating things is that this justification for exclusion is directly at odds with Gnostic teachings.

The Catholic Church in all its doctrines and rituals offers the perception that God is wholly masculine, despite the seemingly obvious fleshless nature of a spiritual being. God the Father, Holy Father, Our Father who art in Heaven; all of these point toward a singularly masculine perception of God. The Gnostic texts, on the other hand, consistently give God both masculine and feminine qualities. Even more dangerous, of course, is the Gnostic text The Gospel of Mary. In this text, Mary Magdalene is not only elevated to the position of apostle, she is shown to be Jesus’ favorite. By proclaiming as heretical The Gospel of Mary and all other Gnostic texts that elevates the female to positions of authority, the early church was able to concretize the concept of a father figure and only a father figure, with no room-indeed, no need-for a mother figure, who stood in place of God Himself. It is just another example of how the early Church was able to flourish by establishing authority.

Clearly, an argument can be made that the striking differences between what’s contained in the Gnostic texts and their counterparts in the Biblical canonical texts deeply affected the growth of minor religious cult into the major religion we know today as Christianity. More than that, it’s also clear that when we read the Bible, we’re only getting half the story. At best. Contrary to the established belief that the Bible is the word of God handed down to man and divinely chosen, the canon was actually voted upon. And the vote didn’t even have to be unanimous! Even if only a small minority of those voting desired for a text to make it into the Bible, therefore, it would make it in. More than that, according to some sources money actually changed hands during the voting process. Therefore, it would seem as though Christianity as we know it, though it may very well be based upon the teaching of Jesus, is probably not based upon his entire teachings. The distinct impression is that Christianity is a religion that needs to have enough faith in itself to allow for the possibility that some of the Gnostic writings as well as other gospels that failed to make it into the canon contain the actual words of Jesus and should be re-evaluated for consideration of being introduced into the Bible. It is time to put aside tradition merely because it is tradition and welcome the opportunity to include as much of Jesus’ teaching into Christianity as is possible. Until that happens, the legitimacy of Christianity is going to be open to debate by an ever-increasing number of believers and non-believers alike.