Mission Statement

Aeon Research/Mission Statement

E-mail: ogdood@yahoo.com

Greetings and welcome to the Aeon Byte Research Archive (formerly CC&G). This archive contains a unique set of research articles which are devoted to one central purpose: to questioning all of the traditional assumptions that orthodox Christianity has imposed on Gnosticism. To this day many historians and scholars approach the subject of Gnosticism under the bias that “orthodox” Christian tradition is generally right, and that the Gnostics are generally wrong. This ‘standard’ view of history is based on the traditional “orthodox” doctrine which is known as the so-called “Apostolic Tradition.” The Apostolic Tradition is a dogma (read: theory) which maintains that there was an original agreement, and an original theological standard, that existed among the earliest Christians/Apostles. This concept of an original agreement and standard is in turn the foundation of “orthodox” tradition and its theological standard that it seeks to impose on everyone else.

The Catholic Fathers Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202) and Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220) are the first theologians on the historical record to express this idea of an original standard, which they use in opposition against other Christian sects and theological schools (i.e. the so-called “heresies”). [1] This doctrine maintains that this original standard was handed down to the Catholic churches through a succession of bishops which goes all the way back to the Apostles. This standard in turn serves as the authority by which the early Catholic clergy distinguished “orthodoxy” (right doctrine) from “heresy” (wrong doctrine). Catholic and Protestant clerics alike continue to this day to cite the Apostolic Tradition as the original standard and as the source for their authority. When you hear clergymen refer to their doctrine, or opinions, as “Apostolic” you are hearing a reference to this supposed historical standard. The Apostolic Tradition represents the justification for why “orthodox” Christians should have the authority to pass judgment on Gnostics who also lay claim to the legacy of Christ and the Apostles.

The Apostolic Tradition also involves the concept of an original and ‘correct’ theological creed. The irony here is that the proper wording for this creed was not agreed upon until the year 325 AD, at the Council of Nicaea. Before that time the Catholic clergy agreed in loose terms on what the ‘correct’ theology was. On the historical record this consensus first appears among the Catholic Fathers: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus and Origen. In general these “Fathers” all agreed that there was only one God, and one theology, in the entire Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments. These Fathers also agreed that Jesus Christ was the Son of this one God, and that he was born from the Virgin, walked among men, died and was resurrected, all while in the flesh. In the writings of the Fathers these essential doctrines are asserted against the Gnostic and Marcionite Christians, who claimed that the theology of the Bible was diversified, and that the Lawgiver, the Creator, and the supreme Being were not all one and the same. The latter groups claimed that Jesus was the Son of an Unknown God other than the one Creator God of the Old Testament, and that Jesus was not a “fleshly” being in the strict sense of the word. The writings of the Catholic Fathers make clear that this general controversy involved conflicting interpretations of the New Testament writings.

Again, the Catholic Fathers always claimed that their ‘correct’ doctrine was handed down to them via a line of succession that went back to the Apostles, i.e. Peter, Paul, etc. And the New Testament writings are said to be an infallible record of this original tradition, and of the original virgin church. But the unresolved question to this day is whether the New Testament writings contain any historic evidence that this original Apostolic church and standard ever existed? I believe the evidence in the Canon shows that the answer is no: the New Testament writings in fact do not show the existence of an original unity, but show instead that the earliest Christians were deeply and profoundly divided – just as the “heretics” maintained. [2]

It is my position that the New Testament writings show no historic consensus, or standard, against Gnosticism. To the contrary, I can use the evidence to show that Gnosticism is the later development of theological ideas that are present in the New Testament. Stated simply, the New Testament writings, both collectively, and internally, do not contain one, consistent system of theology. These writings in fact contain the elements of numerous theological systems. Some of these elements actually run counter to the theology that “orthodox” Christians recognize in the Old Testament.

Now certainly I am not claiming that the New Testament writings provide any direct connection or sanction for later Gnostic myth. What I am saying is that the fundamental ideas of Gnostic theology are based on theological ideas and paradoxes that are present in the New Testament writings. [3]

The purpose of my articles at Aeon Byte is to document the evidence in support of what I have stated above. Stated simply: it is my position that the New Testament writings contain no evidence of an historic, anti-Gnostic standard as so many “orthodox” Christians claim. It is also my intent to demonstrate that the New Testament writings contain the very seeds of Gnosticism. –jw

Readers can e-mail their comments, etc., to me at ogdood@yahoo.com

Endnotes

1. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.1., Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, 20, 21.

Irenaeus explains this “tradition” accordingly:

“It is within the power of all, in every Church, who wishes to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon those who were instituted as bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, and to show the succession of these men to our own times; those who never taught nor knew anything like what these heretics rave about.” (Emphasis added.)

Tertullian likewise explains:

“From this therefore do we draw up our rule. For since the Lord Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed… Now, what that was which they preached…can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the Apostles founded in person, by declaring the Gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by the epistles. … It remains then that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the Apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood.” (Ibid. 21. Emphasis added.)

The Church historian Eusebius points to “Irenaeus” as the father of Christian orthodoxy (Church History, 4.21; Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, pg. 151; cf. Bruce Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, pg. 153f.).

The Apostolic Tradition is the foundation of “orthodoxy” and it represents the explanation of how “orthodox” doctrine is connected with the Apostles. Scholars generally agree that these concepts of “tradition” and “orthodoxy” were developed by the Catholic Fathers as part of their struggle against Gnosticism (Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 2, pg. 9f., Karen King, What is Gnosticism?, pg. 20, Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pg. 4f.).

2. Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 2, pg. 46. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.13f., Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, 23.

3. This is confirmed by Irenaeus in his treatise Against Heresies. In numerous passages Irenaeus attempts to refute Gnostic interpretations of key NT passages, such as Mt. 11:27, which Irenaeus referred to as the “crown” of Gnostic theology (ibid., 1.20.3); other such passages were 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 1:21, Gal. 3:19 (3.7.1-2) and 1 Cor. 15:50 (5.9.1). Numerous reputable scholars have expressed their doubts on whether Irenaeus ever really succeeded in rescuing Paul from the Gnostics without compromising the essence of Paul at the same time: e.g. Wilhelm Bousset, Kurios Christos, pg. 446; James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, pg. 291, A. Harnack, ibid., pg. 51.

Tertullian addressed Marcion’s interpretations of Luke and Paul in his treatise Against Marcion, books 4 and 5. And in his treatise On Prescription Against Heretics Tertullian admitted that the New Testament writings presented difficult theological problems, and that the heretics should therefore be denied any appeal to these writings in a debate:

“On the present occasion indeed, our treatise has rather taken up a general position against heresies, showing that they must all be refuted on definite, equitable, and necessary rules without any comparison with the Scriptures” (ibid., 44, emphasis added; see also 15, 19, 39).