Orthodox Outrage
(Revised)
By James M. West. Copyright © April 25, 2008; revised
E-mail: ogdood@yahoo.com
In Roman times the Catholic clergy spread
the most vile and slanderous rumors against the Gnostics. The worst attacks were
made by a cleric named Epiphanius of Salamis (310–403) and are preserved in a
lengthy anti-heresy diatribe known as the Panarion (“medicine chest”).
In this bitter, venomous diatribe the Gnostics are accused of masturbating,
of mass fornication, and of eating semen and flux as symbols of
the body and blood of Christ. As the final, ultimate outrage, Epiphanius
informs his readers that when some Gnostic woman becomes pregnant, as a result
of all this alleged promiscuity, he claims that the Gnostics have a special
ritual where they extract the fetus, pound it with spices, cook it, and eat
it (Panarion, 26).
Another cleric who made similar accusations
against the Gnostics was Augustine of Hippo (354–430). Augustine accused the
Gnostic Manichean sect of eating a Eucharist “sprayed with Human semen” (de
Haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum, 46). A similar accusation comes from Cyril of
Jerusalem (315–386), who accused the “Manichees” of eating pieces of pork
dipped in semen (Catechetical Instruction, 6.33). [1]
Of course all of these wicked accusations
begin to crumble under close scrutiny. Augustine, as an example, was a member
of the Manichean sect for nine years, and was a fanatical defender of
the sect, just as he would be for the Catholic Church later ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm
).
The amazing fact is that Augustine never
witnessed any such ritual first hand in the nine years he was in the sect. The
basis for his story originates from a scandal supposedly involving local
Manicheans in the city of
Personally, I think the more plausible
explanation for this paradox, in Augustine’s story, is that Augustine is the
kind of man who will repeat such perverted lies when they suit his purposes.
This is the kind of man that Augustine was; and this was the kind of smut that
he was willing to traffic in. I think the same is true of Cyril of Jerusalem.
Cyril claims that the Manichean elect eat a special Eucharist meal comprised of
pork dipped in semen. But all historians know that the “elect” Manicheans were strict
vegetarians. (Cyril and Augustine actually contradict each other on this
particular detail.) We should also note that in the days of Cyril and Augustine
that the Manichean religion was an international movement that eventually
spread as far as
In the case of Epiphanius there too is good
reason to doubt the truth of his account. And I will state here that I think
that Epiphanius’s accusations are too sick, and at the same time, too
fantastic, to be believed. This guy writes of these people in such a way as to
lead us to believe that these people aren’t even human. We’re supposed to
believe, on Epiphanius’s word, that these people are just a bunch of pigs who
revel in their own excrement; and we are expected to believe that this was
their concept of religion and piety. Please forgive me if I remain skeptical,
and if I note that these accusations have not been settled in court where each
side has equal opportunity to state their case. We should also note that in the
Epiphanius actually leads his readers to
believe that he was a witness to the deeds he describes. But at the same time
he also makes statements indicating that he was never actually present, and
that he was “not led away” by the Gnostics he encountered. The dubious
nature of his sources appears in the following statements by Epiphanius
himself:
“Indeed,
beloved readers, I happened upon this sect in person, and was instructed in
these matters face to face, by the people who naturally observe this doctrine.
Certain women, who had been deceived in this way, not only offered us this
verbal information and revealed such things to us, but also…reached out to us
in our youth and with babbling recklessness attempted to drag us down. … For
though reproached by these deadly women I laughed scornfully, when they
indicated to one another, making fun of me, that “We have not been able to save
the young man, but have abandoned him to perish in the clutches of the Archon”…
“The
women who gave us instruction in this trivial myth [2] were very
beautiful in the form of their appearance, but in the content of their wretched
thought they possessed the full ugliness of the devil. But the merciful God
delivered us from their wickedness. And thus after we had read their books and
truly understood their intention we were not led away by them, but rather we
avoided them and did not become hooked. And we devoted ourselves to the problem
of the moment, pointing them out to the bishops there and detecting the names
of those who were hidden within the church. And so they were expelled from the
city, about eighty names…” (Panarion, 26.17.4–9) [2]
Epiphanius’s statement here shows that his material
is second hand; and is based on a conversation that he had with a group of
young women, and not the actual leaders of the sect. He leads us to believe
that his evidence is first-hand; but why would these women divulge things to
him that are supposed to be secret? Did these women really tell him the whole
truth? And, furthermore, has Epiphanius presented an accurate account of what
he was told, or is he giving us his own prejudiced interpretation? Indeed there
are too many unanswered questions in relation to Epiphanius’s account and the
lurid accusations that he makes. Until these questions are answered,
Epiphanius’s highly prejudicial statements (which are manifest throughout his
treatise) cannot be accepted at face value. Nor can we assume that the “Gnostics”
are guilty of the crimes that he charges them with.
The one crime that this sect was actually
guilty of under Roman/Catholic Law is the crime of “heresy” and of holding
religious services that were not sanctioned by the bishop. This was punishable
by the Roman state; and offenders were liable to confiscation of property/books
and exile or imprisonment. Epiphanius states that he reported this sect to the bishops,
and that they were rounded up and sent into exile. If his accusations of
cannibalism were true then it would seem that the sanctions against this sect
would be much more serious, and more widely publicized in Catholic sources.
Again, Epiphanius’s charges, and the magnitude thereof, lack support.
There is one other issue regarding
Epiphanius that I would like to submit for the consideration of my readers. I
want to raise the question of whether Epiphanius’s vicious libel was possibly
the result of his own sexual repression. Historically, Epiphanius was a
lifelong monk ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm
). It’s quite possible that he was a virgin his whole life. For a young man the
celibate path can lead to enormous emotional pressures. The desire for female
companionship and comfort can be very powerful, and can lead to deep
unhappiness if not fulfilled. I believe it is possible that Epiphanius became
agitated over these women. Knowing that these “beautiful” women were heretics,
he probably confronted them with some stupid condescending questions or
accusations. They probably answered his foolishness with a stinging wit and
rebuke, and made fun of him. Epiphanius’s account may very well be an
expression of his anger and hurt that he felt toward these women as well as the
sexual repression that he felt because of them. He reacted by making these
women and their sect the object of all his venomous frustration and anger. Could
this be the true source of the emotional charge in his account–as opposed to
the popular notion that he witnessed something bad?
Again, Epiphanius can provide no eye-witness
to confirm that any of the practices he describes ever took place. Furthermore
there is evidence to show that the worst of his accusations are actually
derived from a stock of folklore that had been spread against Christians and
other groups for years (see below).
So what do the Gnostics themselves say about
these issues? It is a simple fact that no Gnostic text from antiquity can be
shown which gives any sanction to such practices. Nor can the Catholic clergy
provide any such evidence from Gnostic circles. Epiphanius claims to quote
Gnostic texts, but conveniently, these texts are no longer extant; and there is
the problem of whether his interpretations can be trusted, let alone
corroborated by other Gnostic sources.
Quite to the contrary, extant Gnostic texts
can be shown to actually condemn these practices that Epiphanius complains
about. Here is an example from a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples in
the Gnostic text Pistis Sophia (387; 2 Jeu. 43). The disciple
Thomas informs Jesus of a certain rumor regarding some who observe the
Eucharist:
“We
have heard that there are men on earth who take the sperm of men and the flux
of women, and mix them with lentils and eat them... Surely this is an unseemly
deed?”
Jesus responds as follows:
“Then
was Jesus wroth with the world and said unto Thomas, Amen I say, this sin is
more heinous than all sins and all iniquities!”
Jesus next tells his
disciples of the fate of those people who engage in such practices:
“Men
of that kind, they shall be instantly taken into the outer darkness…they shall
be destroyed, they shall perish in the outer darkness, in the region where
there is no mercy and no light, but weeping and gnashing of teeth. And every
soul that shall be carried into the darkness, shall never again return, but
shall perish and be dissolved.” (G. Mead, Pistis Sophia, Theosophical
Pub., 1896, pg. 390)
The passage above certainly reflects a time
in late antiquity when Gnostics were being accused of such activities. The intent
in this passage is to cite the highest authority, Jesus, that such practices
are condemned in the strongest terms in Gnostic tradition. There will be no
“mercy” for those who engage in such practices. They will not enter the Bridal
Chamber with Sophia and the Savior, but will inherit the “outer darkness”
instead.
In the Nag Hammadi text Thomas the
Contender there is a passage which reflects on the larger issue of
promiscuity. Here Jesus warns Thomas that it is the desire for sex and
procreation that binds the material order together. Jesus warns Thomas: “Woe to
you who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them!” and
also “Listen to what I am going to tell you, and believe the truth. That which
sows and that which is sown will dissolve in fire…” (144:8f., 142:10f.).
The Gnostic text The Sophia of Jesus
Christ makes repeated references to sex as the “unclean rubbing” (93, 108).
Hippolytus reports that the Naassenes regard
sexual intercourse as an “extremely filthy and wicked practice” and that the
Mystery cult god, the castrated Attis, is a symbol of the spiritual man who
avoids sexual intercourse (Refutation of All Heresies, 5:2; Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 5, pg. 49).
The passages above represent a general
consensus of what the extant Gnostic texts actually say regarding sex and
sex-oriented sacraments. These statements make it unlikely that Gnostics
considered sex and emissions to be suitable sacramental instruments. There are
no Gnostic writings in existence which extol the joys of sex and the (supposed)
power of its essences. Nothing like that exists. There is no Gnostic version of
the Kama Sutra. This is really quite significant when you think about it.
But again the Catholic Fathers have their
reports, which cannot be entirely ignored. Irenaeus complains how that the
Valentinians insist that it is “always necessary for them to practice the
mystery of [sexual] conjunction” (Against Heresies, 1.6.4). He also
preserves this supposed Valentinian saying: “Whosoever being in this world does
not so love a woman, so as to possess her, is not of the truth nor shall attain
the truth” (ibid.). Irenaeus claims that the Valentinians are for this reason
notorious for seducing women. But then this has to be compared with the
testimony of Clement of Alexandria, who wrote of the same sect and doctrine at
the exact same time as Irenaeus. Clement was much closer to the Valentinians
and had direct access to the letters of Valentinus himself, which Clement
quotes on numerous occasions in his treatise Stromateis (3:7,
From both Irenaeus and Clement there is
plausible evidence that the Valentinians regarded sexual union as a “mystery”
of the order above. And Clement’s report of the Carpocratians implied that they
regarded free sexuality as a demonstration of the liberty that they
(supposedly) attained through the Gospel (see below). If there is any truth to
what these “Fathers” say then it may be true that there was some womanizing
among the Valentinians; and the Carpocratians may have condoned some form of free
love. The most important point to be noted in connection with these reports
is that neither of these men make the vile accusations as found later with
Epiphanius and Augustine. Stated bluntly, neither Irenaeus nor Clement accuse
the “heretics” of drinking semen or menstrual blood, or of eating babies.
Surely these men would have mentioned these details if these rumors were
credible.
Probably the most honest and concise statement
from the Catholic clergy on this matter is from Justin Martyr (c. 110–160) who
lived during the heyday of the heresies. Justin regarded the rumors against the
heretics with skepticism; and he wrote accordingly to the Roman Emperor
Antoninus Pius:
“Whether
they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds–the upsetting of the lamp,
and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh–we know not.” (1 Apology
26)
Justin disbelieved the rumors that were
being spread about Christians and heretics even in his own day. Here we see
that Epiphanius’s story has roots which go back over 200 years. But what is the
source of these rumors? Did they originate among Christians? Justin indicates
that these rumors were spread by the pagans against Christians. The historical
record indeed shows that there is a long pattern in pagan Roman society where
obscure religious groups became the targets of public gossip, slander and
persecution. Justin complained in his Apology how that Christians were
bearing the same libels and injustices that were also endured by the Greek
philosophers, especially Socrates. In real history these kinds of accusations
can be shown to be part of a pattern of superstitious rumor-mongering that had
long existed in Roman society. Even before the birth of Christ there was a
pattern in pagan Roman society where foreign or secretive sects became the
objects of public abuse. In the context of history the Christians were simply
the latest in a long line of victims that, before them, also included the
Druids and the Mystery cults of
One of the best examples of this persecution
can be seen in an account provided by the Roman historian Livy (i.e. Titus
Livius, 59 BC–17 AD). Livy records a scandal that broke out in Rome in the year
186 BC, which involved the spread of a Greek mystery cult into Italy that was
dedicated to the worship of Dionysos, and whom the Romans called Bacchus (in
Latin). The scandal began with the lurid story of a certain young woman who did
not want her boy-friend to be initiated into the cult. This offended the young
man’s mother and step father, and she was compelled to tell her story to the
Roman Consul Postumius. (In the
“From
the time that the rites were performed in common, men mingling with women and
the freedom of darkness added, no form of crime, no form of wrongdoing was left
untried. There were more lustful practices among men with one another than
among women. If any of them were disincline to endure abuse or reluctant to
commit crime, they were sacrificed as victims. To consider nothing wrong, she
continued, was the highest form of devotion among them.” (Livy, 39.13.10–12; Loeb Classical
Library, vol. 11, pg. 255)
Livy records that
Postumius brought these charges to the Senate and before the people. He denounced
the Bacchic rites as a “false religion” (“prava religio”) and as a secret
society engaged in a conspiracy against the state. Postumius also warned about
how that “foreign cults” can corrupt the Roman tradition:
“How
often in the times of our fathers and grand fathers, has the task been assigned
to the magistrates of forbidding the introduction of foreign cults, of
excluding dabblers in sacrifices and fortune tellers from the Forum, the
Circus, and the City, of searching out and burning books of prophecies, and of
annulling every system of sacrifice except that performed in the Roman way.”
(Ibid., 39.16.8–9)
Here we can see that
religious intolerance among the Romans was an ancient tradition indeed. With
the permission of the Senate the consuls Postumius and Marcius set out to
remove this menace and to arrest and prosecute anyone who was initiated in the
cult. However, Livy never presents any hard evidence that these crimes actually
happened. And historians today doubt that this was the real motive behind the
suppression of the cult (J. Cook, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. IX,
pg. 762; N. Lewis, Roman Civilization, vol. 1, pg. 503). The real motive
appears in the second passage quoted above. The Bacchic cult was foreign and it
had a secret priest hood that operated outside of the official Roman religious
establishment. Many historians believe that this was the real reason that the
sect was suppressed. When we read about the charges leveled against the cult,
both in terms of what they do in secret in the dark, and the foreign nature of
its rites, we can compare this to the charges that were made against the
Christians later by pagan critics. In a later period the Romans accused the
Christians of the same litany of offenses that the Bacchists were accused of
over 200 years before. The Christians were accused of being a secret society,
of sexual immorality and cannibalism. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian wrote Apologies
in defense against these accusations, and both writers wrote fiery reproaches
against the Romans for the perversions and abuses that they tolerated among
themselves every day, even while they pointed fingers at Christians.
The attitude of many
Romans toward the early Christians can be seen in this passage from the Roman
historian Tacitus (c. 59–117), in which he relates Nero’s decision to blame the
Christians at
“Nero
set up as culprits, and punished with the utmost cruelty, a class hated for
their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from
whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius
Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment this pernicious
superstition broke out again, not only in
In the words of
Tacitus it is obvious that the Christians were regarded by Romans in a manner
on par with the cult of Bacchus. Like the Bacchists the Christians are regarded
as a criminal class of perverts who are of absolutely no worth to ‘good’
society.
But then again, not
all Romans agreed on the historical record as to whether the Christians were bad
people (aside from their refusal to worship the Emperor and their impiety
against pagan traditions in general). Other pagans living in the same age as
Tacitus had their doubts. One example is Pliny the Younger (c. 61–112). Pliny
was the Roman governor (procurator) of the Asian
Here is link to the
extant letters exchanged between Pliny and the Emperor Trajan: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html
Another Roman emperor
who is said to have doubted the rumors against Christians is Trajan’s
successor, the emperor Hadrian (r. 117–138). Eusebius preserved a “rescript”
supposedly written by Hadrian, in which the emperor orders that Christians are
only to be condemned through a court trial, and not simply on the basis of innuendo.
Hadrian furthermore urges punishment against those who spread false rumors of
criminal activity: “By Hercules! If anyone bring an accusation through mere
calumny (slander), make judgment in regard to his criminality, and see to it
that you inflict punishment.” (Eusebius, Church History, 4.9.1–3. Note: the
authenticity of Hadrian’s “rescript” is disputed by some historians. I have
chosen to include the text as evidence because I believe it is plausible. I’ll
leave it to the reader to judge the evidence.)
Trajan, Hadrian and
Pliny represent the better side of Roman society. These men did not allow
themselves to be swayed by the vulgar rumors of the common mob. If we can
accept the rescript of Hadrian as genuine then this emperor even went out of
the way to punish those who reported these slanders to the authorities. But
again, these men reflect the exception and not the rule in Roman society. Most
Romans traditionally regarded foreign cults with suspicion and contempt.
Over time, this
traditional Roman view of foreign cults would become part of the culture of the
Catholic Church as it grew and became a mainstream institution. The historical
record shows the pattern in the way that the Catholic Church treated the
heretics: slander, political repression, confiscation of writings and
properties, exile and/or imprisonment. (In the later medieval period these
measures would also include the cruelest tortures and public executions–which
reflect the exact same measures that pagan Romans used on early Christians.)
Of course, even at an
earlier stage the early Catholic clergy can be shown to have engaged in the
popular defamatory tactics of the day. An example can be seen with the Catholic
Father Hippolytus (c. 170–236) who wrote a scathing account of the Roman church
while it was governed by a rival “orthodox” theologian named Callistus (Refutation
of All Heresies, 9:7). At this time the Catholic Church was actually divided
between two “orthodox” schools of theology. These schools were divided over the
question of whether the Son and the Father were actually one (cf. Jn.
Hippolytus describes
the Roman church, under Callistus, as a brothel (ibid.). He accuses Callistus
of allowing a lax environment where young women from upper classed Roman
families frequent the church out of a desire for intrigue (in an outlaw sect)
and to seek out sexual liaisons with low born men and slaves. And, when some of
these women became pregnant, Hippolytus claims that Callistus allowed them to
induce abortions in various ways. Hippolytus claims that some of the women took
poisons to expel their fetuses, whereas others wore braces around their waists which
forced the fetus out as it grew in size.
Such were the affairs
in the Roman Church in the early third century–that is, according to Hippolytus.
Ironically Hippolytus is not talking about a sect of Gnostics. The Monarchian
school aspired to orthodoxy and simply believed that Jesus and Jehovah were one
and the same. The question is can we really believe Hippolytus’s account? Or is
his testimony the product of a factious theologian who was filled with
jealousy? Was Callistus really to blame for the sordid events that Hippolytus
describes? Or is Hippolytus really blowing certain things out of proportion so
that he can smear Callistus? To this day Catholic historians doubt the veracity
of this account, and they note that there never was a time in Catholic history
where Callistus or his supporters were ever out of communion with the Catholic
Church. In general Catholic tradition Callistus has a good reputation.
Hippolytus is the only “orthodox” writer to attack him; and indeed Hippolytus
slanders him in every possible way.
I suspect that
Hippolytus was taking everyday big city social problems, that the Catholic
Church had to struggle with, and he was cynically blaming this on Callistus.
But Hippolytus’s integrity is suspect, and this can be clearly seen in the way
that he tries to link Callistus’ theology with the Greek philosopher Heraclitus
(ibid., 9:2–7). This is an absurd stretch, and it shows the length to which
Hippolytus was willing to go to smear other people’s reputations. Hippolytus was
inevitably compelled to smear his own Catholic Church as a depraved den of
whores. But in the bigger picture his defamatory tactics are all too familiar.
In the cases of the
Catholic clerics I have named in this article, Epiphanius, Augustine, Cyril,
and Hippolytus, I think the case can be made that the charges they make are
more a reflection of their own depraved minds, and fantasies, or frustrations, or
jealousies, as opposed to anything that “heretics” were really engaged in. When
we read such lurid accounts, and such disgusting imagery, we must give equal
consideration to the mindset of the writer as well as to those who bear the
brunt of such defamatory attacks. There can be no doubt that all of these men
set out to defame someone else. But what is the motive? And are the reports
based on verifiable facts? Too often in these reports the corroborative evidence
is lacking.
Personally, I think
that Epiphanius, Augustine and Cyril, etc., all had depraved minds to begin
with; and this shows up in the ways that these men chose to handle the problem
of heresy. Another example of this can be seen with Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202).
Historians regard Irenaeus as the great father of Christian “orthodoxy.”
Irenaeus wrote a massive treatise against the Gnostics which was entitled “For
the Detection and Overthrow of falsely so-called Gnosis.” Today the
treatise is known by its short title Against Heresies (c. 180). Against
Heresies represents the first exhaustive effort by an “orthodox” theologian
to give a systematic explanation of why “orthodox” doctrine is right, and why
everything that the Gnostics and Marcionites say is wrong. In this treatise
Irenaeus accused the various heretical groups of engaging in all kinds of
excesses. Irenaeus doesn’t repeat the vile accusations that Epiphanius does,
but the malicious intent is there.
Inevitably, in his
zeal to attack and refute the Gnostics Irenaeus makes certain statements which
can only lead one to question the integrity of this man’s state of mind. In the
passage quoted below Irenaeus sets forth the most bizarre allegory from the Old
Testament in order to drive home his belief that the Gnostics are wrong for finding
evil in the Old Testament. Irenaeus claims that if the scriptures do not
condemn a certain act as evil then readers are not to judge for themselves, but
are to regard the passage as an allegory for something else (Against
Heresies, 4.31.1). Irenaeus chooses the biblical account of
Irenaeus would have
us believe that this incestuous tryst between
“[T]he
arrangement designed by God was carried out, by which the two daughters (that
is, the two churches)…gave birth to children begotten of one and the same
Father… For there was no other person who could impart to them the quickening
seed… Moreover, by the words they used this fact was pointed out–that there
is no other one who can confer among the elder and younger church the power of
giving birth to children, besides our Father. … Now this whole matter was
indicated through Lot, that the seed (sperm) of the Father of all–that
is, of the Spirit of God, by whom all things were made–was commingled and
united with flesh–that is, with his own workmanship; by which commixture and
unity the two synagogues–that is, the two churches–produced from their own
father living sons of God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.31.1–2;
emphasis added)
Irenaeus thus
believes that the biblical account of
I think that
Irenaeus’s perverted and blasphemous allegory is typical of the twisted
thoughts that thrive in the minds of fanatical “orthodox” theologians. In the
same way we can see where other “orthodox” clergy are eager to repeat the most
twisted and perverted rumors against people with whom they disagree on
theology. And I suspect that this neurotic pattern has some reflection in the
Catholic priesthood today, where there is an epidemic of child molestation, and
an organized pattern of cover-ups where offending priests were shuttled from parish
to parish. Just recently the Pope even came to
On the other hand, I know
that there are some pro-Gnostic writers out there who seem more than happy to
give credence to people like Epiphanius. I recall the statement of one
particular writer: “There is apparently no reason to doubt Epiphanius’s
testimony. If we possessed eye-witness accounts of other sects, they would
surely describe scenes that varied only in their minor details.” Again I
express my skepticism: How can this writer be so certain that Epiphanius
actually witnessed what he reports? To my knowledge there are in fact no
eye-witness reports that any of these things ever happened. I pity the fool out
there who is pretending to be a Gnostic, and is drinking semen, simply on the
basis of something that Epiphanius said. Again, I think Epiphanius’s tales are mostly
the products of his own sick mind.
Finally, let us
consider if there is any core truth at all to what these writers say.
Personally I think that Clement of Alexandria gave a reliable account of the
Carpocratians in
I suspect that the
Carpocratians and some other Gnostic sects were controversial because they
believed that the Gospel was bringing in a new spiritual/social order. This concept
is summarized by
Some of my readers
may be thinking of Paul as they read my words. Wasn’t Paul against fornication
and homosexuality? I believe that Paul’s words have to be taken in context, and
that we cannot assume that Paul’s letters, in their present form, represent
Paul’s statements in the original context. I will address this issue in an
upcoming article; and I think that some of my readers will be surprised. (See
my archive article Was Paul a misogynist? for an example of this problem
of context in Paul’s letters.)
Hopefully this
article has offered my readers an opportunity to reconsider the traditional
view of Gnostic morality. I do believe that the ancient Gnostics have been
portrayed unfairly; and even some modern pro-Gnostic writers have contributed
to this problem. Hopefully I have offered my readers an opportunity to dispel
some of that disinformation. –jw
Notes
[1] H. Maier, The Journal of Early
Christian Studies, vol. 4, Number 4, Winter 1996, pg. 441f.
[2] My quote from Panarion, 26.17.4–9
is derived primarily from the translation of Bentley Layton along with some
material from Frank Williams. The words “trivial myth” are from Williams. Cf.
B. Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures,
[3] Some readers may notice that I haven’t
mentioned Jews here. But historically it is a fact that the Jews and their
religion were given special legal recognition by the Roman state beginning with
Julius Caesar (Geza Vermes, Who’s Who in the Age of Jesus, pg. 63f.). For
this reason Jews cannot be compared to Christians or the worshippers of
Bacchus, etc. It is certainly true that Jews were persecuted by the later Catholic
Roman state; but this article does not provide the appropriate occasion and
context in which to discuss this issue.
[4] As the very word implies, Vulgar
people (being ignorant, uncultured and uneducated) are exactly the type of
people who spread scandalous rumors and lies about other people or subjects
they don’t understand. A modern example is where a vulgar person speculates
about someone who is bookish or weird. To the vulgar man that person is labeled
a “queer.” Among educated people that person may be held in high esteem as a
scientist, or a philosopher or theologian. I believe that this simple vulgar
mindset is the source of these scandalous and disgusting tales that some
Catholic clergymen told about the heretics. These stories originated from
vulgar people (among the pagans) and were developed over generations into lurid
and vulgar fables as found in Epiphanius. I believe that Cyril, Epiphanius and
Augustine repeated these stories because these men were from vulgar backgrounds
themselves. In contrast the Catholic Fathers quite often describe Gnostic
teachers as educated men schooled in Greek philosophy. Among the Catholic
clergy both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria had backgrounds in high
education and culture. Neither of these men affirm the most vile of the vulgar
stories about the Gnostics.
E-mail Jim West:
ogdood@yahoo.com