Gnostic Insights in the New Testament
Gospels
(Orthodoxy, Heresy and Jesus, part II)
By James M. West.
Copyright © November 12, 2007. Revised
E-mail: ogdood@yahoo.com
In my previous article, Orthodoxy,
Heresy and Jesus, I exposed the contradictions inherent in the literal
“flesh and blood” interpretation of the Gospels. I also explained why it is
inherently unjust for so-called “orthodox” Christians to use the four Gospels
as a standard by which to judge other Christians who choose not to interpret
the Gospels literally. In this article I want to explain why the Gnostics,
historically, made an appeal to these same Gospels and regarded them as sources
of divine revelation.
When we hear the words “Gnostic scripture”
we most often think of the Gnostic Gospels and treatises as found in the Nag
Hammadi Library. But historically the Gnostics were also known for their
extensive use of the Gospels and Epistles that we associate today with the New
Testament. And indeed these very writings were at the center of the controversy
that raged between early Catholic and Gnostic factions. The Catholic Fathers
provided a record of this controversy from their point of view; and they make
clear that the Gnostic use of these writings was a major problem. The Gnostic
use of such Gospels as Matthew, Luke and John threatened everything that the
Catholic clergy wanted to establish in terms of a uniform and ‘correct’
theological standard. The problem was that the Gospels did not provide a clear
standard in themselves. The Gnostics recognized this problem, and they seized
upon this issue accordingly.
The great Catholic Father Irenaeus informs
us that the Gnostics had a peculiar critical approach to the Gospels. According
to his report the Gnostics did not believe that everything in these Gospels was
purely true or accurate. Irenaeus described the Gnostic approach this way:
“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and
accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority,
and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them
by those who are ignorant of tradition. … For they maintain that the Apostles
intermingled the things of the Law with the words of the Savior; and that not
the Apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the
Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place (Sophia), and yet again from
the Pleroma. But they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have
knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator
after a most impudent manner!” (Against Heresies, 3.2.1-2.)
In there own way the Gnostics recognized
that the Gospels were composite in nature: hence some of Jesus’ sayings came
from the Demiurge; other sayings came from Sophia, or the Pleroma. And the
Apostles themselves confused Jesus’ teachings with the Law of Moses, and they
preached under the “influence of Jewish opinions” (ibid. 3.12.12). According to
the Gnostics only a certain element of the Gospels contained the pure,
spiritual truth. In this present article we will look at an important example
of what this truth actually was, and why the Gnostics used the Gospels as a
license to blaspheme the Creator.
Let us begin by considering the question of
what form the four Gospel texts existed in when they were used by “heretics”
like Valentinus, Ptolemy and Marcion. These people conducted their activities
around the middle of the second century. Catholic records from the same time
period show that the Gospel manuscripts were not named and quoted as they were
later with Irenaeus (c. 180). Irenaeus is the first Catholic leader to quote
the Gospels by the names we know today. If we go back a generation to Justin
Martyr (c. 160) we find that the Gospels are not quoted by name, and are
referred to instead as “memoirs of the Apostles” (Adolph von Harnack, History
of Dogma, vol. 2, pg. 41f.). The Gnostic Ptolemy lived in the same period
as Justin. He alludes to the Gospel of Matthew in his Letter to Flora,
which historians date between 150 and 160. Like Justin, Ptolemy does not
mention or quote “Matthew” by name. A generation earlier we find Marcion (c.
140). Marcion used a form of the Gospel that Irenaeus later identified as Luke.
But Marcion never identified that Gospel with Luke just as Justin didn’t. Also
of significance is that Marcion used a different form of this Gospel (Luke)
than the Catholic Fathers later used. The Fathers accused Marcion of
“mutilating” Luke’s Gospel; but the valid question remains as to whether the
present Gospel of Luke, which we have inherited from the Catholic Fathers, is
truly comprised of unified elements which constitute an original, homogenous
form (see below).
My point is that there is no evidence that
the four Gospel traditions existed in the forms in which they were named later.
An example of this problem may be seen in the letter of 1 Clement, which
historians date at 90 AD. In orthodox tradition 1 Clement was written by one of
the “Apostolic fathers” who was known as “Clement of Rome.” The term “Apostolic
fathers” is a name for those early church leaders who were supposedly born and
raised among the Apostles. Clement was said to have known the Apostle Peter
personally and later succeeded him as bishop of the Roman church. The letter of
1 Clement was supposedly written by him. If this is true then this letter is
the earliest ecclesiastical text outside of the New Testament (assuming all the
NT writings are as early as claimed).
Like the other sources named above, 1 Clement
does not quote any Gospel by name. But in one section there is a quote from
certain elements of Matthew. The writer begins by saying “Remember the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ, how he said, ‘Woe to that man [by whom offences come]!
It were better for him if he had never been born, than that he should cast a
stumbling-block before my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone
should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the
sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones’.”
(1 Clement 46, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 17f.)
Of significance is that this passage from
“Clement” is actually a conflation of diverse passages from Matthew 18:6 and
26:24. As these passages appear in our present day Gospel, they have no
relationship to each other and are found in different parts of the book. Yet
Clement quotes these passages as if they are from one statement. The above
passage raises the following questions: Did this writer simply conflate two
passages from different parts of Matthew? – or is he quoting from a source
which framed Jesus’ words in a different order? (Think about it: Why would
Clement, the bishop of
All the evidence at hand shows that, before
the Catholic Fathers (c. 180), the Gospel traditions were not named, and that
these traditions were not organized in the forms that appeared later. In
support of this point is that the four Gospel manuscripts today are anonymous:
none of these texts identifies its author, or explains the nature of the
relationship of that author to the Lord of whom he bears witness. It is amazing
that the Gospels purport to be witnesses to the single most important event in
history; and yet none of the authors will put their names on these documents!
(Of note is that the author of John claims to derive his information from the
“disciple whom Jesus loved”, Jn. 21:24. But neither the author nor the disciple
are officially identified by name.)
Also in support of this point is that the
Gospels contain internal, conflicting elements which appear obvious once they
are exposed. One obvious example can be seen in a comparison of Matthew 10:5-6,
23 and 28:19. In the former passage Jesus instructs his Apostles to preach to
Israelites only; and in verse 23 Jesus assures them that they “shall not have
gone through all the cities of
Next, let us compare Matthew 28:19, “Go ye
therefore and teach all nations…” And also Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of
the kingdom shall be preached in all the world…then shall the end come.”
The passages above contain irreconcilable
statements. In Matthew 10 Jesus instructs his Apostles to preach to Israelites
only, and that they will not have gone through all the cities of
It is obvious that Matthew 10 is derived
from an early Jewish Christian tradition which regarded Jesus as a Jewish
prophet who proclaimed that the “son of man”, viz. the Messiah, was coming
soon. Matthew 24:34 is also part of this Jewish tradition: Jesus promises his
followers that the kingdom will arrive before the end of their generation. In
comparison, Matthew 28:19 is from a different source which no longer recognizes
the imminent arrival of the kingdom; hence the followers of Jesus must now
preach to the entire world before the end finally comes. Matthew 24:14 is also
from a different source and is in conflict with Matthew
Another example of contradictory elements
may be seen in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus
informs his followers that no part of the Law of Moses will pass away until all
things are fulfilled. As we read though the Sermon everything is consistent
until we reach verse 38. At this point the Sermon takes a radically different
turn, and “Jesus” begins annulling certain definitive points of the Law. Thus
in verse 38 Jesus annuls the “eye for an eye” statute (Ex.
Matthew 5:17-19 is consistent with the
early Jewish tradition of Jesus as found in Matthew 10. Jesus tells his
followers to keep all of the Law, and the Apostles are to preach to Israelites
only. But Matthew 5:38-48 contains a doctrine and theology which is not
consistent with the other elements. Either Jesus was deeply confused, or Mt.
5:38-48 originates from some other alternative tradition of Jesus.
The theology of Matthew 5:38-48 is also
unbiblical and un-Jewish, and at this point a connection with Gnosticism
becomes evident. In Matthew
The unique ideas in Matthew 5:38-48 are
reflected in the teaching of the Gnostic Ptolemy in his Letter to Flora.
He reasons accordingly that the Law of Moses was not given by the “perfect God”
because the Law itself is “imperfect” and in need of “fulfillment” (Bentley
Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 308f.). Ptolemy understood Jesus’
teaching in the Sermon to mean that the Law itself was given by the Demiurge,
and that Jesus corrected the Law under the authority of the higher, perfect
Father. It is noteworthy that Ptolemy established his doctrine on the Gospel we
know as Matthew, and not from any conventional “Gnostic” text.
Another point where Matthew contains a
non-Jewish, non-biblical element is in Matthew 11:27. This was one of the
passages that Irenaeus was most concerned about; and he remarked of the
Gnostics that Matthew 11:27 was the “crown” of their system (Against
Heresies, 1.20.3). This passage reads “All things are delivered unto me of
my Father: and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man
the Father, save the Son.” Irenaeus resorted to specious theological reasoning
in order to explain this passage away, as if Jesus were simply speaking to
orthodox Christians (ibid., 4.6). But the true, relevant question is what did
these words mean to Jews and everything they believed about the scriptures and
the Law? What Jesus was in fact saying is that Moses had no knowledge of the
true God. This is the proper context in which the passage in Matthew
This theme regarding Moses is also found in
the Gospel of John, and is a central underlying theme. In John
This theme is also reflected in the words
of John the Baptist as reported in John 1:17-18. John testified of Jesus that
“the Law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No Man
has seen God at any time.” John here denied that Moses had seen God and
received the Law from God as is stated, e.g., in Deuteronomy 34:10, “And there
arose not a prophet since in
The author of John makes a special point of
supporting the correctness and infallibility of this theme that is introduced
through John the Baptist. Thus in John 5:31-33 Jesus says: “If I bear witness
of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me;
and I know that the witness he witnessed of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and
he bare witness unto the truth.”
In the above passage Jesus is made to
confirm that John the Baptist’s testimony is “true” as found in John 1:17-18.
Thus according to John the Baptist, Moses did not receive the Law from God, and
that “grace and truth” came only through Jesus, not Moses. Thus only Jesus
speaks the truth; whereas the Law came through Moses. The Law itself is not
the truth. The Gospel of John further states that this was how the
Pharisees understood Jesus when they rejected his message: “We know that God
spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is” (John
This theme is also found in John
In the passages I have presented above we
can see elements of a theology that does not conform to Judeo-Christian
conceptions or doctrines. The theology of an unknown God – a God above god – is
implicit in these passages. And this was why the Gnostics believed that there
was a divine core truth in the New Testament Gospel traditions. And once these
elements are pointed out, it is possible to see why the Gnostics attributed one
part of the Gospel to the Demiurge, and another part to the Pleroma, as
Irenaeus reported. The Gnostics recognized that there was more than one
theology in the teachings of Jesus.
I would like to conclude with one last
example from the Gospel of Luke as used by Marcion. The Catholic Fathers
blasted Marcion and accused him of cutting up this Gospel. Supposedly Marcion
removed the first three and a half chapters of Luke. And he took Luke 3:1 and
attached it to
But are these charges really true? Is it
that simple; and did this Gospel really exist in the form in which we have
received it from the Catholic Fathers?
Let us compare two passages from Luke 6:35
and 4:8. In the former passage Jesus tells his followers: “But love your
enemies…and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be children of the
Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil.”
And in Luke 4:8 we read the words of Jesus,
which are a quote from Deuteronomy
The discerning reader will recognize that
the theology of Luke
In short, Luke
For better or worse the New Testament
Gospels (or certain elements thereof) were an important part of the emergence
of Gnostic theology. The Gnostics were, and are to this day, those mystics who
have revelation of the better God above it all. Some elements of the Gospels
originate from such people; and they placed these ideas in Jesus’ mouth.
Also of significance is that the four New
Testament Gospels can be shown to be composite in nature, and are derived from
diverse elements which were not originally united. Some parts are Jewish
Christian, other parts are proto-Catholic, and other parts are proto-Gnostic.
The Gospels we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were pieced together by
different sects, all of whom attempted to reconcile diverse traditions and
ideas into uniform and coherent accounts; all of which were intended to force
these elements into conformity with the emerging Catholic, orthodox creed. But
when these diverse elements are examined it becomes conceivable as to how
Gnostics embraced the teachings of Jesus, but those teachings never originally
included the notion of a “second coming” or a fleshly incarnation, or a Jewish
theology, or a Mosaic priority. Again, as the Gospels presently exist, there is
evidence to show that each text is comprised of separate elements which were
never part of any original unity or consensus.
Of course, in order to find a pure
statement of the Gnostic Gospel truths we must look to the Gnostic writings
themselves. In an up-coming article we will look at some of the most important
truths which have been either obscured or omitted from the NT Gospels, and are
preserved in the Gnostic writings alone. –jw
Readers can e-mail their comments, etc., to
me at ogdood@yahoo.com