Gnosticism As Inherently Syncretistic? Identity Constructions Among Ancient Christians and Protestant Apologetes

CHAPTER 2 Gnosticism as Inherently Syncretistic? Identity Constructions among Ancient Christians and Protestant Apologetes Paul Linjamaa This text will discuss a characteristic that has often been attributed to Gnosticism in scholarly discourse: its ‘syncretistic nature’.1 The protestant theologian Adolf von Harnack, in his work Dogmengeschichte (1885), called Gnosticism ‘the acute Hellenization of Christianity’.2 Gnosticism was – like Hellenistic culture in general – parasitic, adopting and blending many different cultures and ideas, while Christianity represented something pure, a sui generis phenomenon. This chapter problematizes – from the perspective of the historical portrayal of the phenomenon called Gnosticism (both ancient and more contemporary) – the claim that some religious expressions are more pure than others. The manifesta- tions of early Christianity were extremely varied, a fact that has become more ap- parent through discoveries of such early Christian material as found in the Nag Hammadi-texts. Today, few scholars of the early history of Christianity envision that there ever was such a thing as an early orthodox unity.3 For example, many of the so called Gnostics in ancient time simply saw themselves as Christians and never used the labels given to them by the Church Fathers such as ‘Valentinian’, ‘Markosian’ and ‘Marcionite’, just to mention a few of the groups singled out and made ‘other’. By highlighting aspects of the history of, and scholarship into, Gnosticism – a field that so clearly reveals the plurality of early Christianity – this chapter will attempt to contribute to the discourses of contemporary theological 1 For one example of the association of Gnosis and Gnosticism with the phenomenon of syn- cretism see Alexander Böhlig, Gnosis und Synkretismus, 2 volumes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987–1989). Another good example is Richard Smith’s comment about the contemporary ‘Gnostic’ church Ecclesia Gnostica, that it, ‘like the ancient Gnostics groups, has blended several disparate traditions and may therefore be described as syncretistic’. Richard Smith, ‘The Revival of Ancient Gnosis’, in The Allure of Gnosticism, eds. Robert A. Segal, June Singer, and Murray Stein (Chicago and La Salle: Open Court, 1995), 204. 2 Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma I (New York: Dover Publishing, 1961), 226. 3 For more on this perspective, see, for example, Heikki Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��8 | doi ��.��63/9789004336599_004 26 Linjamaa and philosophical studies on religion by making plain the inadequacy behind claims of authenticity, purity and originality for creating religious legitimacy. Early Christian Diversity, Gnostic Schools and Ancient Strategies for Creating Christian Identities In one sense, Harnack’s view of Gnosticism as syncretistic drew on ancient traditions. Already the Church Fathers imagined sharp lines between ‘pure’ Christianity and various heretical ‘Gnostic Schools’ that mixed Jesus’ salvation- message with all kinds of pagan, philosophical and ‘foreign’ stuff. Irenaeus (ap- prox. 130–202), Bishop of Lyon, wrote a famous and influential work entitled On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely so Called.4 In this work he lists, describes and refutes certain Christian groups’ doctrines and practices. Irenaeus’ refutations echoed the cautionary advice directed at ‘Timothy’ and his congregation by the anonymous author of the New Testament epistle 1 Timothy. This pseudo-Pauline epistle, usually dated to around the first half of the second cen- tury, also rejected certain Christian interpretations by claiming that they were ‘knowledge falsely so-called’ (1 Timothy 6:20). Exactly what this gnosis (knowledge) was that lingered in the vicinities of Timothy’s congregation is beyond our reach but we can nevertheless draw the conclusion that even the earliest genera- tions of Christians disagreed as to what was gnosis and what was false gnosis. The term gnosis or a ‘Gnostic’ (gnostikos), one who has knowledge, was not a derogatory term in ancient times, not even among all the proto-orthodox authors, that is, those early Christian authors whom the Church later came to view as orthodox before there was any organized orthodoxy (essentially pre-Nicaea). Clement of Alexandria wrote lengthy descriptions of how a real Gnostic should behave, and by Gnostic he meant an orthodox Christian, a right practicing Christian.5 However, many apologetic proto-orthodox authors, like Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian of Carthage and Epiphanius of Salamis, would follow Irenaeus’ example and begin to use the term ‘Gnostic’ in a generalizing way to denote groups who they believed had claimed access to knowledge they themselves did not recognize, often describing the ‘Gnostic’ pejoratively (for 4 Commonly known as Adversus haereses, usually abbreviated Haer. 5 Clement, Stromata 7. For an English translation see Henrik Chadwick and J.W.L., Oulton, eds., Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen. The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1954)..

Load more