4. ' Still more directly and indubitably do the Pastoral Epistles carry us to the period of the Gnostic heresy,' writes Baur, while here again his position is almost universally modified or set a.side. The false teachers of the.se Epistles (.see P.\STiil!.\L El'P., Timothy, Titi'S'), to dwell only on leading features, taught a different doctrine (fTfpooiSodKaXeii'), consisting of fables and endless genealogies (1 Ti !•), foolish questionings, strifes, and fighting about the law (M<ix<" w^u'dt). Tit ;!'; they fcirbade to marry, and commanded to abstain "fn^m meat.s (1 Ti 4^). Their teaching is described as profane babblings and oppositions of the kiiowli'di;e which is falsely so called iarTtfiiattt T^5 \ptvi(avvtu)v yni<r«j)t). This last plira.se .scfiiiid to suggest a reference to Varcion. and is so taken
I'harie-i A<Ttbner't ^wiw
I8S
GNOSTICISM
GNOSTICISM
still by Harnack. who regards the verse as a later iiiterpiilatioii ; and the Fathers were accustomed to hold that the expressions concerning • genealogies ' referred to Valentinian and other tlieories of iinanations, while the prohibition of marriage siiu'^ested ICncratite doctrine. Hut none ni these allusions were really necessary, and the expression •Jewish fables' (Tit 1') shows that we cannot be dealing with the anti-Jewish Gnosticism of the 2nd cent. IJghtfoot sees a development of the Colossian heresy ; and Hort, although his ex- planations are in .some cases thoroughly convincing, jierliaps goes too far in banishing all of what we shoulil call (inostic tendencies.
5. The First Kpi.stle of St. John directly, the Gospel indirectly, combat a form of teaching whiclt denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh (1 Jn 4'-^). The most common explanation is to see in this a refutation of the peculiar form of Docetism as.sociated with Cerinthus, with whom St. John is connected historically by tradition.
0. In the Apoc. we have reference to certain NicoL.MTANs (wh. see), who are classed by Fathers {e.g. Iren. I. xxvi. 3) among heretics, to the teaching of one Ji;zKl!KI. (wh. see), and to some who knew the deep things of Satan (to Pa0^a toS Zaram), a phrase which hits a Gnostic ring about it (Rev
7. In the Ep. of JiiDE and in 2 PETEli (wh. see) there is a violent polemic against certain Anti- iiomian tendencies. It has been the custom to see here a detinite allusion to some of the Anti- nomian sects of the 2nd cent. Harnack ( Chroniilorjie der altchrintlichcn Litteratui; i. 4116), for example, sees a reference to the Antinoniian Gnostic sects described by Iren;eus. But a careful analysis of the language of both the Epistles sliows that it was at any rate primarily practical immorality that was in both cases attacked. They are ' un- godly men,' 'turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness,' they have 'given themselves over to fornication,' 'they are blasphemous in their lan- guage,' they 'are sensual' (Jude v.''"- 1"- "), 'they walk after the tle-sh in the lust of defilement,' and 'despise dominion' (2 1^ 2''); to this corresponds the statement that they have fallen back into their old evil ways (2 P 2-'---), and a theoretical basis seems to be given in the disbelief in the Parousia which is growing up. Even the expression ' deny- ing their Master,' which occurs in both Epp. (Jude v.'', 2 P 2-), may mean only denying Him by lives unworthy of Him. In any case, even if the existence of a theoretical Antinomiani.sm as well as practical immorality cannot be entirely denied, there are certainly no clearly detined traces of later Gnosticism implying the existence of any special 2nd cent, sect, and compelling us to place the two Epp. in the 2nd century.
The above are the references, real or supposed, to Gnosticism in the NT. A theory which flourished for some time referred them all to heresies of the 2nd cent., and signs therefore of the late date of the NT writings. This theory seems now to be given up or much modified, as may be seen by consulthig the various modern commentators, and it is really more correct to say that the developed Gnostic heresies of the 2nd cent, presuppose the NT. Many of the names of the Valentinian seons seem derived from the pro- logue to St. John's Gospel. The Gnostics often used NT doctrines which they only half under- stood, and misapplied biblical texts. But if we cannot find what is now called Gnosticism in the NT, there are signs of the tendencies out of which it grew. Even Hort, who shows how much which was formerly explained as Gnostic is perfectly explicable as .Jewish, admits that there are elements for which we cannot account, and that the Judaism
of the Dispersion is different from the Judaism ot Palestine. If we put together our data in the NT, we notice that to a very large extent it comes from Asia Minor. The Colossian Epp., those to Timothy, the Apocalyp.se, Cerinthus, llie Ignatian letters, are all alike indications of a clearly defined tendency. To say that the origin of this is Essene influence certainly goes beyond our data, but the illustrations given by Lightfoot derived from the teaching of the Essenes and Thera]ieutie are per- fectly legitimate as showing that the Judaism of the 1st cent, was capable of being alTected by very various and extraneous elenu'nis. The Jews in Phrygia (Hamsay, Citifs (oitl JUslidjirirs, ii. p. ti74) were, we know, jieculiarly lax, ami inlluenced by the surrounding heathen life and thought. The great movements of the 2nd cent., lieathen, Jewish, and Christian, which aro.se from the inten.se spiritual earnestne.ss with which Christianity had inspired the world, brought into life elements that had been working silently ever since the unification of tlie Human Eni]>ire had broken down the old national religions, had brought into ei'ii- tact with one another very different faiths, and had turned men's minds from the political interests, which are always impossible tuuler a perscmal government, to the problems and questions of religion. From this point of view, the embryo Gnosticism of the NT takes its proper place in the history of religious development.