There is probably no greater heresy within Christianity than Gnosticism. It is its first heresy, and, ironically, it promulgated reactionary doctrines that, if not as heretical and false, they were just as inaccurate. They were the byproduct of inaccurately rebutting the rationalizations of passing Greek culture. Rationalism was Gnosticism’s mistake, and this supplication to universal wisdom called Logos was rightly condemned by the Church as “knowledge falsely so called.” This “knowledge” was nothing more than self-invented allegory and metaphor aimed at creating an esoteric, “spiritual” reality of deeper truths. Since it came largely from the Greeks, it was tainted with contemporaneous Greek pagan and philosophical outlooks. Since Gnosticism is a methodology of allegory and rationalization it cannot die out. “Esoteric Gnosis” (Gnosis = Knowledge, from which Gnosticism gets its name) will always be the byproduct of a culture’s outlooks since it originates from the human mind rationalizing or adapting concepts in Scripture or in interpreting events and the “signs of a time.” The resultant philosophy is declared God’s own declared word and truth.

     Gnosticism was first born amongst Greek Christianity in order to reconcile the Pharisaical image of God and the Christian image of the New Testament Father. It wasn’t just the lack of Scripture which promulgated this view -- many had the Scriptures-- it was the allegorizing and interpretation of things contained in Scripture, taken out of context.  Taking Scripture piecemeal revealed a judgmental God fighting sin and imperfect conditions. Gnostics, in general, therefore used their method to divide between the Creator God of the “Old Testament” and God the Father whom Jesus revealed. Greeks had many gods, and many times these gods took on different forms and manifestations to accentuate certain characteristics which were dominant in the god’s personality. The loving father of Jesus had been a little known god now revealing himself through Christ. They also had the Greek stoic view that the flesh was sinful and that Christ, being divine, therefore could not have taken on real flesh, but that he only gave the appearance of doing so. the result was Docetism -- that Christ appeared fully formed and had no nativity. 

     This must be stressed at the onset: Gnosticism was really not a belief or set of tenets; it was a methodology. It is not surprising therefore that in the hands of individuals this methodology could extract a slough of varying ideas. While there were many variations in Gnostic rationalizing, Gnostics could generally be recognized by three main points of methodology: 1) embracing of allegory and metaphor as interpretative of Scripture; 2) supplication for wisdom to the universal force called Logos; 3) rejection of church organization and the elevating of peshers, whether oral or written, as completely equal (some even then rejected all written revelation).

   This methodology naturally culminated in a set of beliefs that though they varied they revolved around a central theme— Gnosticism’s first and foremost pursuit: esoteric gnosis: knowledge.  This belief in a salvation either proven or guaranteed by esoteric knowledge made those who allegorized the scriptures believe they had more knowledge and as a result a surer and higher level of salvation than others. This naturally led to a denigration of the church hierarchy which did not share the same elaborate and arbitrary allegorical approach to the interpretation of scripture. Thus Gnosticism followed a basic pattern: self-deceptive “knowledge” by allegorizing basic Scriptural passages; this led to a rejection of church organization because they were run by inferiors in knowledge; and eventually this led to an autonomous, purely metaphysical state of knowledge, with no practical application, based on rationalizing events and concepts.

   This progression is seen in New Testament books, first where Paul warned about those who argue about the meanings of words— i.e. the usual Gnostic ramblings over applying metaphoric meaning to words and sentences in order to read into Scripture— and in the much later written Gospel of John where the author argues against Gnosticism’s methodology by creating the Pharisees into the object of the polemics (the Pharisees were not Gnostics, however).  John’s epistles clearly show that he was not received and possibly even ejected from one church where one of the Gnostic members preferred to have the preeminence.

   Scriptural counterattacks on Gnosticism seemed to win the day early on. Scripture, at the very least, provided a base for rational dispute. However, it would not be long until Gnostics would openly reject the Scriptures or, at least, relegate them to the concept of the “Old Testament.”  This allowed Gnostics to rationalize Jesus and his purpose according to any number of Greek concepts, including tritheism, and demigods coming into human form, with no tempering from the Bible anymore.

   After the schism between the Christians and Jews circa 90 AD, at which point Christians were obliged to leave the synagogues, there was a growing tendency even within orthodox Christianity to look upon the Scriptures as the “Old Testament,” and this inaccurate view helped foster Gnosticism. Christianity was becoming dangerously Greek already— in the process overlooking the very clear loving image of God contained in the Scripture.

     Since the time of James the Just, Gentile Christians had been worshipping or, at least on occasion, going to the synagogues to receive instructions in the law and the prophets. Christian congregations had many of the Christian epistles, but after the schism they were quickly drawn outside of Judaism and the scriptures into the Greek penchant to philosophize and rationalize.

   Gnosticism began in the late 1st century at Ephesus under a leader named Cerinthus; and in some form or another it continued until the ascendancy of the Catholic Church during the latter Roman Empire, which then squashed it. Only after the Reformation did Gnosticism revive, largely because of the break up of central Roman authority and the dissemination of the Bible into every lay hand.

   The scriptures were still a central authority in Cerinthus’ time. Therefore his brand of Gnosticism extracted a strange Quartinity from the “Old Testament” and the writings that would be later compiled as the New Testament. He posited that the world was created by the supreme power Logos, and this was different than God, the “unknown Father.” Likewise Jesus was different than Christ. Christ’s spirit came to him at baptism and forsook him at the cross. Therefore there was the great supreme ruler or power Logos; there was God the unknown Father; there was Christ as a separate spirit; and there was Jesus in whom he dwelt and from whom he taught. Thus, there are 4 powers. This is clearly not borne out by scripture.

   As early as 180 AD Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, makes the assertion that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John to counter the claims of Cerinthus at Ephesus, believing wrongly that the late Papias, the Bishop of nearby Hierapolis, had been John’s student. For the discussion here it doesn’t matter that the author of John’s gospel was primarily John the Presbyter of Ephesus, and not the apostle. What is important to know is that the gospel was written to counter the disgusting effects of Cerinthus’ Gnostic Quartinity. Passages in John are far more clear when one realizes who and what the target was of their writing.

   For instance, in John 5:39, Jesus declares: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me”— an enormous condemnation of Gnosticism and its use of the Scriptures to find esoteric knowledge, theories, and formulae. In this verse, however, it is used against the Jews, the Pharisees of which regarded the Scripture in like manner, though not after Gnosticism’s esoteric knowledge but in using the Scripture to find excessive number of rules (gezeirah) by which righteousness could be attained. Once again, for Gnostics righteousness and salvation were attained and proven by their command of esoteric knowledge and not by expanded laws based on words and expressions.

   John’s introduction also plainly combined God the Father, the Son, Jesus, and the Logos (supreme Power) as all one, though in a very subtle way. At this time it was considered sufficient to expose Gnosticism by borrowing from its ideas, like John did. He did not expose the idea of a Logos; he meshed it together with God. It was only later when these anti-Gnostic books and the ideas contained therein were studied and used as authoritative that Christian doctrines ironically went down paths they otherwise would not have taken. It is unlikely that the concept of Trinity would have fully developed had some Gnostic groups not made a point of the triune cosmic order and that Jesus was the embodiment of one essence of this that came in the flesh, which then led orthodox leaders to cannibalize the concept and make it more Christian. It was this counter-rationalizing Gnosticism where some definite Gnostic logic got embedded into Christianity. 

   Cerinthus’ ideas, though shocking, were more local to Asia Minor and the East, and of short duration compared to that of the Gnostic Marcion who, in 140 AD, would start a strange Gnostic sect of Christianity that would spread over the Mediterranean and remain intact for centuries. Cerinthus’ chief contribution to Christianity lies in the fact that the most enduring of the gospels, that of John, was written in response to it, as were the epistles of John.

   The quasi-Gnostic Marcion (c 145 AD), however, would excite a massive reaction from the church. Marcion immigrated from Sinope (where some early Christian writers claim he was the son of the Bishop of Sinope) to Rome in 140 AD. By 144 he was excommunicated for being a “quasi-Gnostic heretic” for endorsing the strange Dualism that all early Gnosticism espoused, and asserting that salvation was by gnosis. He would diligently compile and preserve Pauline epistles to bolster his evangelizing, but would then reject the “Old Testament” as being the witness of the Creator God but not of the loving Father God of Jesus; therefore the scripture was nothing with which the Christian need be concerned. It was from an old god for the Jews. Marcion evangelized in imitation of Paul, whom he declared to have been the true and only apostle of Jesus. Wherever he went he established churches and made followers. He was even accused of editing the Gospel of Luke and some of the epistles of Paul to remove anything Jewish from them, to further bolster his anti-Jewish new Jesus. Marcion’s heretical movement lasted from the 2nd century to the 5th before dying out.

     Marcion’s beliefs were this: That the God of the “Old Testament”— the Jewish God— was different than the God whom Jesus Christ revealed to mankind. The judgmental creator of the “Old Testament” was nothing like God the loving Father that Jesus taught about.  Marcion insisted that the church itself had erred in maintaining the monotheism of the “Old Testament.” It was clear to him that the God of the Old Testament was judgmental and had to combat imperfect conditions in creation: man’s evil, natural imperfections, etc. The church also erred in regarding Jesus as the Messiah spoken in these Jewish writings. He accepted Docetism; that Jesus appeared fully formed as a grown man, revealing an entirely new loving God, rather than being a fulfillment of anything Jewish. Interestingly, Marcion tapped into the Greek Platonic view of the Unknown God, which posited that the true God, the creator of heaven and earth, was so great that he could not be known. To Paul, this was clearly the God of Israel; and for this reason Paul told the Athenians he came preaching this God. Greek philosophy would imply this, if you knew Plato well. Apparently, Marcion did not. It was because Paul spoke of the “unknown God” that Marcion chose him as his favorite and only true apostle, one who was bringing the religion of the true God, which was, to Marcion, not the same God of the Hebrew Bible.

     Marcion’s religion was thus based on an imperfect knowledge of both Scripture and of Greek philosophy. The result was tragic. Marcionism was maintained and fostered by Marcion’s own limited editing of the Gospel of Luke, based probably on the belief that Paul was the one overseeing Luke’s writing of the gospel. Paul’s epistles were edited to remove the Jewishness from them, since Paul alone “restored” the purity of Christ’s purpose after it had been sullied by the Jewishness of the Apostles and early evangelists.

     Marcion proved hard to counter because of his rejection of the Scripture as “old” and completely useless. Obviously, this left the church without any ammo to fight Marcionism, one reason why it spread so fast and made so many converts. Marcionism would inspire a major doctrine to counter it: the setting of the Apostolic Doctrine which dictated that for a NT book to be held as authoritative and inviolable it had to have been written by an Apostle or under his oversight. It seems equally obvious that certain amendments were made to Pauline or deutero-Pauline letters to thwart the Christian from believing in Marcionism. These stand out in the Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians by their frank 2nd century literary styles. In these books there is contained warnings that are frankly anti-Marcionite. 

   Marcion’s Docetic and anti-Jewish view of Christ is thought by some to have occasioned the adding of the “infancy” material to the Gospel of Luke, which is the only gospel, coincidentally, which contains such material; while others have thought that he edited such information out. It may indeed be the more modern view that the infancy material was added in order to combat the growing Marcionism.

   There seems to be no other conclusion considering the questionable matter of the infancy stories. There were, in fact, early “Infancy gospels” from which some of the material might have been honestly lifted and added to both the beginning and end of Luke. Infancy gospels were noted for Jesus appearing in other forms after the resurrection. In one instance, he appeared as a child.  In Luke we have the story of the “Road to Emmaus” in which Jesus apparently appeared to 2 disciples in another form. This encounter is inferred in a statement in Mark 16:9-20 (the very end of both the chapter and book) where it speaks of Jesus appearing in “another form” to two disciples (the Road to Emmaus story in Luke).  That passage in Mark is a notorious addition to the gospel, and was so held as deutero-canonical by the Council of Trent in 1546 and by many of the Reformers. It would seem that if it was inspired by both the Infancy gospels or by a redacted 2nd century Luke then the infancy story and Road to Emmaus story of Luke should be regarded likewise.

   These stories may indeed have been meant to honestly counter the claims of Marcion by infusing infancy gospel material that was still highly regarded as factual circa 150 AD. We must earnestly and fairly recall that there was no such thing as a strict “Canon” of books in use. Even by 200 AD the Muratorian Canon contained the books of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabus, while at the same time not containing James, Hebrews, I Peter and II Peter.

   Here is found the greatest problem in fighting Marcion: since he rejected Scripture the church had to fight him with NT books. This, of course, meant only Paul’s epistles, since Marcion didn’t care for anything else. However, because Marcion edited books (apparently) to suit himself, the Church was left to fight fire with fire. The Infancy narrative in Luke may be the result of that, as well as certain passages (all in Pauline books) that appear to be clear 2nd century additions aimed at exposing Marcionism.

   The purpose of the article here, however, is to show both what Gnosticism was and how the Church’s reaction to it unwittingly open the door for equally incorrect dogma that inadvertently guided Christianity into concepts it would otherwise would not have developed had it kept its original Jewish base. There is no better examples of this than the additions in Luke and in some of the Pauline letters. 

   Let us concentrate on these to continue with Gnosticism influence on Christianity:

     Belief or disbelief in the infancy narrative in Luke does not really constitute an influence on Christian doctrine. The narrative merely places details upon an event every Christian knows took place. It does not violate Scripture, in that the prophecy was that a female virgin of the House of David would conceive and bear a son. The infancy narrative of Luke has no Gnostic influence since indeed it is no doubt designed to counter Marcion’s strange anti-Jewish docetic gnosis.

     It has, however, become one of the, if not the most, crucial passages in all of the New Testament justifying the worship of “the Virgin Mary” and the stimulus of the Catholic penchant to call her “mother of God” after the pagan Roman influence of “families of gods” and demigods. Also, like the Gospel of John, it gives a false impression that certain people (such as Mary, Joseph, even Elizabeth, and especially John the Baptist) had a pre-knowledge of who Jesus actually was from birth. Like the Gospel of John’s assertions, the entire settings in the infancy narratives in Luke’s early chapters, when compared to the other gospels, expose the claims as patently impossible.

   We are introduced to this scenario. “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.”

     In the scriptures, of course, all those who actually saw angels fell down as if dead. Mary doesn’t even do a doubletake. She ponders over the manner of greeting when Gabriel is standing before her. By the way, this type of apocryphal angelism is a prime source for all the casual “angel encounters” today. Since the assertion in the Gospel of John that John the Baptist knew who Jesus was can be soundly laid to rest by both the Gospel of Matthew and the real parts of the Gospel of Luke, there is little likelihood that John’s mother, Elizabeth, knew who Mary was, and then knowing who she was decided to go into a lengthy Catholic ode at her arrival. Mary does an almost Shakespearean duet with her. Consider:

         And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judaea; 40: And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41: And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43: And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45: And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

     46: And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48: For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49: For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50: And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51: He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52: He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53: He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54: He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; 55: As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

     This does indeed contravene the theology of Marcion’s docetism. Luke’s gospel, however, no doubt began with the introduction (Luke 1:1-4) and then Luke chapter 3  began. The original probably read something like this:

     Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2: Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3: It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4: That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
   1: Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2: Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. 3: And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; 4: As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 5: Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; 6: And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. 7: Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8: Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

     You can see, however, that all gospels failing to record in detail the nativity of Jesus would mean there is no solid refutation (outside of Scripture) that Jesus’ advent was not Docetic; that it was Jewish, and that Christianity was therefore entirely linked with Judaism. Those who said that Marcion probably did not edit out the infancy narrative but that it was added to combat his assertions might indeed be right.

     In any case, we know that Jesus was born of Mary and that the birth was virgin. In that we can be assured without the flowery language of the additions to Luke. The Torah makes it clear that “that prophet” would be raised up like Moses, who was definitely born, and Isaiah 49 makes it clear that God has spoken his name “from the womb;” that Israel would not be gathered completely and that he would be given as a light for the Gentiles. David, too, makes it clear about the “only-begotten.”

   As mentioned above, Gnosticism feeds once again on modern Post-Reformation Christianity, when the Catholic Church hierarchy became replaced by the current bible. Without the stifling effects of a central authority, the Church was plunged back into the autonomy of its youth. The Bible was for all to read and, frankly, to make out of what they wanted. There is virtually no example of Gnosticism after the advent of a strong political Catholicism, and for that at least Rome, which hated Gnosticism, can be thanked. 

   One of the many staples of modern Christian thinking is also heavily influenced by the anti-Gnostic amendments made to certain NT books: that of an “anti-christ.” This notion has led to the sloppy “apocryphal apocalypticism” that is so rampant in Christianity today. It is best to go to this link to see how this has played a hand in modern Christian thought.

   Due to the fact that Christianity’s minhags and gezeirah are more designed to tune belief systems than actual actions, it is a religion that has been subjected to numerous heresies that probably aren’t heresies at all, just different theories and explanations. Gnosticism, however, in its original inception was a true heresy. And it is unfortunate that its First Point (salvation by esoteric gnosis) is still around. Salvation is by the grace and love of Almighty God, not by the works of the law or by one’s level of knowledge (so called) of scripture and of invented hidden or “spiritual” meanings. (See Campingism)

     Here is the question on so many minds, and here is the answer from he who is beauty beyond compare: (Luke 10)

   25: And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26: He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27: And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28: And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29: But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30: And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31: And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32: And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33: But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34: And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35: And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36: Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37: And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

   Beware of Gnosticism and those that tell you “salvation is knowledge.” Their knowledge is usually a thin metaphorizing of scripture to make it say what they want.  Hold on to sound faith in God.