It is often touted that the gnostic gospel reveal the true history of Christianity. The current post-modernistic thinking of challenging everything adds fuel to this effort. I do not doubt the usefulness of post-modernistic trend to rethink and re-evaluate so many 'givens' of history, but I also think that one should not be carried away by a new wave and suspend our critical faculty while surfing on it. One such case is the gnostic gospels.
The logical sequence of popular thinking concerning gnostic gospel often begin with the idea that the history of Christianity is written by those who have defeated other sects or forms of Christian beliefs such as the gnostic version of Christianity. This goes well with post-modernistic scepticism on what Christianity is about and the nature of its history. The evidence to support this notion is said to be found in the content of the gnostic gospel writings such as Gospel of Philip, Thomas, Mary etc. which differs from the traditional stories found in the four gospels in the bible. The case is then built stronger with the mistakes made by the Christian church that are so rampantly found throughout the course of its history.
With the two evidence, the premise is set to reinterpret everything that has been said and know about the bible such as the character of Mary Magdalene. Indeed there is a need for the church to re-examine its traditional view that she was no more than a sinner or worse a prostitute. In fact, the bible never attributed this role of a prostitute to her and actually held her with a high esteem as the earliest witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, something that you would not normally do in the milieu of the first century if you want your stories to be creditable and accepted.
Current popular views championing the redemption of Mary Magdalene's character seize on the gnostic gospels as strong evidence showing how the early Christian community had distorted Mary's reputation. But these views are wrong because they are based on two false notions. First, all gnostic gospels view Mary and the position of women highly. Second, the negative perception of Mary was attributed to the first century Christian church.
The truth is that some of the gnostic gospels held a far worse perception of the role of women than what they are normally credited for. One of the gnostic gospels goes as far as to say that women need to be transformed as man before they can be allowed into heaven. Another serious issue concerning the testimonies of gnostic gospels is that all these gospels lay hold on a specific disciple as the truest of all the disciples whom Jesus Christ has passed on esoteric wisdom to be given to the rest through that chosen disciple. If this is to be believed and accepted as the real Christianity than we will be split apart because each of the gnostic gospels claim that it has the real form of Christian teaching while mocking others as hopelessly lost souls blinded by the god of this world.
As mentioned earlier, the first century Christian church never held a negative view of Mary Magdalene. This is due the teachings of some in the later centuries. So there is no evidence to accuse the first century Christian church of being involved in a struggle of power against Mary Magdalene. The only struggles we see are the struggles against another form of Christianity that seems to have been influenced by gnostic teachings and the freedom the believers have in not following the ceremonial laws of Moses. There is no evidence of the male apostles discrediting her in the gospels in order for them to gain control of the church. On the contrary, we see in the gnostic gospels, mockery made by male apostles on each other and on women, so to discredit them as followers of the true teachings of Jesus and to credit the different championed disciple in each of the gnostic gospels as the only enlightened one.
It seems that in the effort to champion a popular post-modernistic history of the Christian church, some scholars and producers of historical documentaries have downplayed on purpose the contradictions that exist amongst the gnostic gospels and only highlighted the parts that support their effort. This to me is even more of a case of selective history writing compared with the allegations made of the first century Christian church.
The logical sequence of popular thinking concerning gnostic gospel often begin with the idea that the history of Christianity is written by those who have defeated other sects or forms of Christian beliefs such as the gnostic version of Christianity. This goes well with post-modernistic scepticism on what Christianity is about and the nature of its history. The evidence to support this notion is said to be found in the content of the gnostic gospel writings such as Gospel of Philip, Thomas, Mary etc. which differs from the traditional stories found in the four gospels in the bible. The case is then built stronger with the mistakes made by the Christian church that are so rampantly found throughout the course of its history.
With the two evidence, the premise is set to reinterpret everything that has been said and know about the bible such as the character of Mary Magdalene. Indeed there is a need for the church to re-examine its traditional view that she was no more than a sinner or worse a prostitute. In fact, the bible never attributed this role of a prostitute to her and actually held her with a high esteem as the earliest witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, something that you would not normally do in the milieu of the first century if you want your stories to be creditable and accepted.
Current popular views championing the redemption of Mary Magdalene's character seize on the gnostic gospels as strong evidence showing how the early Christian community had distorted Mary's reputation. But these views are wrong because they are based on two false notions. First, all gnostic gospels view Mary and the position of women highly. Second, the negative perception of Mary was attributed to the first century Christian church.
The truth is that some of the gnostic gospels held a far worse perception of the role of women than what they are normally credited for. One of the gnostic gospels goes as far as to say that women need to be transformed as man before they can be allowed into heaven. Another serious issue concerning the testimonies of gnostic gospels is that all these gospels lay hold on a specific disciple as the truest of all the disciples whom Jesus Christ has passed on esoteric wisdom to be given to the rest through that chosen disciple. If this is to be believed and accepted as the real Christianity than we will be split apart because each of the gnostic gospels claim that it has the real form of Christian teaching while mocking others as hopelessly lost souls blinded by the god of this world.
As mentioned earlier, the first century Christian church never held a negative view of Mary Magdalene. This is due the teachings of some in the later centuries. So there is no evidence to accuse the first century Christian church of being involved in a struggle of power against Mary Magdalene. The only struggles we see are the struggles against another form of Christianity that seems to have been influenced by gnostic teachings and the freedom the believers have in not following the ceremonial laws of Moses. There is no evidence of the male apostles discrediting her in the gospels in order for them to gain control of the church. On the contrary, we see in the gnostic gospels, mockery made by male apostles on each other and on women, so to discredit them as followers of the true teachings of Jesus and to credit the different championed disciple in each of the gnostic gospels as the only enlightened one.
It seems that in the effort to champion a popular post-modernistic history of the Christian church, some scholars and producers of historical documentaries have downplayed on purpose the contradictions that exist amongst the gnostic gospels and only highlighted the parts that support their effort. This to me is even more of a case of selective history writing compared with the allegations made of the first century Christian church.
Comments