"The Passion of the Christ" - A Review by William J Tsamis (reprint)

by William J. Tsamis - reprint from February 25, 2004

Chilling ..... Gripping ..... Spiritual ..... Timeless ..... Epic ..... Powerful ..... A True Artistic Triumph !!!

Since there has been much said on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" in the past six months or so, I personally did not intend on saying anything more about the film. However, after I saw the film today - i.e. on opening day (the very first showing), I felt compelled to offer some comments, especially since I have been promoting this film for the past two years. Personally, I feel qualified as a "creative artist" and as a seminary graduate in biblical studies, with a focus on Jesus studies, to make sound artistic and theological judgments. I have read the reviews of many film critics who, in my view, cannot give an adequate critique of this film because they have no understanding of theology, and I have read the reviews of many biblical scholars who cannot give a fair critique of this film because they tend to ignore the "artistic" emphasis in "film," as if what is supposed to be produced on screen is "perfect actual history," something which is impossible.

Thus, in order to grant "The Passion" a fair and just critique, one must have an excellent grasp of art (film, renaissance painting, music) in addition to a thorough knowledge of Christian theology (more specifically "Roman Catholic" theology), the Gospels, Christian mysticism, studies regarding the historical Jesus and first century Roman Judea. "The Passion" is Mel Gibson's "artistic" and "theological" interpretation of the arrest, trial, torture and crucifixion of Jesus. (Prior to the release of the film, Mel Gibson made this clear.) Now, to the film:

First things first: this day of cinema and contemplation has been one of the most profound days of my entire life, a day that I will never forget because it is "the" day when I was actually able to "see" what it cost God to purchase my soul by "the blood" of his Son (Acts 20:28). It will forever affect me in that it has awakened me to become a more sensitive Christian, husband, father, son, friend and citizen.

I had been following the production of this film for about two years and sharing my knowledge of the production with college students and others, keeping them apprised of prodution news as well as discussing the criticism from antagonistic groups who thought the film would be offensive, so I was very excited about seeing the film - finally the day came, February 25, 2004.

Anyway, when I arrived at the theater (the film was playing on three screens in this 20 screen cinema-plex), yet to my surprise, even though I showed up an hour early, the theater was 75% full - I found a prime spot nevertheless. Even though I am an avid film-goer, the last time I went to see a film on opening day was back in my high school days when my friends and I stood in the rain waiting for the doors to open to "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark."

The first thing that surprised me about "The Passion" was this: the media and culture wars over this film prior to its release were far off the mark (in my view). For instance, there was no real anti-Semitism in the film unless one is to assume that Christianity and the Gospels are "anti-Semitic" (which is the real assumption of many Jews and many New Testament scholars - I would like to say there is a difference between "polemics" and "anti-Semitism," but that's for another day). Anyway, the ADL fear that someone like me would see "The Passion" and walk out of the theater as an avid anti-Semite was totally off the mark. Of course everybody sees what he or she wants to see, but personally, I saw many Jewish heroes of faith in this film - the faith of the common man (Simon of Cyrene, Malchus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, John, Peter, Veronica, et al.) Sure, the secret meetings of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night (contrary to their own laws but necessary in this case) presented men who were antagonistic to Jesus of Nazareth. For those who know the Bible (i.e. the target audience of this film), there is no reason for an explanation regarding this antagonism. We all know the story from the Gospels. Nevertheless, the love and universal teachings of Christ come out in this film and Jesus is clear (from the Gospels) that ["No one takes his life, but he lays it down of his own accord. And if he lays it down of his own accord, he can take it up again"].

Simply put, Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah who threatened the religious establishment, and this was regarded as blasphemy and cause for death under the Jewish system, even though the Jews didn't have the power of execution (except in some cases). In the film, as well as in the Gospels, the religious leaders (especially Caiaphas) hand over Jesus to Pontius Pilate and cry out for his crucifixion, all the while prodding the mob to echo their will - but there is no collective guilt upon the Jewish people "of all ages" implied in this film - whether Roman or Jew, there are the guilty and there are the innocent. The "blood libel" charge from the Gospel of Matthew (27:25) was edited by Gibson (because of pressure); nevertheless, the text is there in the Gospels, famous rabbis such as Moses Maimonedes believed that the execution of Jesus was just - that he was a blasphemer and a false prophet.

Note the words of Maimonedes (1134-1204) which simply echo the Gospels and the rabbinical tradition about Jesus:

In Maimonodes's comments on the Torah in his "Letter to Yemen," he wrote, "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, was [rightfully] put to death by the court. [He] interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory (i.e. the Sanhedrin), became aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people [and they] meted out a fitting punishment to him."


Now according to efforts by the Roman Catholic Church in the years since Vatican II (1962-1965) there has been an effort to clear the Jews of any guilt regarding Jesus's crucifixion (for the improvement of interfaith dialogue); yet the Gospels are clear, preceding Maimonedes, that the Jews (Jewish leaders, Jewish mob, etc.) "did" in fact "hand over" Jesus of Nazareth to Pontius Pilate to be executed by crucifixion. Certainly any persecution against the Jews arising from this matter over the centuries is a "monstrous sin," and there is no doubt that a mighty punishment awaits those inquisitors and punishers who were not, in truth Christians, but pseudo-Christians who embraced prevailing ideas about Jews being "Christ-killers" along with other stereotypes.

Nevertheless, turning to logic, "if" Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a "blaphemer" and "false prophet," then according to Jewish law he should have been put to death. Why the attempt by Jewish groups to escape responsibility - apart from fears of retaliation and memories of the Holocaust. Why depart from blessed Maimonedes? Why depart from the condemnations in the "mish-mash" of references to "ben Stada," the "sorcerer who led Israel astray" (the Talmud). For instance, see this entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding Jesus and note how it "unashamedly" places the blame on the Jews:

Jewish Encyclopedia - Jesus's Crucifixion

Again, apart from fears of another Holocaust (which did not occur because of "Christian anti-Semitism" but because of many other streams of corrupt thought that took root in the mind of Adolf Hitler), why must Jewish groups feel the need to stray from their true belief about Jesus that he was a "blasphemer" and "false prophet? Forget the interfaith "ecumenical correctness" - if Jesus was a "blasphemer" and "false prophet," say it and praise the high priests of the Sanhedrin (like Caiaphas), even as Maimonedes did, and take pride in the fact that the Jewish leadership 2,000 years ago righteously rooted out this Galilean heretic from among the fold. This, I don't understand. Even Alfred Edersheim comments here extensively, the thrust of his argument being If He had been what Israel said, He deserved the death of the Cross; if He is what the Christmas-bells of the Church, and the chimes of the Resurrection-morning ring out, then do we rightly worship Him as the Son of the Living God, the Christ, the Saviour of men (V.13).

But this is "not" happening is it? Why? Because to these Jewish groups it is prudent to abandon (at least in public) what they truly believe and to establish good relations with the Vatican, for instance. To me this is cowardly and devious; thus, it is much easier to attack Mel Gibson and his father. If you really want to know what the Jewish attitudes are regarding "The Passion of the Christ," look to the newspapers in Israel and they will greatly enlighten you.

Here, though, allow me to talk a bit about my feelings (without disclosing too many facts from the film):

First, the kind of anti-Semitism that the ADL was warning us about in this film was negligible to me. I looked for it and I didn't see it. However, this doesn't mean that other viewers would fail to find it if "they" were looking for it. But examples that some Jewish magazines have put forward - e.g. Gibson stereotypes the Jews by portraying them with "hooked noses," etc. is in my view ridiculous. "What's wrong with a hooked nose?" In the film, Peter has a hooked nose. So what!

Second, I thought the Romans were depicted as a bit out of control, but nevertheless well for the artistic purpose of painting them as "brutal sadists who were instruments of the devil's cruelty." Their ignorance of "who" Jesus was, however, was quite consistent with Scripture - i.e. "just another Jew, another criminal to be executed." Historically they were Syrian conscripts in the outpost of Judea in which Pontius Pilate was prefect. As Syrian conscripts perhaps we could expect them to have been undisciplined and ill-tempered compared to the Roman legions who were battle trained -thus, in "The Passion" we see the utter brutality of these Roman soldiers. Only those soldiers immediately surrounding Pilate were from the Roman guard - i.e. professional troops. The "torturers," who are sometimes filmed from the ground up so they look like giants are depitcted by Gibson as the "instruments of Satan" inflicting their cruelty upon our Lord. Indeed, Satan is "the adversary" in this story, so everyone who is part of the execution of Jesus, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. those crying out for Barabbas, led by Caiaphas in this film even though that was an artistic decision made by Gibson), is simply part of the cosmic struggle between good and evil - God versus Satan - and that struggle is being played out definitively in "The Passion." All of this, i.e. the Isaiah 53 text (part of which is shown on the screen at the beginning of the film) is very biblical. And whether some Third Quest historians like it or not the "beating," "punching," "spitting" and "mocking" is all part of the biblical story and the "theology of rejection." (This "beating" begins in the court of Caiaphas by Temple guards and others and then continues when the Romans take the prisoner Jesus into the scourging ground. The passion (suffering) of Jesus in this film simply reflects what the Bible and traditional Christian theology have taught regarding the "Suffering Servant."

Third, the violence was barbaric indeed. Nevertheless, as I have indicated in my article on "The Crucifixion of Jesus" below, Gibson accurately brought to life not only the intense beating and scourging of Jesus, but the "way to the cross" and the crucifixion of Jesus with unparalleled accuracy (see medical article from JAMA below), apart from some theological and artistic impostions (carrying the whole cross, nails in the palms) which were minor, but necessary to reflect the "Roman Catholic" traditional motif of the passion. Frederica Matthews-Green and others have criticized Gibson here because the Gospel accounts actually don't overtly discuss the "blood and gore." But to Frederica Matthews-Green and others I counter by saying that in the first century people were well aware of the practice of crucifixion. In Palestine there was hardly a road you could walk without seeing, smelling, and hearing the brutalities of crucifixion. It is for this reason that the Gospel writers didn't feel it necessary to explain that which was perfectly understood by everyone who lived in that milieu.

Fourth, I disagree with those who claim that Pontius Pilate was not depicted as a "brutal" governor, as history bears out (Philo, Josephus). At the time of Jesus's crucifixion, Pontius Pilate had been reprimanded by Tiberius Caesar and Vitellus (the Syrian Legate i.e. Pilate's superior) two or three times already, once for bringing in standards bearing the image of Caesar into Jerusalem, once for the gratuitous slaughter of hundreds of Jews, and another time for taking money out of the Temple treasury to pay for an aqueduct. Certainly, Pontius Pilate was a brutal prefect, no friend to the Jews, and he was even recalled by Vitellus (and probably Tiberius Caesar A.D. 36 because of these reasons, although the latter died before Pilate reached Rome; however, his barbarism is "not" part of the Passion Narrative, apart from the scourging which was common. Many scholars believe that Pilate, a hater of the Jews, but one who "found no fault in Jesus," ordered Jesus to be excessively scourged in order to satiate the mob's thirst for Jesus's blood during the Paschal Release drama ("Behold the Man") - in other words, "Isn't that enough?" However, when Caiaphas roars to Pilate, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar" (John 19:12), there is an implicit threat that Pilate's position is on the line if he doesn't punish a man who claims to be "King of the Jews." In other words, "Isn't Caesar king of the Jews"? Although this is a blasphemy on the part of Caiaphas (only God and his Messiah can be King of Israel), Pilate must capitulate if he is to retain his position. In my view, the belief that Joseph ben Caiaphas (High Priest in Jerusalem since A.D. 19) and nephew of Annas (who produced five high priests in Jerusalem, presiding over Herod's Temple) - that Caiaphas shuddered in the shadow of Pilate who had been appointed prefect in A.D. 26 is hard to believe. There was a collision of power in Jerusalem, make no mistake about it, and according to the Gospels the Jews (Jewish leadership) made this charge against Jesus, that he "claimed to be king of the Jews," unacceptable to the Sanhedrin and unacceptable to Caesar (both Caiaphas and Pilate knew it). That this account has multiple attestation is demonstrated by the placard that was placed above Jesus's head on the cross.

Finally, I noticed that Gibson's representation of "the apostles" was similar to many of the earlier icons of the apostles that I've seen (short hair). In fact, this is the first "Jesus film" that I've seen where the actors actually resemble such icons which populate different Eastern Orthodox churches where iconography is an ancient tradition, rather than the hippi-ish look of other films. I found this corrective quite refreshing and realistic. Moreover, the actors in this film were not "famous" (at least in the United States), so there are no preconceived notions about who they were or who they would become. Character authenticity was not blinded by associating the actors with other film (except for Jim Caviezel and Monica Bellucci). All the other actors were foreign.

And what can I say about John Debney's film score? It is perfect !!! Not too overbearing, melodic though with an ancient feel. Unlike "Ride of the Valkyries" or something like that, Debney's work really can't be separated from the film so interwoven is his work with the images on the screen.

In closing, let me say that this film is only about 2 hours and 15 minutes, so it was impossible for Gibson to "pack it all in," if you will. Thus, there are some conflations and harmonizations, and the artistic license Gibson pursues includes only "possible" events - his extrabiblical notions make perfect sense OR they are theological impositions, e.g. the appearance of Mary and Mary Magdalene wearing habits like nuns (somewhat) - this is Roman Catholic theology, live with it. I found much of this material simply the expression of genius. At the same time I can hear Bible students and scholars saying, "Well, that's not how it happened." Of course! This is a film! It is a wonderful artistic film which pays close attention to the Gospels while at the same time blending accounts and rescending others in order to unify the film. For instance, Mary Magdelene, of whom it is written was "exorcised of seven demons," plays the role of a former "prostitute" as well (a strong Roman Catholic tradition) - but Gibson puts her in John 8, i.e. in the story of the adulteress who is to be stoned according to the "law of Moses" - the stones drop one by one as Jesus reaches down and grabs her hand. Or in another case, at the foot of the cross we only see Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John. "His mother's sister" and "Mary the wife of Clopas" (John 19:25) are not present. And what about Pontius Pilate and Jesus speaking "Latin" - Pilate spoke Greek, I can hear the biblical scholars already complaining. Well, I am Greek, and Greek is not a dead language. The "artistic" point of using both "Aramaic" and "Latin" (dead languages) was to try and put the entire audience (including Greeks) into antiquity. Secondly, Gibson adheres to the Latin Mass, so once again there is a Roman Catholic imposition, but a good one! Jesus is shown carrying the "whole" cross instead of just the "crossbeam" - this is done for the sake of the "stations" of the cross. Live with it! If you can't watch this film from the perspective of Mel Gibson's artistic vision, then you won't get it.

Again let me emphasize, there are many "minor" conflations and rescensions that are present in the film, but NONE that distract one from the Passion Narratives of the Gospels. Indeed, Gibson uses his brilliant sanctified imagination to provide details that "fill in" many of the blanks and "put you right there" (e.g. the chilling character of the Devil, the tale of Judas, and so on). Is the film a "moving Carravaggio" in the way that Mel Gibson wanted? Very much so! It is beautifully filmed, tight and "in your face," almost like a play (a "passion play"). Is the film a "spiritual experience" in the way that Mel Gibson hoped? Absolutely!!!

The film is amazing ..... I was speechless and stunned as if I had been brought back in time to the most important event in human history. I will forever applaud Mel Gibson for creating an epic of such beauty about Jesus, my Lord and my God, every frame being a renaissance painting and a message to my spirit.

"The Passion of the Christ" is not simply a film; it is a gift to all Christians, a piece of art on par with Michaelangelo, Bach, Handel, and other great artists who have provided Christianity and culture with a timeless masterpieces that transcend their era and live on forever. See it ..... believe it .....

"The Abortion Holocaust - Child Sacrifice in a New Age"

"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet come to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his most secure place of refuge, it ought surely be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light." ~ John Calvin

Until recently, the Christian Church has cried out with one voice regarding the crime of abortion. From the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Basil the Great, who both condemned the use of abortifacients, to the writings of Jerome, Augustine, Origen, and Chrysostom, to the writings of such contemporary theologians as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth, the Church has raised its voice in unison concerning this monstrous crime. As the Oxford scholar Bruce Metzger has observed, "It is really remarkable how uniform and pronounced the Christian opposition to abortion has been throughout the centuries."1 Not suprisingly, this solidarity of opinion derives from a holy tradition which is rooted in the very ethic of the early Church. As the Didache (ca. 100) explicitly teaches, "Thou shalt not slay a child by abortion or infanticide" (2.2), so too, the pseudepigraphal Apocalypse of Peter (ca. 150), a book which is quite vivid in its description of the inferno, tells us that the very lowest places of hell are reserved for those who have participated in the act of abortion in some way. Although not a canonical reflection of the inspired truth of God, the Apocalypse of Peter nevertheless gives us an indication as to the sentiment of the early Christians regarding the issue of abortion.

Why has the Church, historically, been so opposed to the act of abortion? Well, simply, the answer is rooted in the theology of creation and the anthropological idea that man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). Although many proponents of abortion will argue that the word abortion itself is not used in the Bible, we must respond by saying that, not only is this a futile and fraudulent argument (e.g. neither does the term substitutionary atonement, Holy Trinity, etc.), but the anthropological idea that man was created in the image of God precludes the destruction of that image in any way shape or form (although state execution has been debated, while self-defense and divine judgment are different issues). Anyway, with regard to the issue of the conception and development of human life, from the perspective of the biblical worldview, the living being, man, is not the result of a multi-billion year neo-Darwinian process, but rather, the living being, man, is a special, unique, and priceless creation of the God of the universe. Thus, any destructive assault upon the life of man, regardless of what point on the life continuum a particular person may be (continuum = conception >> birth >> early life >> adulthood >> aging years), such an assault is regarded as a horrendous abomination according to the biblical worldview. Thus, it is because of this belief in the divine origin of human life (cf. Gen 1:26-27) that the writer of the second century extracanonical work, the Epistle of Barnabas, condemns those who abort their unborn children as "killers of children who abort the image of God" (19.5).


Now, before we delve into the issue of pagan child sacrifice as a parallel of abortion in the modern age, let me just add that abortion is not only condemned by the historic Christian Church, but by all the surviving major religions of the world. For instance, the religion of Islam condemns abortion as the "Second gravest sin next to the rejection of Allah." Dr. Muhammad Abdul-Rauf, a leading Islamic scholar and bioethicist, poignantly states: "The prohibition against abortion is based upon the divine law, which makes the destruction of innocent human life, in particular the killing of one's own child, 'second in gravity only to the sin of disbelief in Allah.'"2 Abdul-Rauf's words, though very strong, are solidly based on the teachings of the Qu'ran and Hadith.

In addition to Islam, of course, we have the vehement opposition to the practice of abortion by the Orthodox and Messianic branches of Judaism,3 their arguments being quite the same as those articulated by historic Christianity. Unfortunately, the Reformed branch of Judaism,4 like many of its liberal counterparts in Protestant Christianity, has offered its consent to the horrific practice because of utilitarian impositions. And the Knesset, like many of its parlimentary counterparts in the Euro-American West, has legalized abortion as well. The Orthodox and Messianic branches of Judaism who have been lobbying the Knesset since the time of Menachim Begin (1973) have tried to restore the biblical worldview of the sanctity of life to the Jewish nation. However, with the rise of secularism and nominalism in Israel, all such attemps have resulted in futility. So, as in the days of Elijah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, we find innocent blood once again being shed on holy land.

Now along with the great religions of Christianity/Messianic Judaism, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, both Buddhism and Hinduism deplore the practice of abortion as well. According to the Buddhist canonical scriptures (in this instance, the Vinyana-Pitaka), it is written: "Abortion is in accord with Buddha's teaching that the destruction of life is a moral transgression." In fact, expulsion from the monkhood is the consequence if a monk were to advise someone to procure an abortion -- to the Western mind such a penalty might seem somewhat lenient, but to the Buddhist mindset, such a penalty is a severe, dread consequence, re-depositing an incalculable sum of karmic debt.5 With regard to Hinduism, the noted scholar Candrasekhara dasa makes reference to Vedic teaching, when he says, "Life begins within the womb at the time of conception. Abortion, according to the 'Vedic texts,' is therefore tantamount to murder."6 Thus, we can conclude that not only is historic Christianity vociferous in its opposition to the horrific practice, but nearly all the great surviving religions of the ancient world have attested to this gross and detestable evil.

Now, what is especially evil and horrific about the practice of abortion, is the monstrosity and barbarism associated with the practice itself. Although it has now been refined to a technical, systematic procedure of fetal mutilation (still more barbarous than ever), in the ancient past abortion was practiced in a variety of ways. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, "Throughout human history, there is above all, this supreme stamp of the barbarian; the sacrifice of the permanent for the temporary."7 A few examples will suffice in demonstrating that, in pagan antiquity, abortion was a common practice: For example, the Greeks would offer medicinal and herbal poisons which were intended to induce early fetal labor.8 (Incidentally, the usage of abortifacients was condemned by Hippocrates, as stated in the Hippocratic Oath). Some ancient Chinese women would tie heavy ropes around their waists so stringently that they would destroy the frail fetus in the womb and thus cause some form of miscarriage.9 The Polynesians would beat the abdomens of certain pregnant women with such force that the death of the fetus, again, was the ultimate objective.10 However, while such cultures practiced abortion, others resorted to infanticidal practices which were horrendous and gruesome, and even worse, such practices became part of the pagan religious cults of certain peoples -- the Canaanite practice of offering children to Baal/Molech/Chemosh being one of the most hideous of all examples. And it is with regard to this latter practice, i.e., the practice of child sacrifice, that the Bible is explicitly condemnatory.

Now, it is well-known that in the ancient world, child sacrifice and human sacrifice were somewhat common. In the Americas, for instance, the Mayans and the Incans performed ritual sacrifices, but perhaps the most bloody civilization of all was that of the Aztecs. In 1487, at the dedication of the great temple which stood in what is today Mexico City, a massive ritual sacrifice took place in which over 10,000 people perished on the temple's altars -- the killing was continual, four at a time, from sunrise to sunset. The priests worked on rotating shifts without pause to ensure that there was no pause in the offering of human hearts to the gods, the principal god being Tezcatilpoca.11 With methodical precision, the priests would cut into the victim's chest, take out his palpitating heart, and offer it to the great sun god. Ironically, though, despite the rivers of blood that would flow from their sacrificial temples, the Aztecs regarded themsleves as a gentle, environmentally conscious people, much like contemporary Western man. An ancient Aztec poem called "The Song of Spring" reads:

"In the house of paintings the singing begins, the song resounds bringing happiness. Over the flowers the pheasant's song unfolds, inside the waters, red birds respond. The song scatters flowers, bring happiness."12

Certainly, the tenor of this poem seems incongruent with a culture which was steeped in human sacrifice. And although we may think of the Aztecs as a barbarous people, they were actually very advanced in architecture, science, and technology, much like ourselves. So, in a sense, Western man is very much like Aztec culture, although this assertion would certainly be met with denial. Nevertheless, we talk and sing of love for nature and even for our fellow man, and much can be said to our credit. We are a charitable people who care about abused children, and we oppose evils like racism and bigotry. Yet while we retain values such as these, we also engage in the systematic mutilation and destruction of developing human life. We develop gross, barbaric procedures such as the D & X abortion procedure (Partial-Birth abortion) and we have no reservations regarding the wholesale slaughter of innocent human life. Good people we are, but with an addiction to murder!

Not to be outdone by the Aztecs, however, the Canaanite civilization was perhaps the most ominous and ritualistic when it came to child sacrifice. For instance, the Ammonite practice of sacrificing children to Molech was performed in the following manner: (1) A huge, hollow iron statue of the god was heated up from the inside so that the statue became like a furnace. In appearance, the statue stood erect with its iron-hot hands outstretched, and there was a mouth which would open and close, the mechanism being controlled by a secret lever; (2) This was a religious sacrifice, so it was officiated by the Canaanite (in this case, Ammonite) priesthood; (3) A woman would give her child into the arms of the priest, and the priest would walk, in ritual procession, toward the statue of Molech, between two rows of drummers who would slowly pound their big toms in order to "drown-out" the cries of the parents and children; (4) The priest would place the child on the burning-hot arms of Molech, and because the arms were tilted toward the body of the statue, the child would roll toward the mouth which would then be opened by the secret lever; (5) The child, scorched by the burning-hot arms, would then roll into the open mouth of the god and be consumed in the bowels of the inner furnace. Interestingly, many archaeological excavations in Syria, Palestine, and Jordan have revealed a massive deposit of infant remains which are, no doubt, the human debris from such Canaanite sacrificial rites. And it is with regard to this barbaric practice, i.e. child sacrifice, that the Bible makes numerous powerful, explicit condemnations.

As early as the Book of Leviticus, we find written in the "Holiness Code" (i.e. chapters 17-26), "[Whoever of the children of Israel sacrifices any of his children to Molech, he shall surely be put to death]" (Lev 20:2). Other texts such as Jeremiah 7 and 19, and especially Ezekiel 16:20-21, which deal with Israel in their state of apostasy, indicate that child sacrifice would eventually become a curse for the nation of Israel. For instance, the text of Ezekiel reads: "Moreoever you took your sons and daughters, whom you bore to me, and these you sacrificed to [the heathen gods] to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, that you have 'slain my children' and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire?" (16:20-21). As the texts imply, the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel adopted the pagan Canaanite practices of idolatry and child sacrifice. Not only is this attested by Scripture, but also by numerous excavations in Palestine (e.g., the temple of Ashtoreth in Megiddo where numerous infant remains tell the story of a gruesome, barbaric, and heinous practice that once occurred). In the year 586 BC, the pagan city of Jerusalem was smashed by the Babylonians, and hundreds of thousands of Jews were slaughtered or deported, precisely as the prophets had foretold. The major transgression which brought about such destruction was that of child sacrifice. As the prophet Jeremiah had foretold:

Hear the word of YHWH, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem . . .
Behold, I will bring such a catastrophe on this place, that whoever hears of it,
his ears will tingle. Because they have forsaken me and made this an alien place . . .
and have filled this place with the 'blood of innocents.'
Jeremiah 19:3-4 (ca. 605 BC)

Now, the philosophical issue which seems quite obvious to me is the parallel that exists between ancient pagan child sacrifice and the practice of abortion in our modern day. First, let us ask the question, "What is sacrifice?" Well, "sacrifice" (in this context) can be defined as "relinquishing what is valuable in order to secure a better future for oneself." In the Mesopotamian religions of the second and third millennia BC, for instance, the subjects of a certain kingdom would bring forth their offerings to the temple, and along with prayer and accompanying rituals, they would provide the gods their due, in exchange for health, prosperity, and well-being. In the extreme, the offering of one's child would be considered the greatest sacrifice; therefore, the subject would expect even greater rewards. Sometimes the remains of the firstborn child were even interred in the wall of the family home, thus assuring prosperity for the family.

Now although the pro-abortion community would decry such a comparison with ancient child sacrifice, if we superimpose the intents of the heart from that period onto the modern day, there is really no difference whatsoever. Essentially, we can conclude two things about abortion: First, that it is indeed a sacrifice, in that it can certainly be defined as relinquishing something that is valuable. And second, the deed is done in order for the individuals to secure a better future for themselves (the "individuals" being the birth-parents or others who benefit from the abortion -- several examples could be noted here, but this would bring about an unnecessary digression). Without getting into great detail, then, it is believed that a newborn child will be an obstacle to the future aspirations of the birth-parents and/or others. Indeed, even as it was in ancient times, the cultural mindset of the day (zeitgeist or spirit of the age) encourages and supports the abortive sacrifice of an [unborn] child in order that the participants might secure for themselves a better future. For instance, a young man and woman might decide that a child would be an obstacle to their college education, which would have implications for their future career and financial state -- thus, the abortive sacrifice is the answer. Or perhaps a single mom might decide that another child might require her to work harder in order to provide food and sustenance for another mouth. On the other hand, the abortive sacrifice sometimes benefits peripheral figures who then become instrumental in the decision-making process. For example, a wealthy father who has a reputation to protect in his community might persuade his unmarried pregnant daughter to procure an abortion in order to secure his future reputation in the community. In sum, at the heart of all these decisions is the attribute of selfishness -- even worse, it is selfishness at the expense of another -- indeed, even the death of another. However, contemporary Western man psychologically and sociologically veils this selfishness, first by denying the humanity of the [unborn] child, and then by proceeding to define the act in terms of altruism. The appeal to altruistic ideals intends to reinforce the legitimacy of abortion and provides a veil for the guilt that usually arises after the abortive sacrifice is secured (though the guilt associated with abortion is difficult to suppress, hence "post-abortion syndrome"). Some altruistic cliches which are employed to justify abortion are "Population explosion," "Individualism -- 'No one has the right to tell you what to do with your body,'" "It is unfair to bring an unwanted child into the world, especially if that child will be handicapped," "Just think, you could get a college education and do so much good for so many people," etc. But as the philosopher Ayn Rand once observed, "Every barbaric act of history has been built upon an altruistic ideal."

Although it is impossible to explore all of the evils of abortion in this paper, we can certainly deduce that abortion is the modern counterpart to child sacrifice in the ancient world - the intents of the heart being the same. In both contexts (i.e. the present and the past), we have the relinquishing of that which is valuable in order to secure a better future for oneself. Yet, even worse, the sacrificial act is being committed against a child by means of a hideous, barbaric, and gruesome method that results in pain, mutilation, and death. The theist must ask, "What can be more abominable in the eyes of God?" Thus, it is quite apparent from the perspective of historic Christianity that the essence of abortion is not only directed against an innocent creature of God, but even more, it is a violent and barbaric attack against the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). Moreover, though ancient child sacrifice was certainly horrendous, as we described above, I would venture to say that the pseudo-medical procedure of our day is perhaps the most horrific deed ever devised by the mind of man. Such techniques as systematic fetal mutilation and crushing of skull (D & C), saline destruction (salt poisoning), D & X (partial birth abortion - i.e. partial delivery of fetus, incision at base of skull, and suction of brain contents), etc., are simply brutal, barbaric, and criminal, bearing a mark of inhumanity that is second to none. That it is an assault upon the human being at his or her most vulnerable stage in the continuum of the life process, along with the barbarism associated with the technical practice itself, exposes the act of abortion for what it really is -- i.e. a Satanic attack upon the image of God in its most vulnerable form.
I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion,
because it is war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child,
murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill
even her own child, then how can we tell other people not to kill on another.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta
_______________________________

Postscript: An apologetic against abortionYou would ask your "abortion rights" opponent the following three questions, and then draw the unavoidable conclusion that the "abortion rights" supporter must concede!

1. Is the fetus developing in the womb? Yes
2. Is the fetus of the human species? Yes
3. Is the fetus a living thing? Yes

Conclusion: You have conceded that the fetus is a developing human life, and as an abortion rights supporter, you are sanctioning the systematic dismemberment, mutilation, and death of a developing human life.
___________________________________________________

Endnotes

1. Michael Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1982, p. 9. *Condemnations of abortion by the early Church Fathers are littered throughout the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995 (2nd printing), 1885 (1st printing). There is no ambiguity regarding the ethical position of the historic Church on this issue.

2. Tj. Bosgra, Abortion: The Bible and the Church. Toronto: Life Cycle, 1976, 1987,
p. 114.

3. Ibid., p. 121, 124.

4. Ibid., p. 118.

5. Ibid., p. 70.

6. Ibid., p. 124 -- International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).

7. G. K. Chesterton, The Quotable Chesterton. Eds. George Marlin et al.,
Garden City, NY: Image, 1987, p. 34.

8. George Grant, The Quick and the Dead. Wheaton: Crossway, 1991, p. 66.

9. Ibid., p. 66.

10. Ibid., p. 66.

11. Larousse, Encyclopedia of Mythology, "The Aztecs" Trans. by Richard Aldington and Delano Ames, Cresent Books, 1989.

12. The Heights of Hungry Coyote, Poet of Ancient Mexico -- Trans. from the
Nahuatl (an Aztec writing) by John Curl http://www.jps.net/redcoral/Hungry.html

Gnosticism

A Concise Exploration of its Primary Systems and the Philosophical Challenge Posed to Ante-Nicene Orthodoxy

by William J Tsamis


In those years when the apostolic faith began its march westward through the regions of the Roman Empire, the great adversary of God arose from his lair in venemous fury and set his legions in bold array against this new religion of Jesus Christ. Descending upon the saints of God like a fire-breathing dragon, the evil one left no stone unturned in his vain attempt to stamp out the Church of God Most High. Strategically, he sought war on two fronts (i.e. the external and the internal), and thus launched a two-fold assault which was designed to crush the Church from the outside (via persecution) and/or contaminate it from within (via heresy). The student of ecclesiastical history, then, cannot fail to notice one phenomenon in particular -- i.e. that the history of the ten Roman imperial persecutions (ca. 64-312 AD) runs virtually parallel with the history of ane-Nicene heretical movements, such as Gnosticism. While Nero, Domitian, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius were issuing edicts of destruction, declaring the Christian faith a "religio ilicita," dangerous "wolves in sheeps' clothing" (e.g. Cerinthus, Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion) were devouring many with their insidious heresies and aberrant teachings.

In this thesis, we will endeavor to examine the religio-philosophical movement(s) of Gnosticism, which flourished during the second century AD and posed a serious threat to the pure apostolic teaching. We will explore the major tenets of the Gnostic worldview as expressed by the various schools of thought, and then evaluate the Christian polemical response which not only served an outward purpose by presenting a systematic refutation of gnostic beliefs, but also an inward purpose by clarifying Christian doctrine and defining orthodoxy. Finally, we will examine how the God of gods sovereignly used the threat of Gnosticism for His divine purposes -- i.e. for the ultimate furtherance of the true Christian religion.

Renewed interest in Gnosticism was sparked by the recent discovery of thirteen ancient codices, written in Coptic near the modern Egyptian village of Nag Hammadi, some 300 miles south of Cairo. In December 1945, while digging for soil to fertilize crops, an Arab peasant accidentally uncovered a red earthenware jar containing the codices, which in sum preserved fifty-two Gnostic texts. Most scholars and antiquarians have determined that these Coptic texts are translation of Greek autographa which were probably composed some time before AD 200.1 Needless to say, the importance of this discovery is monumental for several reasons, the primary reason having a direct bearing on our understanding of ante-Nicene Christianity in its struggle for orthodoxy.

Until "Nag Hammadi," our knowledge of Gnosticism was gleaned primarily from the patristic writings (e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian, et al.) which were alleged by some liberal scholars to exhibit a gross bias and misrepresentation of the diverse Gnostic systems. It was said that the Church Fathers were propagandists who sought to "expose the weaknesses of the Gnostic theory and to present the Gnostics themselves in the worst possible light."2 However, comparative studies of the patristic writings with the Nag Hammadi corpus has revealed no essential or substantive disagreement between these two sources of the ancient system(s).3 Nevertheless, as one prominent Gnostic scholar points out, the Nag Hammadi corpus gives us a unique insight into this earliest of Christian heresies -- "Now for the first time, the heretics can speak for themselves."4

Although a concise definition of Gnosticism is elusive, Philip Schaff, in his monumental, History of the Christian Church, summarizes the ancient thought system in the following manner:

"Gnosticism is the grandest and most comprehensive form of speculative religious sycretism known to history. It consists of Oriental mysticism, Greek philosophy, Alexandrian, Philonic, and Cabbalistic Judaism, and Christian ideas of salvation, not merely mechanically compiled, but, as it were, chemically combined."5

As a religio-philosophical movement which was thoroughly syncretistic, then, Gnosticism did not arise in isolation, but rather, it was deeply rooted in the "mighty revolution of ideas induced by the fall of the old religions and the triumph of the new."6 In sum, Gnosticism was the child of the religious pluralism which pervaded the Hellenistic world in the post-Alexander era.

Derived from the Greek word for knowledge (gnosis), the term Gnosticism covers a number of religious and quasi-philosophical movements that began to flourish during the ante-Nicene era.7 Despite this plurality of influences and plethora of philosophical views, however, it is possible to identify the three key pillars of gnosticism upon which the individual Gnostic sects constructed their own sectarian systems:

1. Cosmological dualism -- i.e. the spirit/matter distinction, or in Schaff's words, the assumption of an eternal antagonism between God (Spirit) and matter."8 According to this principle, a sharp dualism exists between two world -- the "spiritual" world of divine light and the "material" world of darkness.9 In sum, the Gnostics equated "spirit" with "good" (or light), and "matter" with "evil" (or darkness). Thus, as the abode of the principle of evil, the material visible world could not possibly be the handiwork of the Supreme God.10 From this conclusion, then, the Gnostic thinkers derived the whole concept of a "demiurge." (It is interesting that in the Nicene Creed, which in effect is a compilation of earlier rules of faith and assertions of orthodoxy, the Creed opens with a polemic against the idea of a demiurge -- "I believe in one God, Father Almighty, MAKER OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE . . .").

2. The demiurgic notion -- i.e. the God/Demiurge distinction, which is the idea that the material universe was not created by the Supreme God (i.e. the God of the New Testament), but rather, by the Demiurge (Gr. "craftsman"), an inferior deity (in some systems, an evil being) who is identified by Gnostic thinkers with the Old Testament YHWH.11 Although the philosophical idea of a demiurge (divine craftsman) is rooted in the thought of Plato (cf. Timaeus),12 the Gnostic notion is fundamentally different. Whereas in the Platonic system the Demiurge creates wthe world as a reflection of the heavenly Forms (Ideas, Ideal Types)13 -- thus implying some inherent good in the material creation -- the Gnostic system beholds the rabid evil of our decaying world and therefore concludes that such an "evil universe cannot be assigned to a good God."14 Thus, YHWH is perceived as a finite, imperfect God, and is furthermore accused of being an angry and terrible deity. As the patristic scholar once wrote, "YHWH is just but he has passions; he is irate and revengeful; he is the author of all evil, be it physical or moral. For this reason he is the instigator of all wars."15 Obviously, the implications of this Gnostic assertion are quite predictable, especially with regard to the radical Christology which we will now examine as the third pillar of Gnostic relgion.

3. A Docetic Christology -- i.e. the view that Christ was not a "material" entity, but rather, a sort of "phantom" who merely bore the similitude of a man for purposes of "cosmological dualism" and the "demiurgic notion." As Nash points out, "Given the inherent evil of matter, the Gnostics regarded even the possibility of a genuine incarnation as unthinkable."16

Although not all Gnostic systems embraced a Docetic Christology (e.g. Cerinthianism), the prevailing and dominant sects (e.g. Valentinians, Marionites, Manichaeans) were firmly rooted in some form of Docetic doctrine. The typical characteristics of Docetism which were common to most Gnostic systems can be summarized accordingly:

(a) Christ was not the Messiah announced by the Demiurge (i.e. YHWH) in the Old Testament.

(b) Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary.

(c) In the fifteenth year of Tiberius (AD 29), Christ manifested himself suddenly in the synagogue at Capernaum.

(d) From that point on, until the crucifixion, Christ merely bore the similitude of a man, i.e. he was more akin to a "phantom."

(e) Christ did not suffer death, but rather, "Simon of Cyrene bore the cross in his stead; so that this Simon, being transfigured by Jesus, that Simon might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified through ignorance and error while Jesus himself received the form of Simon and standing by laught at them" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I. 24, 3-4).17 Interestingly, the reliability of Irenaeus (as discussed earlier) was confirmed here by one of the texts in the Nag Hammadi corpus, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth. In this pseudepigraphal work, Jesus says, "It was another who drank the gall and vinegar; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was rejoicing in the height over all . . . and I was laughing at their ignorance."18

Immediately, it becomes apparent that the Jesus of Gnosticism is "not" the Jesus of orthodox/canonical Christianity. In fact, the two are diametrically opposed. And now, as we shall see, the chasm between the two religions becomes even greater as one examines the lives and teachings of the heresiarchs themselves.

One of the first Gnostic leaders to emerge during the post-apostolic age was Cerinthus (ca. 100). According to uncertain traditions, Cerinthus was an Egyptian Jew who studied at the school of Philo in Alexandria.19 After developing his philosophical system, he moved on to Asia Minor where his teaching typically embraced a dualistic cosmology as well as the demiurgic notion. However, his Christology was somewhat unique in that he synthesized the Docetic and Ebionite views of Christ. (The Ebionite view, of course, denied the incarnation, asserting that Jesus was an ordinary man who received the Holy Spirit at His baptism.20 In the Cerinthian view, then, the divine presence descended upon Jesus at his baptism and abandoned him at his death.21

Interestingly, Irenaeus records a story which was related by Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John) about an incident which occurred when the holy apostle accidentally crossed paths with Cerinthus. According to Irenaeus: "John the Lord's disciple, when at Ephesus went to take a bath, but seeing Cerinthus inside rushed out of the building without taking a bath, crying, 'Let us get out of here, for fear the place falls in, now that Cerinthus, the enemy of truth is inside!'"22 Admittedly, the historicity of such an accound could be challenged (although the authority of Irenaeus is quite strong). Undisputed, however, is the anti-Cerinthian polemic which is explicity apparent in the Johannine writings, especially in the First Epistle (1:1-3; 2:22; 4:3).

Another Gnostic teacher of prominence during this period was Basilides, who taught at Alexandria during the reign of Hadrian (117-138). In his youth he studied under the Samaritan, Menander, the infamous pupil of the notorious arch-heretic himself, Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24).23 Basilides developed the first complex and cohesive Gnostic mythosophical system, but as Schaff points out, "it was too metaphysical and intricate to be popular."24 In contrast to other systems of Gnosis, Basilides rejected the notion of cosmological dualism and instead embraced a "monistic" view of reality quite similar to the Hindu Vedantic model (cf. the Upanishads). Essentially, he constructed his philosophy upon a hyper-abstract view of God (cf. Vedantic Monism, Hegel); a view that describes God as "ineffable" and "unnamable," and therefore deduces that He is beyond any possible comprehension.25 According to Irenaeus (Against Heresies, I. 24), Basilides taught that from the womb of God's inexpressible Being, a whole series of principalities, powers, and angelic beings proceeded by virtue of emanation.26 Also formed weree 365 heavens, the lowest of which is ruled by an "evil" angelic being, YHWH, the God of the Jews.

Another characteristic of the Basilidian view was the Platonic doctrine of the "preexistence of souls" and its implications toward metempsychosis, i.e. reincarnation. In fact, metempsychosis played a critical role in the salvific doctrine of the Basilidians.

By far more impostant than Basilides, however, was his contemporary, Valentinus (fl. 120-160), who was probably of Egyptian Jewish descent and Alexandrian education. According to Tertullian (Praescriptio Haereticorum), Valentinus was a disciple of Platonism and Pythagoreanism.27 In developing his own system of Gnosis, he borrowed heavily from Oriental, Greek, and Christian concepts, synthesizing these ideas with material he derived from his own "fertile imagination."28 As a teacher in the metropolis of Rome (ca. 150) he was celebrated (even by his detractors) for his brilliance and eloquence.29

Like Basilides, the thought system of Valentinus was mythosophically complex and highly imaginative. He beings with the concept of an eternal primal Being, which he calls "Bythos" or "Abyss." As Schaff explains, "The Bythos is unbegotten, infinite, invisible, incomprehensible, nameless, the absolute agnoston [lit. "unknown"]; yet capable of evolution and development, the universal Father of all beings."30 Moreover, the nature of Bythos is dualistic -- i.e. its ethereal composition consists of both male and female principles. Echoing the words of Hippolytus, Schaff tells us, "Valentinus derived this sexual duality from the essential nature of love, and said: 'God is all love; but love is not love except there is some object of affection.'"31 As Schaff goes on to say, "Valentinus grappled here with a pre-mundane mystery, which the orthodox theology endeavors to solve by the doctrine of the immanent eternal trinity in the divine essence: God is love, therefore God is triune: a loving subject, a beloved object, and a union of the two."32

Although the Valentinians were prolific in their dissemination of pseudepigraphal literature, one writing of particular importance was the so-called Gospel of Truth, referred to in the polemical writings of Irenaeus. Interestingly, the Gospel of Truth, was among the texts discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Upon scholarly examination, it was revealed that this pseudepigraphal work was permeated with pericopes and terminology from the canonical gospels (although the Gnostic interpretation, of course, was to be understood in an esoteric sense). This discovery is significant for many reasons; one reason being that it sheds incredible light on a passage from Irenaeus's heresiological work, Against Heresies (III. 15, 2). In his polemic, Irenaeus perceived the deceptive power of the Valentinian literary style, writing, "By these words they entrap the more simple and entice them, imitating our phraseology that these dupes may listen to them the oftener; and then these are asked regarding us how it is that, when their whole doctrine is similar to ours, we without cause keep ourselves aloof from their company."33 In this way, then, the Valentianian "wolves" devoured many in the flock of Christ.

The most dangerous heresiarch of all, however, was none other that Marcion of Pontus, who gained notoriety as a teacher in Rome during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161). The son of a Christian bishop, he was excommunicated from the Church by his own father, probably on account of his heretical ideas and contempt for authority.34 Whereas his contemporaries (Basilides and Balentinus) constructed their thought systems upon extremem metaphysical speculations, Marcion adhered to a more practical and rationalistic ideology.35 It was probably for this reason that the ante-Nicene fathers regarded him as the most infamous and dangerous of the Gnostic "wolves." Irenaeus, for instance, related a story that "Polycarp himself on one occasion came face to face with Marcion, and when Marcion said, 'Don't you recognize me?', he replied: 'I do indeed; I recognize the firstborn of Satan!"36

Typcially, Marcion embraced the three pillars of Gnosticism (i.e. cosmological dualism, the demiurgic notion, and a Docetic Christology) and furthermore asserted a sharp dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, he preached an extreme asceticism, which he followed rigorously. But the most salient feature of Marcion's career was his redaction of the New Testament into his own canon. Convinced that the Jews had falsified the original gospel by introducing Jewish elements,37 he rejected the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and "repudiated all the so-called Jewish interpolations in the Gospel of Luke, which he believed contained substantially the true gospel of Christ."38 Ultimately, then, the canon of Marcion consisted of eleven books -- i.e. a mutilated version of Luke (omitting the nativity stories because of his Docetic Christology), and ten of the Pauline letters. (He rejected the pastoral epistles because of their anti-Gnostic polemical content (1 Tim 4:3; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:18), as well as the Book of Acts, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the General Epistles, and the Apocalypse).39 In his hyper-critical methodology he unwittingly anticipated the "higher critical" schools of the nineteenth century.

Despite the fact that post-Constantinian Christendom vigorously suppressed Marcionism, the movement continued to spread throughout the Mediterranean world for centuries. Indeed, some Marcionite communities were still in existence as late as the Middle Ages (tenth century).


Thus far, we have examined the religio-philosophical movement(s) of Gnosticism which flourished during the second century AD, and we have explored the major tenets of the Gnostic worldview as expressed by the various schools of thought. Let us now briefly consider the Christian polemical response as articulated in the Pauline, Johannine, and ante-Nicene literature, and in so doing, examine God's providential purpose in allowing Gnosticism to threaten the apostolic Church.

There were two reasons, primarily, for God's permitting of the Gnostic threat -- (1) For the "defense of orthodoxy" (i.e. the repudiation of false doctrine), and (2) For the "definition of orthodoxy" (i.e. the clarification of Christian doctrine, the development of rules of faith and creedal formulas, and the establishment of the New Testament canon). In this brief analysis, then, let us begin with the first aspect of God's providential purpose, the "defense of orthodoxy."

In the book of Isaiah, God tells his people, "When the enemy comes in like a flood, the Lord shall raise up a standard agains him" (59:19). The relevance of this prophetic to our discussion is at once realized when we understand the severity of the Gnostic threat to the early Church. Like raging flood-waters, Gnosticism was a powerful force with tremendous potential for destruction. And many who were caught in its path were swept away by its mighty current. However, God raised up men of great intellectual stature to confront the opposing system(s) of thought and to defend the apostolic faith against all philosophical and worldly onslaughts. Men such as the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria were among some positioned by the Most High to "contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Within the polemical writings of these apostolic and patristic fathers one can certainly detect a commonality of purpose aimed at the refutation of Gnosticism, or as Paul described it -- "the knowledge (gnosis) falsely so-called (1 Tim 6:20). A close examination of several Pauline and Johannine texts, for instance, reveals that the "three pillars of Gnosticism" (cosmological dualism, the demiurgic notion, and a Docetic Christology) were alive in embryonic form during the apostolic era. Thus, an authoritative repudiation of such concepts was absolutely necessary. And indeed, this is precisely what we find when we examine certain passages from Colossians (1:16-17; 2:9) and from the Fourth Gospel (1:1-3, 14) where the primary thrust of each text serves to demolish such heretical notions as cosmological dualism and the demiurgic notion. Similarly, the Docetic Christology, so important to the Gnostic worldview, is refuted in the Fourth Gospel (1:14; 6:51), as well as in First Timothy (3:16), and again in First John (1:1-3; 4:1-3).

Building upon the foundation of Pauline and Johannine polemical theology, the second century fathers continued to carry the torch of orthodoxy into the post-apostolic age. During the course of their polemical careers some powerful refutations of the Gnostic religion were composed. As Eusebius relates, "Truth again put forward many to do battle for her, and they, not only with spoken arguments but also with written demonstrations, took the field against the godless heresies."40 Some of these "written demonstrations" included: Irenaeus's Against Heresies: The Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So-Called, Tertullian's Praescriptio Haereticorum, and Clement of Alexandria's Stromata. Thus, in this way the defense of orthodoxy was acoomplished and the providential will of God fulfilled.

The second reason for God's permitting of the Gnostic threat was for the definition of orthodoxy -- i.e. the clarification of Christian doctrine, the development of rules of faith and creedal formulas, and the establishment of the New Testament canon. As Christianity began to spread throughout the Mediterranean world, there was a clear and ominous danger that the universality of the faith would be lost, and that the Christian religion would become a loose conglomeration of divergent systems. In order to preserve catholicity, then, the Church Fathers, would have to define orthodoxy and remove ambiguity from Christian doctrine. Ultimately, it would be the threat of Gnosticism which would serve as the catalytic antithesis that would force the early fathers to articulate the cardinal tenets of apostolic christianity in the form of a "Rule of Faith" (or Creed).

Indeed, the first writer to clearly set forth an identifiable Rule of Faith was the anti-Gnostic polemicist, Irenaeus. As we related the text of his Rule, take notice of the polemical content:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, who made heaven and earth and the seas and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; aand in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, nd the coming and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the dobily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race."41 Eventually, this Rule of Faith would be refined and expanded, realizing its greatest expression in the form of the Nicene Creed.

Concurrent with the development of the Rule of Faith was the recognition that the canon of the New Testament must be firmly established. Again, this sentiment was set in motion by the rise of Gnosticism. For not only did Marcion announce his canon list in AD 140, but the entire second century experienced a great proliferation of Gnostic pseudepigraphal works. Therefore, it was vital for the orthodox church to define what books were considered normative for faith and practice.42 In this way, then, the definition of orthodoxy was accomplished, and the universal church was held together by one indissoluble bond.


In conclusion, we can clearly see that the religion of Gnosticism, though obviously a design of the adversary, was ultimately used by God according to his sovereign will for the furtherance of Christianity. For even as the imperial persecutions served to cleanse the Church of those who were less than fully committed to the faith (thereby protecting the early church from nominalism), the threat of gnosticism forced the Church to defend and define the orthodox doctrines of the apostolic faith and thereby take a stand against all heresy and error. In this historic clash between the two worldviews, then, orthodox Christianity emerged in triumph and victory. Indeed, Christ had "built his church, and the gates of hell could not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18).
____________________________________________

Works Cited

1. Trent C. Butler, "Gnosticism" in Holman Bible Dictionary. Nashville:Holman, 1991, p. 1001.

2. R. McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968, p. 84.

3. Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973, p. 56.

4. Douglas Groothius, "Gnosticism and the New Testament Jesus" in Christian Research Journal. Fall 1990, p. 9 (a quote from Elaine Pagels).

5. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Ante-Nicene Christianity. Vol. 2 of 9.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910, p. 448.

6. Ibid., 447.

7. Everett Ferguson, "Gnosticism" in Encyclopedia of Early Christianty.
London: Garland, 1990, p. 371.

8. Schaff, p. 452.

9. Ibid., 452.

10. Ibid., 454.

11. Frederick Copleston, History of Philosophy: Augustine to Scotus. Vol. 2 of 9.
New York: Doubleday, 1962, p. 167.

12. Ibid., 21.

13. Frederick Copleston, History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome. Vol. 1 of 9.
Doubleday: New York, 1962, p. 167.

14. Jack Finegan, Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the
Biblical World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989 p. 256.

15. Johannes Quasten, Patrology: Vol. 1, Westminster: Christian Classics, 1950. p. 270.

16. Ronald Nash, Christianity in the Hellenistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1984, p. 222.

17. Quasten, p. 258 (a quote from Irenaeus).

18. Groothius, p. 11.

19. Schaff, p. 465.

20. Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, p. 206.

21. Ferguson, p. 190.

22. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. Trans. by G. A. Williamson. Penguin: London, 1965, IV, 14, p. 116

23. Quasten, pp. 255-56.

24. Schaff, p. 467.

25. Ibid., p. 468.

26. Finegan, p. 223.

27. Ibid., p. 227.

28. Schaff, p. 473.

29. Ferguson, p. 923.

30. Schaff, p. 474.

31. Ibid., p. 474.

32. Ibid., p. 474.

33. Quasten, p. 260.

34. Schaff, p. 484.

35.Ibid., p. 484.

36. Eusebius, IV. 14, p. 117.

37. Quasten, p. 271.

38. Ibid., p. 271.

39. Schaff, p. 486.

40. Eusebius, IV. 8, p. 110.

41. Tim Dowley, Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, p. 113.

42. Ibid., p. 105.

Ralph Waldo Emerson - Historical and Philosophical Influences

The Historical and Philosophical Influences
Behind His Thought and Worldview

by William J. Tsamis
___________________________

As the cold autumn rain pounded the sidewalk outside the Upstart Crow & Co., a local coffee-house and bookstore, the Aquarian crown inside settled down for the weekly Wednesday night meeting of the Nirvana Forum, a clique of counterculture intellectuals who gather and discuss a variety of new age related topics. According to ritual, the meeting would commence with a selected reading, usually a poem or perhaps a passage from one of the Eastern philosophical writings. On this night, the reader was a young lady, probably a college student; she was a shadowy figure dressed in black, with a silver ankh pendant pressed against the lapel of her leather jacket. Sipping her espresso and then setting it aside, she stood somewhat nervously before the group and began her recitation:

"Who shall define to me an Individual?
I behold with awe and delight
many illustrations of the One Universal Mind.
I see my being imbedded in it.
As a plant in the earth, so I grow with God.
I am only a form of Him. He is the soul of me.
I can even with a mountainous aspiring say, 'I am God.'" 1

Breathing a sigh of relief and betraying a half-smile, the young lady sat down and reached for her demitasse, the assembly nodding in assent to the words which she had just spoken.

Contrary to what many might suppose, the edifying passage had not been drawn from the sea of contemporary new age literature, nor was it gleaned from one of the Eastern philosophical writings such as those of Krishnamurti or the Upanishads (the Hindu scriptures which are considered the wellspring of such monistic thought); but rather, the selected writing came from the pen of the nineteenth century American literary sage and poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Indeed, Emerson's writings have, in recent years, experienced a renaissance of sorts, especially within the realm of counterculture intellectualism and new age pluralism. Perhaps it was his expressed distaste for traditional paradigms or his emphasis on the subjective pursuit of truth, or possibly both; nevertheless, the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson has found a home in the pluralistic mindset of the Aquarian generation. But although many of his sentimental devotees regard him as a great philosophical thinker, it must be pointed out that, aside from his literary brilliance, the Emersonian worldview is not a system of great originality. Rather, it is a pluralistic expression of many diverse philosophies, predominantly those of the monistic school (e.g. Neo-Platonism, Vedantic Hinduism), and it is a worldview conceived in the womb of eighteenth century biblical skepticism. Thus, without diminishing the brilliance of his literary genius, let us proceed to explore, not only the various influences present in his thought, but also the historical setting in which he lived, specifically the backdrop of the post-Enlightenment/Romantic era.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was born in Boston in the year 1803, the son of a Unitarian minister.2 Indeed, the Age of Reason was slowly disappearing over the horizon and the Romantic era was gradually rising to the fore. Furthermore, it was a time of momentous social change and powerful human expression. The Napoleonic procession was under way in Europe, the American frontier had been redefined with the Jerffersonian purchase of the Louisiana Territory, and great artists such as Beethoven and Goethe were hammering out their timeless masterpieces. It was an age of revolution (political, industrial, and philosophical) and human ascent; thus it was posited for the first time that the "theoretical possibility of uninterrupted human progress might be concretely realized."3

In New England, the shockwaves of this new humanism reverberated throughout many spheres of life, from the social to the political, from the academic to the religious. Slowly, it became evident that the old Calvinist doctrine, with its pessimistic emphasis on the depravity of man, could not survive in this new atmosphere of optimism and reason.4 Thus, many congregations and academic institutions fell to the forces of Unitarianism, a liberal and more rationalistic form of Christianity, and consequently the foundation of biblical authority in the thought and life of America was further eroded. This was the America of the early 1800s, the America of Ralph Waldo Emerson.

As the son of a minister, it was determined that the young Emerson would continue in the clerical tradition of his father; so after studying theology at Harvard Divinity School, he entered the Unitarian pastorate in 1829 and proceeded to fulfill the ministerial role. However, it was not long before he became disillusioned with the sober rationalism of Unitarianism, and that great inner conflict ensued which led to his resignation from the pulpit.5 The depth of his spiritual pursuit was indicated by his own pen, as he related in his journal in the summer of 1832:

"I have sometimes thought that in order to be a good minister, it was necessary to leave the ministry. The profession is antiquated . . . we worship the dead forms of our forefathers. Were not a Socratic paganism better than an effete, superannuated Christianity?"6

Indeed, Emerson's departure from Unitarianism would mark the beginning of a quest that would lead him further and further away from Christianity. A critical analysis of his writings, progressively hostile toward the traditional faith; an enmity which would reach its crescendo in his Divinity School Address in 1838, in which he assailed such principle doctrines as the inspiration of Scripture, miracles, and the preeminence of Christ.7

In this sense, however, Emerson was simply a product of his times - the spirit of the age. his confident assertions, for instance, that the "mythical character of Christianity" had been discovered 8, or that the Church had been preoccupied with a "noxious exaggeration about the person of Christ,"9 were not original insights, but rather, old remnants of critical thought firmly rooted in the intellectual movements of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. For since Copernicus and Galileo overthrew the Prolemaic cosmology (ca. 1600), thus demolishing the idea of a geocentric universe, the "theological scheme of redemption" with man at the center seemed "absolutely incredible."10 Consequently, a new paradigm was formed in human thought upon which a more critical and skeptical philosophy might be constructed; and the period of time which spans the Renaissance through the age of Enlightenment represents an epoch during which man would propose new cosmologies, philosophies, and ideologies, each of which would present a serious challenge to the historic Christian faith.

In particular, the skepticism of David Hume would have a profound impact on the age of Emerson. Hume (1711-76), the Scottish philosopher, argued powerfully that "uniformity" and "consistency" in nature is based on fixed natural laws which are inviolable,11 a conclusion he deduced from the scientific theories of Isaac Newton (1687). The fixity of these physical laws, Hume concluded, renders the possibility of miracles extremely improbable.12 Therefore, it is more likely that the biblical miracles were either fictitious inventions, exaggerations of real events, or simply part of the mythos of a barbaric and superstitious people.13

That the logical skepticism of Hume played a critical role in the development of Emerson's worldview is indicated by a statement that he made in one of his earlier letters after reading Hume's Philosophical Essays. Emerson writes, "I ramble among doubts to which my reason offers no solution."14 To Emerson, the young divinity student, Hume was a "reasoning machine"15 whose logic was impregnable, whose formidable arguments had seriously undermined the historicity of the Bible. Thus, Emerson was submerged in a sea of uncertainty.

Emerson's doubts, however, would be further reinforced by the conclusions of the German "higher critics" who, at the time, were revolutionizing the entire field of biblical studies. Following along the path paved by Hume, this circle of academicians, led by J. G. Eichhorn (1780), subjected the Scriptures to intense textual analysis and concluded in accord with their naturalistic presuppositions, that the biblical accounts of miracles, prophecies, and oter interventions of God were nothing more than apocryphal myths. The degree of influence that the German critics had on Emerson is best indicated by the fact that his own brother, William, studied directly under Eichhorn at Gottingen in 1824,16 during which time Waldo was pursuing divinity studies at Harvard. As the elder William confessed to his brother in one of his many correspondences, "My mind seems to have undergone a rovolution which surprises me."17

Indeed, this "revolution" of mind was one that many intellectuals experienced during the Enlightenment and Romantic eras. The Holy Bible, which once reigned supreme, had now been overthrown and cast from the throne of European thought; Reason and the sophistication of man had uncovered its primitive and mythical nature. Thus, both William and Waldo Emerson, like many of their intellectual contemporaries, concluded that Christianity, at least in a historical sense, could no longer remain a tenable option for the rational mind. Another paradigm would have to be sought out.

During these years of uncertainty, Emerson began to carve out a new spiritual paradigm which increasingly minimized the importance of biblical historicity. Instead of objective religion, he sought to recapture the mystical element in theistic belief. In his view, a true experiential knowledge of God which transcended mere intellect and dogma could only be realized through an intuitional relationship with the Creator.18 Spiritual authority, then, must not be rooted in some external source (e.g. the Bible, the Church, etc.); but rather, one should seek the truth of God within the depths of his own soul. As he would later write in his monumental work Self-Reliance (1841), "It seems as if, when the Spirit of God speaks so plainly to each soul, it were an impiety to be listening to one or another saint."19

Essentially, this radical subjectivism, which would later be termed Transcendentalism, was rooted in certain monistic presuppositions which asserted that the universe was grounded in one mind, the "Oversoul,"20 and that this Cosmic Mind permeated all of nature, including the soul of man.21 In Emerson's words:

"The Oversoul is that great nature in which we rest, as the earth lies in the soft arms of the atmosphere; that Unity . . . within which every man's particular being is contained and made one with all other . . . within man is the sould of the whole, the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal One."22

Curiously, this emersonian verse bears a striking resemblance to the Upanishadic teaching that Brahman (the Cosmic Soul) is the sole reality, and that Atman (the individual self) is identical to Brahman -- i.e. "Thou art that."23 But primary dependence on Vedantic Hinduism cannot be established since Emerson's study of the Hindu Scriptures probably did not commence until 1837, 24 well after he had embarked on the path to monism. Nevertheless, Vedantic thought played a profound role in his later years, confirming to him the sensibility of his worldview; his tribute to Hinduism is reflected in his later prose works, Hamatreya (1847) and Brahma (1856).

Now if Emerson's monistic concept of the "Oversoul" was not influenced primarily by Eastern thought, then from what philosophical well did the Western sage draw his inspiration? It is clear that Emerson was rather ecclectic in the formulation of his Transcendental philosophy, gathering ideas from a myriad of sources; nevertheless, it is evident from his own writings that the system of thought which made the greatest impression on his worldview was Neo-Platonism (the third century philosophy developed by Plotinus).25 At the time of Emerson, the ancient philosophy had experienced quite a resurgence in European intellectual circles, primarily through the work of the seventeenth century Cambridge Platonist, Ralph Cudworth, who rejected both the dogmatism of John Calvin and the materialism of Thomas Hobbes.26 For Emerson, Cudworth's expression of Neo-Platonism was a philosophical alternative that was, both, intellectually and spirtually preferable to the status quo ideologies of the day.27

In essence, Neo-Platonism taught that God is an impersonal transcendent being from which all reality flows, or emanates.28 The first emanation from God is Mind (nous), which provides a raitional foundation for reality, and out of which flows the World-Soul (or universal cosmic consciousness). The human soul proceeds from the World-Soul, while nature (or temporal reality) follows as an unconscious emanation from the One, i.e. God.29 In Neo-Platonic thought, man has "fallen" into the snesual world of matter, and thus exists in a state of separation from God.30 The human purpose, then, is to "shed passionate and appetitive impulses and cultivate rational and divine potentials."31 Only in this way can the human sould proceed (or return) to God and achieve union with Him.

Emerson's dependence on Neo-Platonism is indicated throughout his writings; for instance, his recurrent polemic against sensuality and materialism typically reflects the philosophy of dualism devised by Plato -- i.e. the distinction between matter and spirit. However, when we speak of Neo-Platonic influence upon the Emersonian worldview we are concerned primarily with the cosmological relationship between the two systems, a relationship which is more than evident in the major expressions of his Transcendental philosophy, Nature (1836), and the Oversoul (1841).

In the end, the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson consists of a complex fusion of numerous ideas, all wrought in the crucible of historic change which was occuring in the nineteenth century. As a system of synthesis rather than thesis, his worldview is not one which reflects great originality. Nevertheless, we should not infer from this that emerson was somehow an inferior thinker, or as some have dismissed him, "A poet who had mistakenly strayed into the realm of the philosophers."32 On the contrary, the "American Prophet" was a dynamic and reflective individual with a vigorous imagination and powerful intellect. Furthermore, he possessed an extraordinary literary gift which beautifully synthesized philosophic insight with artistic expression.

Paradoxically, however, the critical weakness of Emerson's thought lied in the fact that he contradicted the chief premise of his own philosophy -- i.e. the principle of "Self-Reliance." For while teaching others to arrive at truth subjectively, wholly apart from any external source, Emerson himself depended greatly on the insight of others for the formulation of his own system. Thus, if it were "an impiety to be listening to one or another saint,"33 then Emerson himself must be regarded as the first transgressor of his own canon.
____________________________________________________________

Endnotes

1. Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Journal Entries" Joel Porte, ed. "Emerson in his Journals" Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1982, p. 164.

2. John McAleer, Ralph Waldo Emerson: Days of Encounter.
Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1984, p. 11.

3. George Perkins, et al., eds. The American Tradition in Literature. 7th Ed.
New York: McGraw, 1990, p. 245.

4. Robert A. Divine, et al., eds. America: Past and Present. 2nd Ed.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresome, and Co., 1987, p. 300.

5. Perkins, p. 455.

6. Emerson, Journals, p. 83.

7. Emerson in Perkins, Divinity School Address, p. 497ff.

8. Gay Wilson Allen, Waldo Emerson. New York: Viking, 1981, p. 346.

9. Emerson in Perkins, Divinity School Address, p. 501

10. Allen, p. 184.

11. David Hume, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" in The Empiricists.
Ed. Richard Tarylor. Garden City: Dophin, 1961.

12. Ibid., p. 391.

13. Ibid., p. 395.

14. Allen, p. 73.

15. Emerson in Porte, Journal Entries, p. 45.

16. Allen, p. 77.

17. Ibid., p. 77.

18. McAleer, p. 161.

19. Edward Wagenknecht, Ralph Waldo Emerson: Portrait of a Balanced Soul.
New York: Oxford UP, 1974,p. 42.

20. Emerson in Perkins, The Oversoul, p. 526.

21. Nancy A. Hardesty. "Transcendentalism" The Dictionary of Bible and Religion.
Ed. William H. Gentz. Nashville: Abingdon, 1986, p. 1062.

22. Emerson in Perkins, The Oversoul, p. 526.

23. James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976, p. 132.

24. McAleer, p. 463.

25. Allen, p. 281.

26. Frederick Copleston. "Modern Philosophy: The British Philosophers from Hobbes to Hume" Vol. 5 of A History of Philosophy. 9 vols. New York: Image, 1959, p. 55.

27. McAleer, p. 160.

28. Frederick Copleston. "Greece and Rome: Pre-Socratics to Plotinus" Vol. 1 of
A History of Philosophy. 9 vols. New York: Image, 1946, p. 466.

29. Allen, p. 375.

30. Robert M. Berchman. "Neo-Platonism" Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.
Ed. Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland, 1990, p. 641.

31. Ibid., p. 641.

32. McAleer, p. 159.

33. Wagenknecht, p. 42.