Jeff Boler said:
More and more of these Gnostic gospels seem to appear out of nowhere as the years go by.
It seems that way to those who haven't researched the subject to any extensive degree, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of "Gnostic" gospels were discovered before the 1950's. Scholars have known about most of them for decades.
In fact, there are English translations for many of them available online.
Jeff Boler said:
That being said, what is your general views on these "gospels" that were left out of the Bible?
Well, since the number of "gospels" you are referring to number in the
hundreds, many of which have not survived to the present day, it's rather difficult to answer your question adequately.
That being said, my view is that some of the "Gnostic" gospels predate the Synoptic gospels, and some do not. The Gospel of Thomas is probably the oldest, most "primitive" Christian gospel that we have --- and most likely was one of the source materials for the four canonical gospels, especially the Gospel of John. The Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth clearly had pre-eminence among first and second century Chrisitan communities, much moreso than the Synoptics.
Despite what Church history has handed down to us, some scholars' textual examinations of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord indicate that it is the source material for the Gospel of Luke, rather than the other way around. Marcion was one of the arch-"Gnostics" active around 140 CE. It should also be pointed out that the earliest collections of Paul's letters that we have --- the 7 letters thought to be largely authentically written by him --- all contain what appear to "Marcionite" prologues to them. It is known that the seven churches these letters are addressed to were all "Marcionite" strongholds in the middle of the 2nd century.
Furthermore, no "orthodox" Christian quotes Paul or even mentions him until relatively late, around the year 200 CE with Irenaeus and Tertullian. Justin Martry, for example, lived in the middle of the 2nd century and never mentions him. "Gnostic" leaders like Marcion and Valentinus had drawn on Paul's teachings for decades prior to this time.
Jeff Boler said:
Do you believe the various theories mentioned in the DaVinci code (although elaborated on in Holy Blood, Holy Grail)?
No. My own views of historical Christianity are more in alignment with Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? and
Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians.
Jeff Boler said:
And....is it herecy to read this material?
The Church defines heresy, not me. According to the Church, it is not heretical to read these texts, but it
is heretical to accept the theological ideas that they teach.
However, that cursory explanation aside, the fact of the matter is that a number of Christian mystics, sages, luminaries, saints, and theologians over the years have held positions that some could consider pro-"Gnostic". The following, for example, is an excerpt from St. Dionysius:
"Unto this Darkness which is Light, pray that we may come, and may attain unto vision through the loss of sight and knowledge, and that in ceasing thus to see or to know, we may learn to know this which is beyond all perception and understanding - for this emptying of our faculties is true sight and knowledge - and that we may offer the transcendent in all things the praises of transcendent hymnody, which we may well do by denying or removing all things that are - like any person who, carving a statue out of marble, removes all the impediments that hinder the clear perception of that latent image and by this mere removal display the hidden statue itself in its hidden beauty."
It should also be pointed out that an early Christian father, St. Clement of Alexandria, regarded the "gnostic" as the "true Christian".
So, in other words, it's very complicated.
Laterz.
