Last, there are a number of reasons why even the reliance on the Q and Gnostic traditions do not constitute grounds on which to deny the gospel facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Several responses were given to show that, at every turn, such a thesis is strongly opposed by the data.
Therefore, it must be concluded that the recent interest on the part of some scholars in this Gnostic scenario does not threaten the historicity of the life, teachings, death, or resurrection of Jesus. The majority of critical scholars have rejected such a conclusion and we have attempted to argue that there are certainly firm grounds for doing so.
1James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library.
2Nonetheless, a number of these areas will be noted as we proceed.
3This work was originally published in German. An English translation, ed. by Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel, was issued by Fortress Press (Philadelphia) in 1971.
4Ibid., p. xxii, for example.
5Wisse’s essay is included in Charles Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986). For an insightful critique, see James L. Jaquette’s review in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 32, No. 1, March, 1989, pp. 120-122.
6A. Powell Davies, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: New American Library, 1956), especially p. 120.
7Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979).
8Ibid., pp. xxii-xxiv.
9Ibid., pp. 29, 32, 56, 170-171, 179-181.
10Ibid., pp. 12-13, 20, 84-90, 112-114, 177-178.
11Robinson’s essay in Hedrick and Hodgson, Nag Hammadi, is a more recent statement of his continuing emphasis on this subject.
12Helmut Koester in Robinson, Nag Hammadi in English, Vol. II, p. 117.
13Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, pp. xv-xvi.
14Koester in Robinson, Nag Hammadi in English, vol. II, pp. 150-154. On Thomas as a sayings source, see vol. II, pp. 4, 47, 68, 180.
15Ibid., especially vol. II, pp. 152, 154.
16Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, p. xxiii.
17O.C. Edwards, “A Surprising View of Gnosticism,” New Review of Books and Religion, May, 1980, p. 27.
18Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Gnostic Gospels According to Pagels,” America, February 16, 1980, p. 123.
19Cf. Drane, Introducing the NT, chapter 11. Guthrie presents detailed overviews of the present critical discussions (pp. 43-53 [Matthew], pp. 81-84 [Mark], pp. 113-125 [Luke], pp. 252-283 [John]). See Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, p. 63 (and endnotes) for a lengthy list of some contemporary scholars who accept the traditional authors.
20Besides historians Michael Grant and A.N. Sherwin-White, whose views on the historical value of the Gospels we have studied in chapter 3, see R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986), chapter 3, especially pp. 121-125; Blomberg, Historical Reliability, p. 161; Drane, Introducing the NT, chapter 12.
21A.M. Hunter, Bible and Gospels, pp. 32-37.
22Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, p. xxiii.
23Pheme Perkins, herself an “insider” in these studies who appreciates some of Pagels’ work, still asserts that:
Pagels either knows or cares too little about the theological diversity and development of “orthodox” Christian theology in the first three centuries to be fair to its defenders in their debates with the gnostics. She is frequently taken in by the stock rhetorical polemics of both sides, mistaking rhetoric for fact.
(See Pheme Perkins, “Popularizing the Past,” Commonweal, 9 November, 1979, pp. 634-635.)
Other problems include Pagels’ popularizing methodology, her constant imposition of political, sociological, and modern psychological factors upon ancient philosophical and theological questions, and the lack of her desired support for woman’s rights in the Gnostic sources. (For details, see Edwards, p. 7; Fitzmyer, p. 122; Perkins, p. 635; Raymond E. Brown, “The Christians Who Lost Out,” The New York Times Book Review, January 20, 1980, p. 3; Kathleen McVey, “Gnosticism, Feminism, and Elaine Pagels,” Theology Today, vol. 37, January, 1981, pp. 498, 501.)
Lastly, Edwards charges that Pagels’ volume is plagued by a reductionism for which no evidence is provided, but only her own word (p. 7). Perkins summarizes her critique this way:
But the whole is so flawed by hasty generalization, over-interpretation of texts to fit a pre-determined scheme, and lack of sympathetic balance that this reviewer found herself constantly wishing that the whole could have been redone with more care (p. 635).
24Koester in Robinson, Nag Hammadi, vol. II, pp. 1-15.
25The division citations in our text follow J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971).
26Besides Papias’ reference to the Gospel of John, allusions to this Gospel may be found in Clement’s Corinthians (43), as well as Ignatius’ Ephesians (5, 17). Later, the status of John is widely recognized by Justin Martyr (about AD 150), Tatian’s Fourfold Gospel (about AD 170), and in the Muratorian Canon (about AD 180).
27See the discussion in the next section below.
28For a fairly popular treatment, see Andrew K. Helmbold, The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), pp. 88-89.
29Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, pp. 170-171.
30Even a briefly-discussed list of relevant passages would be quite lengthy. So it will simply be said here that the death and resurrection of Jesus are, without much doubt, the chief interest of these early historical passages on the life of Jesus, although other events are also mentioned frequently. For details, see Clement, Corinthians 42; Ignatius, Trallians 9; Smyrnaeans 1; 3; Magnesians 11; and Barnabas 5. For an early text on Jesus’ miracles written by Quadratus about AD 125, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV:III. For examples of historical interests in Justin Martyr (about AD 150), see First Apology XXX, XXXII, XLVIII, L and Dialogue With Trypho LXXVII, XCVII, CVIII.
31For a handy summary of arguments for and against theses such as the priority of Mark and the existence of Q, see David Barrett Peabody, “In Retrospect and Prospect,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal, Vol. XL, No. 2 (April, 1987), pp. 9-16. For a list of critical scholars who either advocate or lean toward other alternatives, see William R. Farmer, “Preface: Order Out of Chaos,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal, Vol. XL, No. 2 (April, 1987), pp. 1-6.