Together, we have faith

Has Christianity Been Wrong About Gnosticism? A Response to Candida Moss on “Stones & Bones” on Gnosticism & Christianity (National Geographic, June 6, 2026) As both a subscriber and reader of much produced by National Geographic, I am both angry and sad at the recent article by Candida Moss on Gnosticism and Christianity in the June 6, 2026 offering. Angry that only one side of the Gnostic-Christianity argument was noted and explored. Sad that there is an academic predisposition or “darkness” that prevents Candida from seeing other relevant and established data on the subject. In my academic work in systematic theology (Th.M) from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and post-graduate work at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts, I have studied and researched Christian and other non-Christian sources on the subject of Gnosticism and ancient Christianity. Rather than a “bogeyman” approach to the subject, or a trashing of ancient and modern Christianity’s views about Gnosticism and the Christian faith, there is studied evidence that the polemical writings of the New Testament and early Christians against Gnostics have been based on fact, not fiction. Whether or not there is or has been a Nag Hammadi Library or secure site is not the key to the Gnostic – Christian controversy. And whether or not there was a large group of Gnostics that opposed ancient Christianity, or whether there were just some “infiltrators” in early Church history that claimed such tendencies, is also not the issue. The so-called “slander” from Christians toward Gnosticism and its adherents has been duly warranted. The seminal work on the subject, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity , by Walter Bauer (1934), has been strongly refuted by many scholars since then. His large conclusions built upon sparse evidence, his overstatement of the diversity of Christian belief, and the strong apostolic continuity emphasized by researchers such as Larry Hurtado and Richard Buckham between the earliest Christian communities and later orthodox beliefs have weighed against Bauer’s thesis. Early Christianity displayed both a diversity and a recognized core of shared beliefs centering on Jesus’ death and resurrection, the authority of apostolic tradition, baptism and Eucharistic teachings, and the monotheistic worship of the God of Israel. Later secular researchers like Karen King and Michael Williams (mentioned in Moss’s piece) built upon Bauer’s speculation, questioning received Christian tradition. While both exposed serious weaknesses in earlier definitions of Gnosticism, especially the note that scholars should stop treating “Gnosticism” as a single, unified religion, the groups traditionally called Gnostic and cited as such by New Testament writers still share enough family resemblance to justify a broader category. Paul Hartog in his Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis punches serious holes in Bauer’s conclusions. He gives four reasonable evidences why Bauer’s thesis cannot be supported — “First, Bauer’s conclusions were unduly conjectural in light of the limited nature of the available evidence and in some cases arguments from silence altogether. Second, Bauer unduly neglected the New Testament evidence and anachronistically used second-century data to describe the nature of “earliest” (first-century) Christianity. . . . Third, Bauer grossly oversimplified the first-century picture, which was considerably more complex than Bauer’s portrayal suggested. . . . Fourth, Bauer neglected existing theological standards in the early church. (p. 31)” Bauer rejects the New Testament evidence of the Christian faith against Gnosticism as “both too unproductive and too much disputed to be able to serve as a point of departure.” That should give us not merely theological, but also historical pause. Another point not cited by Moss is the post-modern context, which praises subjective experience, diversity, pluralism and an inclusivity that repudiates exclusive truth claims, as the Bible maintains. This philosophical shift has rejuvenated such an outbreak of speculation offered by Bauer and his disciples. Karen King, not a fan of traditional Christian writings against Gnosticism, provides a helpful, even scathing, questioning of such speculation. Hartog notes — “Though King is by no means ambivalent regarding definitions and methods, she rightly argues that the way scholars create categories, define terms, shape questions, and approach data in many senses determines their outcomes. She recommends that all scholars ask themselves the purposes behind their definitions. What stakes do scholars hold in their research? The general answer is, a great deal. While objectivity and neutrality are impossible, awareness of one’s proclivities and commitments is crucial to historical analysis. King surmises that many scholars of ancient Gnosticism and Christian origins frame their questions in order to perpetuate their “ongoing project of defining and maintaining a normative Christianity.”(82-83). . . This call is not merely for those who seek to define and establish an early and continuous normative (or “orthodox”) Christianity, but also for those who would recast the history of early Christianity as more pluralistic and hospitable. We must ask what purposes lie behind both of these efforts and how much these efforts lead us to skew evidences and overstate or understate conclusions. (84)” In my post-graduate theological work, what I have witnessed and noticed is a definite ignorance of, if not rejection, of Christian based research and historical and archaeological study. The treatment of Eusebius as a nonreliable source of Gnostic teachings and influences is scandalous. He was closer to the action and insights of early Christians and those against the biblical witness. Just because we disagree with his Christianized approach does not mean his dismissal as a valuable witness. Moss’s comment that other religions of the period taught a “secret” knowledge of God as the Gnostics shows a lack of theological preciseness and biblical erudition —"As a label, however, it’s untenably broad. Lots of Christians believed that they had special religious knowledge. The Gospel of John refers to gnosis, and (St.!) Clement of Alexandria regularly uses the term “Gnostic” in his writings to describe the ideal Christian. Neither author is thought to be heretical, meaning at least one key facet of Gnostic identity and belief was shared by lots of people.” The secretive knowledge taught by Gnostic influence is totally different from the Holy Spirit guided knowledge taught by the Apostles Paul and John in their New Testament writings.  When Moss claims, therefore, that the archaeology of Nag Hammadi matters, and that the “’Gnostics’ emerge as more ordinary and better integrated into mainstream Christianity than the heresy hunters would have us believe,” she places too much on too little to form a counter-Christian hypothesis about Gnosticism.