40 For some examples, see Luke 24:34; Rom. 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9–10; Phil. 2:6–11; 1 Tim. 2:6; 6:13; 2 Tim. 2:8; 1 Pet. 3:18; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16.
41 For some early Gnostic works that affirm the resurrection of Jesus, see The Gospel of Truth20:25–34; 30:23, 27–33; The Treatise on Resurrection45:14–28; 46:14–20; 48:4–19. We should note, however, the frequent Gnostic denial of the resurrection of Jesus’ body. In the texts above, such an idea is most evident in The Treatise on Resurrection45:17–21.
42 Brown, “The Christians Who Lost Out,” p. 3.
43 Farmer, “Church’s Stake,” p. 14.
44 James M. Robinson, “The Sayings of Jesus: Q,” Drew Gateway, Fall, 1983, p. 32.
45 James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, 1982, pp. 6–17.
commitment to the Q and Thomastraditions do not at all necessitate a denial of Jesus’ literal death and later appearances.
Koester clearly states the certainty of Jesus’ death on the cross and then asserts that “We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect.” And while he is not concerned to attempt to ascertain the nature of these experiences, Koester holds that their occurrence “cannot be questioned.” He then explains that it was these appearances that account for the disciples’ interest in missionary activity, in that: the resurrection changed sorrow and grief, or even hate and rejection, into joy, creativity, and faith. Though the resurrection revealed nothing new, it nonetheless made everything new for the first Christian believers.^46
While we may guess that the assertion “the resurrection revealed nothing new” perhaps provides a hint about Koester’s personal view, it must again be stated that the Q and Gnostic theses by no means require disbelieving either Jesus’ death or his literal appearances. In other words, even those who may disbelieve apparently do not do so because of the Gnostic data. But it is also evident that the interest in Q and Thomas, with their relative silence on these subjects, still do not even keep Koester from concluding that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was centralfor the first believers.
In sum, we conclude our discussion by asserting that the general Gnostic trajectory fails, and for several reasons, some of which have not been mentioned here.^47 The Gnostic sources are too late, besides lacking evidence that they are based on eyewitness, authoritative authority.
Furthermore, the New Testament canon was not formulated in an open forum where orthodox and Gnostic texts circulated on the same level. And while it may have been the late second century before canonical concerns were basically solved,
46 Koester in Robinson, Nag Hammadi, Volume II, pp. 84–86.
47 Other problems with the Gnostic scenario take us beyond some of the immediate issues that are addressed in this chapter. While certain sayings of Jesus have been interpreted in different ways, this is definitely not the same as saying that Jesus’ teachings support Gnosticism. His teachings about God, creation, the nature of the physical body, eternal life, the message of salvation and the necessity of taking His words to the entire world are some examples of the differences. (See Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, p. 64.) Pagels provides still more instances of contrasts between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Gnostics (Gnostic Gospels, pp. 177–178). Another crucial area concerns the origin of Gnosticism. The predominant view is that it was derived from Christianity. Fitzmyer refers to Gnosticism as a “parasite” in this regard (p.123). (See Robert Grant’s Gnosticism and Early Christianity, as well as Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973]). Many other critiques on related topics are found in Ronald H. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
