Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, since you know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Cor 15:58)
What we have done so far
Lessons I – IV are not just a history lesson about the early Church and Her Scriptures. They were not written with the intention of giving you apologetic arguments to use against Protestants or Evangelicals. Even though they can be used for that, it is not their purpose. They are an introduction to the theology of the Church’s Tradition; not as an intellectual exercise, but as formation for your Catholic mind. We are doing that which a Catholic culture is required to do: to form the mind of Christ in you (Philip 2:15). And this is precisely the very thing that contemporary Catholic culture is incapable of doing. The reasons why it cannot do it are why we are in the mess we are in and why the Church cannot find her way back to where She needs to be.
The Catholic Church does not exist without Tradition. It is not possible to be Catholic and not be traditional. Catholicism makes no sense without it: If the Church had no Tradition, She would cease to be the Catholic Church; and everything we believe would be in vain. We chose the origins of Scripture to introduce the Church’s theology of Tradition because it brings to light a definite historical problem- the doctrines of the Church predate the Church’s Scriptures. We had a teaching and a way of life decades before we had a biblical canon. We had a holy vocation before we had a holy book. Yet, this holy book is a source of doctrine and a pillar of Christian life. How is it possible to have a fully formed Church when one of Her foundations is still decades away from being complete? This is the original question we introduced in Lesson I.
We had a fully formed Church at Pentecost because the Church first had Her Tradition. That Tradition was received by the Apostles in the Upper Room and formed the mind of Christ within each one of them. Catholic Tradition is not some holdover from things long ago. Rather, it is something entirely unique within the history of human civilisation. Catholic Tradition is the First Habit of the Church: to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). And since it is the mind of Christ that we must have, it involves both the intellect and the will. It means to know the truth as He knows it; and to love the good as He loves it. Catholic Tradition is received Wisdom: the truths the Lord God revealed for our Salvation, its sacred content; and the habits of Christian life those truths entail, its sacred process. The Church lives by received Wisdom- Her Tradition- it is a constitutive element of Catholicism.
The Church came to write and recognise Her Scriptures by having the mind of Christ. She came to write Her Scriptures because She wanted to write down that which was revealed as a New Covenant; She came to recognise them as a New Canon by acting them out in Her sacred liturgy: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is how the Church could be fully formed before the Bible came to be.
Although the Church’s Tradition is an historical reality, it is not confined by history. Tradition is revealed in history and develops through history, but it is not restricted by history. It is a living Tradition, equally dynamic in our age as it was in the 1st century AD. However, that which is already living is something that resists the idea that it must be reimagined or recreated. Tradition exists in opposition to two extremes- of treating it as some ancient artefact that is more museum piece than way of life; and something so dynamic that it is completely amorphous and able to be manipulated according to any whim or modern preference. Tradition is the midpoint between two extremes: archaeological remnant and formless novelty. It is because the present age of the Church no longer lives according to this received wisdom that she is unable to find her way back to Her Master.
But this tendency, for certain ages of the Church to no longer live according to received wisdom, is nothing new. This is not the first time, and nor will it be the last, that we have thrown over received wisdom in favour of fashionable innovation. For the heart of the Church is to live by what She has received- of what has been handed to Her. But working against this principle of Catholic identity, there is, to quote a popular metaphor, an evil twin. Just as philosophy has sophistry; and Jekyll has Hyde- so too does Tradition has its subversion- and it is the scourge of Gnosticism.
Tradition as Christian Halakah
I think most Catholics are aware that Judaism and Christianity are significantly different. Even though specifically, they are largely unaware of just how different the Catholic religion is from the Jewish religion from which it was founded. Judaism is a religion of laws- its 613 mitzvot (מִצְווֹת) (laws) describe precisely how a good Jew is to live, love and pray. It has dietary prescriptions, marital laws and rules for hygiene and ritual purity. Judaism, like Christianity, is a complete way of life. Although unlike Christianity, that way of life is prescribed by law. The Jewish law for the Jews is Halakah (הֲלָכָה) which quite literally means a way of walking. Jewish law and Jewish life are virtually synonymous. That explains why questions about the law and which was the greatest of the laws were raised time and again all throughout the Gospel (Mt 22:36). It is what ultimately brought the Lord into conflict with the Jewish authorities of the time. For the Lord, in his debates with the Jews answered their questions with perfect wisdom: there is the greatest law… and the second is much like it (Mt 22:36-40). However, what ultimately caused the riff was not the fact that there were only two laws, rather these two laws were to be re-written in terms of how He, the Lord Jesus has decreed: you must love one another, as I have loved you (Jn 13:34-35). To re-write the Law of God was to claim to be the equal of God- that is how the Lord revealed His divinity to the world. And His crucifixion is how we received it.
The heart of the Christian religion is to become like Christ (Rm 13:14). Yet this would be a work of grace without the Jewish law; or at least with minimal reference to it. This revelation that Christianity would not be a religion of laws but one of grace, created a distinct problem for the early Church; especially amongst its first Jewish converts. How was a Christian meant to follow Christ and live like Him without laws to follow? If Jewish customs, rituals and laws did not apply, what would shape the actions and observances of the Christian life? First century Jewish converts found the idea that one simply lived a Christian life by following Christ to be most unhelpful. Does that still require circumcision, ritual purity, tithing and the avoidance of certain animals and foods? Could I follow Christ and still eat the flesh of pigs and shellfish? After all, one presumes the Lord did not eat those things. If I am to follow Him, and that is what He did- should I not do the same? That is in part why the first disagreements in the Church were over the observance of the Jewish custom. It is little wonder that the first council of the Church, the one mentioned in Acts 15, was called to decide this question. It decreed that gentile converts were not bound to follow the Jewish law, with only a few exceptions.[1] This was a significant break with the Jewish religion.
Even after the Council of Jerusalem, this still left a great challenge for the early Church: how must a Christian live? The answer is to follow Christ. But that answer was still not so simple or straightforward- for there are many things that Jesus did that we are now not required to do in order to follow Him. How were we to know which to follow and which to ignore if we wanted to follow Christ? That is what the bulk of the New Testament is trying to establish- how does one follow Christ without observing Jewish laws? It was a new religion with new problems.
The answer that the Apostolic Church gave to this problem was Tradition. The Tradition that St Paul enjoined his followers to observe: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thess 2:15). However, there are two questions that must be clarified regarding St Paul’s teaching. The first, is how can something so recent be considered a tradition in any meaningful way? Scholars argue that this letter of St Paul was written in about 51 or 52 AD. This is less than twenty tears since the Ascension of the Lord- how could something so young be the Tradition of the Church? The answer is that Sacred Tradition is received Wisdom– it is ever ancient and ever knew- and lo, I am with you always (Mt 28:20). The Tradition of the Church is perennial, even though it may be for us thousands of years old, it is not Tradition because it is ancient. It is Tradition because it is received Wisdom willed for our salvation; it means to have the mind of Christ.
The second question regarding St. Paul’s teaching, is what would having the mind of Christ look like in the life of the Lord’s first disciples? Even though the Tradition may be timeless, we did not have any examples. The Church had to manifest this life in some way without falling into either the excess of creating a parallel system of strict laws and customs; or the defect of creating the chaos of having no system at all. Christianity was not an substitute legal system; and neither was it a religious free for all. Rather, it would mean living a life of grace. This life begins at our sacramental conformation at Baptism and increases through our reception of the other sacraments. This work of grace proceeds by way of growth in virtue- both the acquired and infused virtues. In order to manifestly become like Christ means that the grace we receive must be articulated in the habits we form. We must live into that grace by acting it out- practising virtue, works of mercy, our prayers and fasting (Eph 4: 20-32). The immaterial grace of God is expressed in the material actions of the Christian life and made visible for us in the Church’s culture: it is the First Habit of the Church- to have the mind of Christ. The tradition of the Church is for us what mitzvot were for the Jews- Halakah- a way of walking. A way of life. This Tradition- both content and process- is the solution to the question of what would replace Jewish law; and it is what produced for the Church the canon of Sacred Scripture. This is what we established in Lessons I through IV.
The first rebellion
It was not too long into the Church’s founding before the first challenges to this new way of living would arise. Gnosticism being the first and the most pernicious. In order to make sense of what Gnosticism is and how it came to be a serious threat to the early Church, we must spend some time explaining what it is. For Gnosticism, although seemingly ancient, is really the same problem that the Church has faced at various moments all throughout her history; and the very same one that we are still facing today.
Gnosticism is the mother of all heresies. It is the origin of the gnostic sects that sprang up in the first and second centuries. It is the basis of Arianism[2], Sabellianism[3], Docetism[4], Protestantism and Modernism[5]. It is very much alive and still trying to undo the foundations of Christianity today. It is the origin, in some way, of every Christian heresy. But what is this Gnosticism and why did it exert such an incredible hold over the early Church? And why can’t we free ourselves of it today? This is what the remainder of this article will address.
Gnosticism (γνωστικός) from the Greek gnosis meaning knowledge or insight, is the term given to a loose collection of religious and philosophical ideas that originated sometime in the first and second centuries AD. These ideas later coalesced in various sects that began to teach their own doctrines and form the first Christian heresies. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when and where Gnosticism emerges[6], although it is possible to discover certain sources such as the Corpus Hermeticum[7], Jewish apocalyptic writings and certain forms of Platonic thought.
Alternate orthodoxy
Although Gnosticism is a kind of dualism, to be more precise, it is really a rejection of the material world and the God who created it. Gnosticism rejects the material world as the fruit of error and ignorance and points to an immaterial world of perfection, where only those enlightened by a superior knowledge- hence the term gnosis- would be permitted, or even be able to enter. Gnosticism although critical of orthodox Judaism and Christianity, is less a religious critique and more akin to an alternative religion with its own orthodoxy. The guiding principle of this synthetic doctrine is the role of personal illumination that special or secret knowledge provides. In its most basic form, it is not difficult to see why such a doctrine could exude a seductive influence over the minds of 1st century Christians. However, the knowledge of truth that we have as Christians comes from Christ: I am the way the truth and the life (Jn 14:6). The source of knowledge in Gnosticism is the self.
Given the history of the early Church and its confrontation with a pagan and hostile world, the idea of the need to rid oneself of that world and journey towards a place of spiritual perfection, it becomes possible to understand how and why Gnosticism had such a corrupting influence. Even though Gnosticism maintains a central tenant- to flee the material world by means of special knowledge- it is parasitic to other religious doctrines, especially Christianity. The writings of St Paul seem to have been attractive to Gnostics. Largely because of his insistence of breaking with the Jewish laws and customs and his insistence on the spiritual man and the need to be reborn in Christ. These ideas were attractive and easily perverted by gnostic interpretation. In fact, the revelation by St Paul that he had received special knowledge and had received a kind of illumination directly from God (Gal 1:12) seemed to almost be confirmation of the gnostic thesis; that salvation was through special knowledge. The fact that St Paul also mentions on one occasion that certain of the brethren have knowledge (1 Cor 8:10) became a central argument of ‘Christian’ Gnostics.
The writings of St John too, with their emphasis on the need to being reborn from above and the idea that the light (illumination) must triumph over the darkness all provided material that could be perverted under the influence of the gnostic heresy. The number of instances in the New Testament where the Gnostic sects tried to pervert the true faith are far too numerus to mention. Suffice it to say, their reliance on the words of the New Testament to prove their point highlights why there needs to be a Church. St Irenaeus[8] was the first and most formidable figure in refuting the gnostic error and the defence of the orthodoxy of the Christian Gospel. We will return to his writings some time later on. The next questions we must address is why was Gnosticism such a pernicious threat to the Church and why is it still a problem till this day?
The pernicious threat of Gnosticism
It would appear from our discussion thus far, that Gnosticism’s chief danger lies in its corruption of the intellect because it undermines the truth and diminishes our understanding of the Gospel. While it is most definitely the case that Gnosticism weakens the intellect by leading it into error, this is not its most pernicious effect. Rather, it is the corrupting effect it has on the will. In fact, I will argue that precisely because it has such a dangerous effect on the will it has had such a devasting effect on the Church throughout Her history; and why it is still such a great threat, even today. The error of Gnosticism actually destroys the will even more than it destroys the intellect. How is this so?
Whenever you have a body of knowledge, that body of knowledge is always going to be in some respects incomplete. As it pertains to the received Wisdom of the Church- the Tradition- there are three distinct senses in which incompleteness pertains. The first, resides in the limited nature of human knowledge: we cannot know everything about anything. And so whatever knowledge we have will be by this natural limit always incomplete. This state of affairs applies even to the revealed truths of the Catholic Faith. Now, even though the Apostolic Faith is willed by God and is entirely perfect in order to effect our salvation- it does not exhaust all the truths of God. The deposit of faith contains all those truths willed for our salvation- but it does not explain everything there is to know about God, for that is impossible. In that sense it is incomplete. God is infinitely greater than the human intellect and so therefore cannot be contained by that intellect. And nor can God’s infinite perfection ever be contained in the categories of human knowledge. The Deposit of Faith is perfect in so far it regards our salvation, but incomplete in so far as it pertains the infinite nature of God Almighty. Do not be scandalised by this, it is true by necessity. It is not true because there is something lacking to the knowledge as it pertains to our salvation.
The second sense in which the Tradition of the Church is incomplete is because of the effect of our sinful nature. Again, this is not because of any defect in revelation, but rather the defect lies in the consequences of our sin- both original and personal. Due to the effects of sin the human intellect is weakened. This means that whenever we know a truth, we only ever know it imperfectly- the darkened intellect as a result of sin our sin is always a limit, unless we receive grace sufficient to overcome that darkness. Since there is the issue of personal sin and want of virtue, even the truths that are revealed for our salvation are only imperfectly known by us. Again, do not be scandalised by this- rather, renounce your sin and be holy.
The third sense in which Tradition is incomplete, is the more difficult one to grasp. The first two senses lie in the limits of human nature and our sin; the third sense requires us to comprehend something about the nature of the Christian vocation and what the Church must accomplish in human history. The Tradition of the Church- its received Wisdom- must be precise enough so that what it contains is clear to those who are called to live it and hand it on; but it must also exist on a level of abstraction sufficient enough so that it is clear, precise and liveable by different generations that exist in varying historical contexts and circumstances. The Tradition of the Church cannot just be clear in the context in which it is revealed- it must possess a certain quality that allows it to be made clear in every age in which Christianity exists. Therefore, it requires a certain level of abstraction in order to remain universal. That abstraction is a kind of incompleteness. The Lord did not reveal the truths of our salvation that made sense in 1st century Palestine but were impenetrable in 10th century France. This is directly related to what we said earlier- the Tradition of the Church is a living Tradition, which means it exists as the midpoint between two extremes- fossilised history and formless novelty. That is why so much of the Gospel is revealed as stories that are truly universal to human understanding- the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, the Good Shepherd; and why the Church has such authority in Her Magisterium. The teachings of the Church need to be effective in each generation and context in which they are proclaimed, even when future contexts and their circumstances cannot be foreseen. This necessitates a certain level of abstraction and generality which are a certain kind of incompleteness.[9]
Now, I do not want you to think that these three senses of incompleteness that affect the Church’s received wisdom are a bug. They are a feature. Although a feature that does require some understanding and effort; for how these limits are overcome is not just by adding more knowledge, rather they are overcome by an engagement of the will. Unlike Gnosticism, Christian salvation is not effected by perfect knowledge, but rather our want of understanding is overcome by a superabundance of supernatural charity- many sins are forgiven you because you have loved so much (Lk 7:47). Let me give you a simple example.
Through sacred revelation I know that God loves me. And I can only know that God loves me because of that revelation. This is not something knowable by nature. It is revealed in the scriptures, it is taught by all the saints and the Fathers of the Church. There is no doubt that this is true. However, even though I know this is true, and I accept it as such, I can only come to know the love of God by living into that truth. Of actually entrusting my life to God, of praying for the things I need and receiving sacramental grace. I know that God loves me is true; but I only know what that means when I act as though God loves me. Whenever I have incomplete information, by acting out that information as though it were true gives me insight into the fact that it is true. When I live my life as though God loves me- entrusting myself to Him- I discover that God does actually love me. This is why the Lord tells His disciples to come follow Him, but does not explain much what following him will entail. It is why St Paul at his conversion on the road to Damascus is not given a lesson in catechesis but an instruction to go into the city and then he will be told what to do. That is why in Christianity, charity is superior to faith and the corruption of the will is worse than the corruption of the intellect:[10] I can have faith to move mountains, but if I have not charity then I have nought. Gnosticism undermines the very dynamic that is a defining marker of the Christian life.
Gnosticism as a religious doctrine provides salvation by the enlightenment that derives from special knowledge. Once I have the knowledge, I have the salvation promised- I have nothing further to do. I have nothing further to acquire. Enlightenment is both the high point and end point of the gnostic doctrine. There is no requirement for me to expand that truth or to live it out in order to increase my understanding. I simply have to know special truth to be saved. When it comes to orthodox Christianity- once I know the truth, I am compelled to act and live it out as Christ himself lived it out. My enlightenment, or the enlightenment we receive by the gift of faith is where the Christian quest begins, not ends. Once enlightenment has occurred for the gnostic- the will is all but superfluous. It has no more role to play once I have received the light of special knowledge. I have no need to acquire virtue or to practice charity, penance or works of mercy. My knowledge is my salvation as opposed to the Lord who is my light and my salvation (Psalm 27:1).
Gnosticism is an upending of Christian truth but it is the destruction of the human will. Philosophically speaking, Gnosticism rejects the receptive and embraces the revelatory. The Christian approach to truth is that we receive it: received wisdom. That is, we try to understand the wisdom it contains and we endeavour to learn from it. The gnostic approach takes a truth (the biblical text) and seeks to superimpose knowledge that has been granted to those with greater light and deeper understanding. Instead of reading a teaching and trying to receive what it teaches; the gnostic imposes his own enlightened view and makes that text say what he wants it to say. The want of understanding that we have of the Christian faith that is unseated by a generous act of the will is what orthodox Christianity demands. In Gnosticism, the generous act of the will is replaced with a light of understanding that is manufactured from within. The Tradition of the Church is received wisdom; Gnosticism is fabricated knowledge. Part of that reception in the life of the Church, and the life of the faithful Christian, is to live into those truths by acting them out. We come to deepen our knowledge of those truths by learning to love them. And we learn to love them by engaging the will and acting them out: I deepen my knowledge of God’s love by entrusting my life to Him. This applies to all the truths that have been willed by God for our salvation. The gnostic merely has to read into the text that which is suggested by him- according to his ‘illumination’. Gnosticism replaces the received wisdom that shapes our actions and replaces it with the gnostic light of knowledge, thereby negating any use of the human will. Put simply: as a Christian, my knowledge of God impels me to act. In Gnosticism, my enlightenment means I have nothing left to do.
Modern-day Gnosticism
So, how does such an ancient error become a modern-day problem? Much of the present mess of Catholicism is due to the prior mess of Gnosticism. Even though there are not too many bishops, priests or parish secretaries running around claiming to be followers of Marcion or Valentinus, it does not mean they aren’t running around repeating their errors.
One of the undeniable features of dissent in the Church in our present day, is that it is remarkably lazy. Every “new idea”- gnostic illumination- in the Church is really either just a re-hashing of past errors or a capitulation to modern mores. At least the heresy of Docetism required al little effort in order to come up with it; and a good bit more effort to get over it. The utter laziness of modern-day dissent is more troubling than the folly of their “enlightenment”. The real danger is not blessings for same-sex couples, female priests or “new forms” of church governance. These ideas are manifestly wrong and undeniably so. Whenever or wherever they are popular, I am not concerned that they will overcome the Church. Rather, what I see is that the sheep are parting ways with the goats. Instead, what is of greater concern is the softness of the minds of those who try and resist and the weakness of the alternatives they propose. I am not as worried about the bishop who wants to bless same-sex couples in his diocese as I am worried about the bishop who thinks he can solve that issue by holding a local synod. Gnosticism destroys the will. And the intellect along with it.
How many times does an idea have to fail before you declare it for what it is: a failure? We have had plenary councils, general synods and now the dreaded local synod- each one has come and gone and left nothing behind but colourful piles of studies, reports and paperwork. Not to mention frustration and confusion. How many times do we have to fail before we recognise the failure?
The great malaise of the Church is not the failed ideas of the grand theological, pastoral and liturgical experimentation. It is the fact that we have not the will to put these failures out of their misery. These ideas keep failing but the gnostic light keeps shining. If any of these reforms had born fruit and had advanced the Gospel, we would be in a rather difficult spot. The liberal experiment has failed. That has been obvious for at least two generations. However, so too has the “orthodoxy alone” approach of the last few decades. We thought that if we had right doctrine, we would have the revival that we need. There is no doubt we need a revival in right doctrine, but that is only possible once we have a revival of the Tradition that produced this right doctrine in the first place. Gnosticism has robbed us of our will. And so, we are unwilling and unable to propose anything that will work, because what will work will require a good deal of sacrifice- a good deal of will. Only Tradition can restore what an absence of will has destroyed.
Conclusion
The need to rebuild always begins with a return to something prior. That return requires much effort of will and sacrifice of self. Most notably, you have to sacrifice those ideas that have failed- to cut off a limb or pluck out an eye– lest the whole body perish. We must find our way back to the Church’s Tradition- but this can only occur once those charged with the role of leading the Church, rediscover their Catholic will- to love the good as Christ loved it. And to lay down their lives for it as He sacrificed His life for us.
[1] The Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council is described in chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles, and was held in Jerusalem c. AD 48–50. The council decided that Gentiles who converted to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the rules prescribed to the Jews by the Mosaic Law, such as Jewish dietary laws and other specific rituals, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The council did retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree.
[2] Arianism (Koinē Greek: Ἀρειανισμός) is a Christological doctrine which rejects the traditional notion of the Trinity and considers Jesus to be a creation of God, and therefore distinct from God. It is named after its major proponent, Arius (c. AD 256–336). He was a Christian presbyter who preached and studied in Alexandria, Egypt, although it developed out of various pre-existing strands of Christianity which differed from later Nicene Christianity in their view of Christology. Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made before time by God the Father; therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.
[3] Sabellianism is the belief that there is only one Person (‘hypostasis’) in the Godhead. Sabellianism appeared for the first time in the second century in the form of Monarchianism. In Monarchianism, the Father and Son were different expressions of the same being, without any personal distinctions between them. strongly opposed Monarchianism. Sabellianism is named after Sabellius (c. 215), who taught a form of it in Rome in the 3rd century. None of his writings have survived. The Greek Fathers called them ‘Sabellians’.
[4] Docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn “to seem”, dókēsis “apparition, phantom”) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
[5] The term modernism came to prominence in Pope Pius X’s 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, where he condemned modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies.”
[6] Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. Its Eastern origin was already maintained by Gieseler and Neander; F. Ch. Bauer (1831) and Lassen (1858) sought to prove its relation to the religions of India; Lipsius (1860) pointed to Syria and Phoenicia as its home, and Hilgenfeld (1884) thought it was connected with later Mazdeism. Joel (1880), Weingarten (1881), Koffmane (1881), Anrich (1894), and Wobbermin (1896) sought to account for the rise of Gnosticism by the influence of Greek Platonic philosophy and the Greek mysteries, while Harnack described it as “acute Hellenization of Christianity”.
[7] The Corpus Hermeticum is a collection of 17 Greek writings whose authorship is traditionally attributed to the legendary Hellenistic figure Hermes Trismegistus, a syncretic combination of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth. The treatises were originally written between c. 100 and c. 300 AD, but the collection as known today was first compiled by medieval Byzantine editors. It was translated into Latin in the 15th century by the Italian humanist scholars Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) and Lodovico Lazzarelli (1447–1500). Arendzen, J. (1909). Gnosticism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
[8] Irenaeus (Ancient Greek: Εἰρηναῖος, c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by opposing Gnostic interpretations of Christian Scripture and defining proto-orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist.
[9] For anyone following this logic closely may see that we are using the idea of ‘incomplete’ in an analogous way. The primary analogate exists in the incompleteness due to God’s infinite nature and the natural limits of the categories of human knowledge. The secondary use of incompleteness attaches to the human intellect and its limitations of knowing the truth that are a result of sin. And the third sense in which we use incomplete, is that the truths of the faith have to possess a certain quality that makes them precise enough to be clear and abstract enough to be universal.
[10] As Aquinas teaches that the knowledge of God is a good thing, whilst love of God is a most excellent thing. Far better to have defective knowledge of God but great love for Him, than great knowledge of God but defective love for Him.