The Gnostic Scriptures Review
The Gnostic Scriptures Review
The Gnostic Scriptures Review
Robert M. Grant
Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture / Volume 57 / Issue 02 / June 1988, pp 215
- 216
DOI: 10.2307/3167189, Published online: 28 July 2009
institution can change and still remain the same is not an historical problem
at all but a philosophical one. The question can, however, be put another
way. Despite all the changes in its structures and all the developments in its
theology, did the Christian community to which Constantine granted tolera-
tion in 313 believe itself identical with the Church Jesus had founded? The
answer is clear. Of course it did." Walsh does not examine the truth of Loisy's
statement, he banalizes it.
This book, if it reaches a large readership, will clear up widely held
misconceptions and open new vistas. If only it were better.
St. Patrick's Episcopal Church JOSEPH W. TRIGG
Falls Church, Virginia
underlying Greek and Latin texts. The renderings from Coptic are some-
times not very clear, but scholars often disagree on what these texts mean, and
Layton seems to provide a reliable overall picture. The headings Layton uses
to divide up his materials are very helpful, and it is interesting that he refers
to the Jerusalem Bible (p. xli) because the format of The Gnostic Scriptures is
rather similarfortunately for the readers of both volumes.
The title of the book is rather questionable (note Layton's phrase,
"unorthodox scripture manuscripts" [p. xxvi]). It is true that "when
Christianity was born it had little or no scripture that was uniquely its own"
(p. xvii), but it did possess non-unique scriptures quite unlike the Gnostic
documents assembled here, and it gradually accumulated scriptures of "its
own." Can one really call "gnostic scripture" "a kind of Christian scripture"
(p. xxi) without depriving the terms of their historical meaning? Did
Valentinus and his school compose "edifying scriptural works" or, instead,
exegesis of "the proto-orthodox canon" (p. xxiii)? It could be said that
Valentinians were special because of their close proximity to more orthodox
Christians. One then must ask if one should refrain from capitalizing the
names lord, savior, and god (pp. 182-183) when the Valentinians take them
from New Testament books. On the other hand, is it advantageous to refer to
nearly every Christian personage as "Saint?" (Note that in the late sixteenth
century Clement was removed from the Roman martyrology.) Or is this
Layton's way of finally differentiating Christians from Gnostics?
While such criticisms raise a few questions about the format and the
historical discussion, they certainly are not important enough to make any
prospective reader hesitate before obtaining this very important work.
University of Chicago ROBERT M. GRANT
Chicago, Illinois