Were the Gnostics mythicists?

[Leucius Charinus]

I meant Jesus was incarnated into a physical body, a historical Jesus. I don't know if it predates the Gospels or the Pauline epistles, I would doubt it did.

NO. The gJudas definitely post-dates the Gospels because it uses the Gospel themes. But also NO, Jesus in the gJudas is presented as a "spirit" or a "daemon" as are the other apostles. None of the other apostles are able to look at Jesus in direct eye contact. This is not quite an historical account. It appears to be something entirely different. When added to the dominance of the post-resurrection Jesus in the gnostic stories, it appears to be another form of "Myth Story".



LC

[Leucius Charinus]

The Valentinians believed in a historical Jesus as well.

The so-called "Valentinians" are a categorisation invented and employed by the secondary evidence of the heresiologists. Following this categorisation the majority of Biblical scholars do find some texts in the Nag Hammadi Codices which they classify as "Valentinian". But what are these texts, and what do they actually say?

Ditto for the so-called "Sethian Gnostics".




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

The Gospel of Judas holds that Jesus as incarnated [into a physical body]; as opposed to being re-incarnated?

I think you'll find Jesus and the Apostles to be "spirits".

• April D. DeConick, a professor of Biblical studies at Rice University, reports in the New York Times[22] that the National Geographic translation was critically faulty in many substantial respects, and that based on a corrected translation, Judas was actually a demon, truly betraying Jesus, rather than following his orders. DeConick, after re-translating the text, published The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says to assert that Judas was not a daimon in the Greek sense, but that "the universally accepted word for “spirit” is “pneuma ” — in Gnostic literature “daimon” is always taken to mean “demon”, as she wrote in presenting her conclusions in The New York Times, 1 December 2007

The "daimon" is the part of the philosophical theological framework of the Platonic and Stoic philosophers. It generally means the "guardian spirit" assigned to each man at his birth to be his leader throughout life. It is related also thus to destiny. It represents the "higher self" and is sometimes referred to also in the Gnostic (and other) traditions as the "Heavenly Twin".

The "Guardian Spirit" or "daimon" was no longer necessary when the "Holy Spirit" of the Christians was released into the world.



LC

[Robert Tulip]

Copying my response from http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 460#p29460

Hi Pete, many thanks for this fascinating summary, and wishing you every blessing and joy for the Christmas season.

I too have been focused lately on analysing Gnostic material, and have recently read books by Jonas and Pagels (on Heracleon) among others. A discussion on Gnostic thought at http://www.booktalk.org/have-you-invest ... 18628.html has helped me to clarify my understanding.

For example, I wonder to what extent the late Gnostic hatred of the cosmos emerged from a rejection of the constructed theology of the world, rather than a rejection of nature?

To what extent can the esoteric intent within the Gospels themselves, and within Paul's Epistles and the Revelation, be described as Gnostic?

How good is our understanding of the evolving social psychology at work in forming Christian origins? For example, I am a church goer, and I find the rituals and symbols and stories and fellowship of Christianity comforting and illuminating, but I do not wish to enter into arguments with other congregants about theology. So I have this sense that Orthodoxy evolved as a modus vivendi, a reading of the original esoteric teaching that was comfortable and acceptable for a mass audience, while the more difficult and abstract mythicist core that provided the real intellectual framework to construct the faith was quite naturally suppressed.

To me the astronomy is the clincher to prove the mythicist hypothesis of Christian evolution. The lamb in the sky conventionally anoints the point where the sun shifted to begin the natural year in the sign of the fish in 21 AD. The Gnostic cosmic understanding was able to insert such symbols because they were not comprehended by the simpletons of the church, and are still not comprehended today due to the lack of human engagement with the natural cosmos.

[Leucius Charinus]

Copying my response from http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 460#p29460

Hi Pete, many thanks for this fascinating summary, and wishing you every blessing and joy for the Christmas season.

Hey Robert enjoy the Southern Hemisphere Midsummer Festival !!

I too have been focused lately on analysing Gnostic material, and have recently read books by Jonas and Pagels (on Heracleon) among others.

The experts in this field don't make their hypotheses about chronology explicit. When these are examined the complete reliance is upon heresiological literary mentions in the "Orthodox Church Fathers" which were preserved by the church organisation. Palaeographic datings have recently been expanded to include 4th century.

A discussion on Gnostic thought at http://www.booktalk.org/have-you-invest ... 18628.html has helped me to clarify my understanding.

Yeah that's an interesting discussion.

For example, I wonder to what extent the late Gnostic hatred of the cosmos emerged from a rejection of the constructed theology of the world, rather than a rejection of nature?

I'd question whether the Gnostics "hated" the cosmos. I suspect the primary evidence used for this assertion is a section heading in Plotinus' Enneads. Check it out. I'd point out that the best guide to the whole Gnostic dialogue is Platonism. The signature of Platonism is plainly evident in some of the texts within the Nag Hammadi Codices. Platonism was also very important for the Christians in the 4th century.

• It should not be necessary to remind Hellenists that "Know Thyself"
  passed for the supreme word of wisdom in the classical period,
  or that Heraclitus revealed his method in the words "I searched myself".
  
  "The teachings of Plato", says Justin, "are not alien to those of Christ;
  and the same is true of the Stoics." "Heraclitus and Socrates lived in'
  accordance to the divine Logos" and should be recognised as Christians.
  Clement says that Plato wrote "by the inspiration of God".
  
  Augustine, much later, finds that "only a few words and phrases" need
  to be changed to bring Platonism into complete accord with Christianity.
  
  The ethics of contemporary paganism, as Harnack shows,with special reference
  to Porphyry,are almost identical with those of the Christians of his day.
  
  
  
  The Legacy of Greece - Oxford University Press (1921)
  RELIGION
  by W. R. Inge, Dean of St.Pauls
  p.26

You made the comment that this hatred was "a rejection of the constructed theology of the world, rather than a rejection of nature". I think this is closer to the point. When I use the term "gnostics" here (or anywhere else) I am referring to the authors of the Gnostic Gospels and acts. The authors of the texts within the NHC. The gnostics were obviously writing literature which rejected the historical Jesus. As the OP and development demonstrates in the Gnostic texts the appearance of a "Post Resurrection Jesus" dominates. A post resurrection Jesus cannot be an historical figure by definition. The genre of the gnostic "Acts" has been described as "Hellenistic romance." These are fiction stories.

These authors did not reject nature, and they reserved a special place for "asceticism". Their gripe was with the canonical books. That much is for sure.

To what extent can the esoteric intent within the Gospels themselves, and within Paul's Epistles and the Revelation, be described as Gnostic?

This is an interesting separate issue. I'd have to give it some thought. However I am more interested in examining the big picture in which we have two opposing parties and their literary tensions exposed. The orthodox canonical book followers and the heretical non canonical book followers.

The heretical non canonical book followers and preservers (which the orthodox followers claimed included the Manichaeans) preserved books containing really weird stories not about the "Historical Life of Jesus" but about the "Mythical Life of the Post Resurrection Jesus".

I think that it is reasonable on this basis to accept these Gnostic texts as evidence of a group of influential Mythicists in antiquity who denied the historicity of Jesus.



LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Michael Grant:

• "This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence. Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods." - Michael Grant, "Jesus", 1997, pp. 199–200.

Historians may certainly consider an historical Jesus existed (or not as the case may be) but I cant see many of them at all subscribing to the historical existence of a Post resurrection Jesus. Does anyone know of any ancient historian who subscribes to the view that the Resurrected Jesus had any historical existence?

It seems to therefore follow that the Gnostics were the first mythicists - people who subscribed to, supported and propagandised the view that "tales of Jesus's appearance upon the earth were pure fiction."

LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Bart Ehrman calls the idea that Jesus did not exist "a modern myth" made up in the 18th century and with no ancient precedents. However if the gnostics were essentially mythicists then he is mistaken. What we have is historical evidence from which it may be inferred that authors in antiquity suspected that Jesus was a fiction.


LC

[GakuseiDon]

Bart Ehrman calls the idea that Jesus did not exist "a modern myth" made up in the 18th century and with no ancient precedents. However if the gnostics were essentially mythicists then he is mistaken. What we have is historical evidence from which it may be inferred that authors in antiquity suspected that Jesus was a fiction.

What was that historical evidence again? Apologies, I must have missed it. Can you point to the earliest piece of evidence for that idea again please?

[Leucius Charinus]

Bart Ehrman calls the idea that Jesus did not exist "a modern myth" made up in the 18th century and with no ancient precedents. However if the gnostics were essentially mythicists then he is mistaken. What we have is historical evidence from which it may be inferred that authors in antiquity suspected that Jesus was a fiction.

What was that historical evidence again? Apologies, I must have missed it. Can you point to the earliest piece of evidence for that idea again please?

In a survey of their texts there is a statistical dominance that the gnostics wrote their stories about a "Post Resurrection Jesus" and not a "Living Historical Jesus". If by this we can infer that these authors were expressing an opinion on a "Mythical Jesus" then from these texts we may infer that these authors regarded the canonical Jesus as fictional. Mainstream chronology for these texts (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries) is listed at ECW: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html



LC

[GakuseiDon]

In a survey of their texts there is a statistical dominance that the gnostics wrote their stories about a "Post Resurrection Jesus" and not a "Living Historical Jesus". If by this we can infer that these authors were expressing an opinion on a "Mythical Jesus" then from these texts we may infer that these authors regarded the canonical Jesus as fictional. Mainstream chronology for these texts (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries) is listed at ECW: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

I see. Thanks for the explanation.