Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6321
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:28 pm

A recent thread, titled 'Carrier on "gnosticism",' based on a web-post by Richard Carrier largely touting what gnostic scholars have been saying about the term, created a bit of commentary and debate on this Forum. I just found this paper which covers a bit of the history and which I think clarifies the situation (underlining and some ' ' added by me) -

Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Tuomas Rasimus, Associate Professor, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada

Chapter 4 (pp. 55–71) in Religion: Secret Religion. Edited by April DeConick. Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks: Religion series. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2016.

https://www.academia.edu/28488542/Gnost ... _Movements

.
Writing about historical gnostic figures and movements is much trickier today than it was twenty-five years ago. Then one knew that gnosticism existed, and one knew what it was. Now one is not so certain. Of course, there were ancient Christians who identified as gnostics, including the famous Christian Platonist from Alexandria, Clement (c. 150 – c. 215 CE), and the many teachers and groups who, according to hostile witnesses, claimed to be gnostics, such as the followers of one female prophet Marcellina (flourished c. 150 CE) and members of a supposed Christian snake cult, the Naasseni. And there were numerous teachers and groups —Valentinus, Basilides, followers of Simon the Magician, worshippers of the female deity Barbelo, and others (all discussed later)— who were labeled as 'gnostics' by outsiders, namely, Christian heresy hunters and academic Neoplatonists.

But these gnostics didn’t all teach the same doctrine or practice. In fact, the term gnostic (Greek: gnôstikos) originated within academic Platonic discourse as technical jargon and meant something like “resulting in knowledge.”

It was first used as a self-designation by [supposed] early Christians and then took on the meaning “the one who knows.” As such, it need not mean anything more than an “intellectual.” Surely one would not consider all intellectual Christians — and there are many who self-identify as such! — as representatives of a more or less unified movement or subculture within today’s many churches, always teaching more or less the same thing.

Differences in doctrinal positions did not, however, bother (too much) the scholars of previous generations. They ignored the above-mentioned Clement and accepted the information of ancient heresy hunters such as Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (c. 180 CE) who asserted that since heretics rely on false knowledge, that is, 'false gnosis', then practically all heretics are also gnostics (although “falsely so-called,” a phrase Irenaeus borrowed from 1 Tim 6:22). In Against Heresies (see Unger’s 1992 translation), Irenaeus launched a massive attack on Valentinian Christianity (discussed below) and, in addition to exposing the Valentinian teachings in detail, he compiled a catalog of heresies to expose their true ancestry. Irenaeus’s work has exerted a huge influence on how heresy and gnosticism have been construed for the past 1,800 years, and his catalog is critically examined in this essay.

Some scholars, especially in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Germany, considered gnosticism (or gnosis) to be a religion in its own right or, alternatively, a widespread "parasitical” religious current that could attach itself to several different religions, such as Judaism or Christianity; even other religions, such as Mandaeism or Manichaeism, were often grouped under the umbrella term gnosticism.

Hallmarks of gnosticism thus defined included a dualistic worldview (good versus evil),hatred of the world and of the body, extreme ethics (either strictly ascetic or purely libertine), and especially the doctrines of an evil creator (demiurge) below the true God and the idea of a fallen divine spark in need of a wakeup call. Researcher Kurt Rudolph’s (1929–) still influential book, Gnosis ([1977] 1987), is a good example of such an approach, and gnostic scholar Karen King’s (1954–) What Is Gnosticism? (2003) aptly summarizes much of the older scholarship.


Changing Definitions

The discovery of thirteen papyrus codices near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945 and their publication in the 1960s and 1970s began to change things (see Robinson 2000). The codices were soon identified as mainly gnostic, and suddenly scholars had ready access to the ancient gnostics’ own voices.

A colloquium of scholars was held in Messina, Italy, in 1966, where a somewhat failed attempt was made to redefine gnosticism by zeroing in on the idea of a fallen divine spark (see Bianchi 1967). Thirty years later, Michael Williams (1946–) suggested abandoning the misunderstood and misused term and category gnosticism altogether and replacing it with a new, heuristic one of biblical demiurgy (1996). Karen King has also recommended abandoning the term and category, as they tend to perpetuate the hostile, ancient discourse that attempted to define Christian orthodoxy and heresy (King 2003).

< . . . big snip . . >

Summary

Modern scholars are divided on the definition of gnosticism. Some recommend abandoning the term completely (King), whereas others propose renaming the category (Williams) or narrowing the use down to what many have called Sethianism (Layton, Rasimus, Brakke).

This chapter has briefly studied the two most important collections of data, Irenaeus’s heresy catalog and the Nag Hammadi papyrus codices. Irenaeus construed heresy as a threefold entity: (1) the Valentinians —his main target— and their spiritual ancestors; (2) the Simonians from Simon to Tatian; and (3) the “multitude of gnostics.”

This last entity has the best chance of being identified as gnostic today. Irenaeus knew a version of an important text that he ascribed to these gnostics, the Secret Book of John, that is now available in four Coptic manuscripts. The Secret Book tells the story of the unfolding divine Intellect that loses part of itself to a beastly creator who, in turn, loses the divine spark to humanity. The author of the Secret Book rewrote stories from the opening chapters of Genesis and was greatly influenced by contemporary Pythagorean and Platonic ideas. Similar myths are found in the Nag Hammadi collection, but also in the Valentinian and Simonian (Saturninus and Basilides) sections of Irenaeus’s catalog.

Nonetheless, how these ideas were invented, transmitted, adapted, and readapted, and how exactly they should be classified, are still, to some extent, unanswered questions. Whether one considers the Valentinians and their Simonian and gnostic ancestors as truly “gnostic” today is a matter of opinion. If one sticks to Michael Williams’s definition of “biblical demiurgy,” most of them fit the bill. If one adopts Bentley Layton’s hypothesis,then only the “multitude of gnostics,” perhaps together with Saturninus and Basilides, would qualify. But if one follows Karen King, then one should simply abandon the term and category altogether. It’s your choice.
.


User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:06 am


and especially the doctrines of an evil creator (demiurge) below the true God

Well.

Remember what is the principal corollary, often ignored in this forum:

the insistence that Jesus is the Christ or the called Christ was a result of the polemic against haters of YHWH, and not against mere Jews à la Trypho of Justin.

I can even go so far as to claim: if the enemies of the evangelists were people as Trypho Jew mentioned by Justin, then Jesus probably existed.

The problem is that the enemies were haters of YHWH. The fleshly "historical" reality of Jesus becomes eo ipso a theological tool.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6321
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:23 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:06 am

...and especially the doctrines of an evil creator (demiurge) below the true God ...

Well.

Remember what is the principal corollary ...

the insistence that Jesus is the Christ or the called Christ was a result of the polemic against haters of YHWH

... The fleshly "historical" reality of Jesus becomes eo ipso a theological tool.
.
Then the full phrase might be more pertinent, ie. -

and especially the doctrines of an evil creator (demiurge) below the true God and the idea of a fallen [divine] spark in need of a wake-up call.

Did someone perceive that fallen fleshy 'man' needed a fleshy wake-up call?

davidmartin
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by davidmartin » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:55 am

It's great to have such a dubious and useful category such as Gnostics

The earliest Gnostics don't seem very Gnostic
The Simonians used the Old Testament to expound their doctrines according to Hippolytus and said nothing about a demiurge at all
The Nicolaitans mentioned by Ignatius believe the same things as he does (except for his revulsion of the human body, which is itself Gnostic)
Half the NH texts don't fall easily into the Gnostic bracket while others do. It's usually the earlier ones that don't and the later ones that do
The trend among heterodox groups is becoming more recognisably gnostic over time as their theology developed so the Gnostic groups were as likely to reject or reinterpret their own origins as anyone else. The more organised Gnostics were just as fundamentalist are their Orthodox opponents

perseusomega9
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:49 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:06 am

and especially the doctrines of an evil creator (demiurge) below the true God

Well.

Remember what is the principal corollary, often ignored in this forum:

the insistence that Jesus is the Christ or the called Christ was a result of the polemic against haters of YHWH, and not against mere Jews à la Trypho of Justin.

I can even go so far as to claim: if the enemies of the evangelists were people as Trypho Jew mentioned by Justin, then Jesus probably existed.

The problem is that the enemies were haters of YHWH. The fleshly "historical" reality of Jesus becomes eo ipso a theological tool.
In your myopia you fail to realize the "fleshiness" of Jesus was also important in the martyrdom debate among early christians. Jesus suffered just like those being tortured and killed. Subsuming everything under "haters of YHWH" short changes your analysis.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:26 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:49 am
Subsuming everything under "haters of YHWH" short changes your analysis.
I am not going to subsume 'everything', only the essential thing, under "haters of YHWH".

So the marcionite Adamantius comments the Parable of the Tree known by Fruit:

"Two Lords are here designed. You see two characters".

(1:28)

Now compare what official scholarship says about the Parable of Tree known by Fruit:
vocesanticae wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:57 pm
The tree/fruit parable is generally accepted as Q. I'm not proposing anything new there.
The difference is all there, between my view and the so-called "consensus".

Can you insult me for this?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by Irish1975 » Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:22 am

There is nothing wrong with the term gnoticism that isn’t also wrong in the case of “Christianity” or “Judaism” or other complex legacies. The definitions are inadequate, the historical boundaries are imprecise, and the identities are ideological. So what? We use the term to start a discussion or an inquiry. We get down to texts, ideas, figures. “Biblical demiurgy” is about as useful as “Biblical Jesus worship,” that is, not so useful.

Karen King is a tricky figure in today’s landscape. I’m presently reading this new book out by Ariel Sabar, Veritas, which is all about her “discovery” of what turned out to be a fake papyrus that seemed to reveal “Jesus’ wife.” Great book with lots of juicy detail. Miguel Conner has a good interview with the author at his podcast AeonByte Gnostic Radio.

King resents the narrowing of the concept of Christianity under Irenaeus and the Church, which is fine and good. But eliminating the old words, which is a kind of cancel culture, doesn’t solve any problems.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Gnosticism Historicized: Historical Figures and Movements

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:39 am

As long as we realize that there were people who called themselves 'gnostikoi' but that there was no sect per se of 'gnostics.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply