Edwin Yamauchi's "Pre-Christian Gnosticism" book (1973)

[billd89]

I'm halfway through Pre-Christian Gnosticism
and it is painfully obvious Yamauchi is determined to cast the impossibility of Gnosticism before Christianity.

Axe-grinding, noisily. A defender of the Christian exceptionalism, I suppose.

What are the thoughts of this Forum's readers on Yamauchi's text, please.

[MrMacSon]

If the NT Gospels were [mostly] written in the second century AD/CE then that would place them as being written in an early Gnostic milieu, and if it can be argued Paul was gnostic, partially or fully (and redacted to be orthodox Christian), then an argument might be able to be made.

I haven't read Yamauchi's text but in flicking through the first 15 pages these of van Baaren's list of sixteen characteristics of mature Gnosticism stand out -

.
14 ... there is a strong tendency to differentiate between the Heavenly Saviour and the human shape of Jesus of Nazareth. This has led to varying solutions ...

15 ... Christ ushers in salvation because he proclaims...the good God who had remained a stranger until that moment
.

One might imagine disputes about that part-point of 14 playing out, and, while 15 doesn't address it, the issue of Christ descending on Jesus sounds ‘gnostic’ ...

[Ben C. Smith]

I'm halfway through Pre-Christian Gnosticism
and it is painfully obvious Yamauchi is determined to cast the impossibility of Gnosticism before Christianity.

Axe-grinding, noisily. A defender of the Christian exceptionalism, I suppose.

What are the thoughts of this Forum's readers on Yamauchi's text, please.

It has been a while since I read Yamauchi, but I did not come away with the impression that he was defending Christian exceptionalism, except as a side effect of him simply being one of those types for whom the late dates both of the manuscripts and of the texts most commonly called Gnostic are by far the single most important factor in creating a trajectory. I think that this approach appeals greatly to a certain type of personality. I myself am not of that mindset, so he grated on me. I remember being irritated, and your reaction in the OP resonates with me. It is just that I am not sure I agree with your assessment of what he was defending. I am no mindreader, so I could easily be wrong, of course. Just giving my opinion.

[billd89]

... so he grated on me. I remember being irritated, and your reaction in the OP resonates with me. It is just that I am not sure I agree with your assessment of what he was defending. I am no mindreader, so I could easily be wrong, of course. Just giving my opinion.

Are you sure you're not a mind-reader, Ben?

I will harvest citations, for my own 'counter-argument' against Y., although his insinuatory style irks me. His citations are thorough, at least.

[DCHindley]

I'm halfway through Pre-Christian Gnosticism
and it is painfully obvious Yamauchi is determined to cast the impossibility of Gnosticism before Christianity.

Axe-grinding, noisily. A defender of the Christian exceptionalism, I suppose.

What are the thoughts of this Forum's readers on Yamauchi's text, please.

Back in the late 1980s or early 1990s I read this book along with Birger Pearson's works and much preferred Pearson's POV.

If you REALLY want to see someone make the case for the world literally revolving around Jesus Christ, take a look at Simone Petrement, A Separate God (1984). About 550 pages of apologetics.

DCH

[Jax]

If you REALLY want to see someone make the case for the world literally revolving around Jesus Christ, take a look at Simone Petrement, A Separate God (1984). About 550 pages of apologetics.

DCH

Sounds like Hell to me!

The only thing that would make it better would be to listen to this album repeated on an 8 track the whole time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQqK1CjE9bA

[andrewcriddle]

Yamauchi is a specialist in Mandaeism and his work is important in understanding the relation of Mandaeism to Christianity. IMO he is correct in denying the existence of pre-Christian, i.e. pre 70 CE, Gnosticism (in the sense of a creator radically distinguished from the high God). However, his work in this broader field is IMO more open to question than his specific work on Mandaeism.

Andrew Criddle