DCHindley wrote:.
I think that Simone Petrement's defense of the idea that all gnostic systems derive from Christianity (see A Separate God) is certainly wrong; "wronger" than Pearson. There are Coptic gnostic treatises in both Christian and non-Christian forms, and some with no Christian elements at all, but with clear connections to Judean interpretations of Genesis and Platonism, and almost all of these contain some element of a redeemer myth. It is easier for me to grasp the idea of gnostics with a developed redeemer myth borrowing elements of the competing Christ redeemer myth, than to think that some gnostics who originated within Christian circles revised Jesus Christ completely out of their redemption myths, leaving no trace at all.
IMHO, both Jewish ("Sethian") Gnosticism and Christianity are kissing cousins in the ever evolving history of religions. It is not enough to point to ideas in Gnosticism that resemble Neoplatonism for, as Dillon notes, every Neo-Platonic doctrine was previously expressed by Middle Platonists, but had not become mainstream before the 2nd or 3rd century CE.
Isn't neoplatonism a 3rd-6th C phenomenon?
Other forms of Gnosticism, such as Docetism, Montanism, Arianism, (Marcionsim?), etc., suggest Gnosticism in general is a kissing cousin to Christianity: their birth/genesis & upbringing seem to go hand-in-hand.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
andrewcriddle wrote:Although the pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth is almost certainly wrong, there were real reasons why scholars a 100 years ago believed it.
Ancient texts that are in reality Manichaean (post-Christian) were mistakenly, but very plausibly, interpreted as Zoroastrian (pre-Christian).
I found it interesting that Hurtado brushes off the concept of a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth without so much as mentioning the chief still alive proponent, Birger Pearson, who is in fact a qualified, accredited scholar who regularly publishes peer reviewed books and articles on the subject. He really likes to appeal to authority to wave away what he finds offensive.
Who likes to appeal to authority? Hurtado? or Pearson?
Blood wrote:Since Reitzenstein’s Das iranische Erlöserungsmysterium was never translated into English, it's impossible to know how accurate this statement is.
Well, the eBook is free, so it's relatively easy to look up. Then again, I'm not that interested in reading the whole 272 pages. Anything specific you want to know?
Blood wrote:Since Reitzenstein’s Das iranische Erlöserungsmysterium was never translated into English, it's impossible to know how accurate this statement is.
Well, the eBook is free, so it's relatively easy to look up. Then again, I'm not that interested in reading the whole 272 pages. Anything specific you want to know?
Yeah, if Reitzenstein actually wrote anything that supports this statement: "...Reitzenstein took the Mandaeans and their texts as the key expression of a pre-Christian Gnosticism. Moreover, he also posited that these texts demonstrated a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth from which the sort of christology that we find in the NT, particularly in the Gospel of John, derived."
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
andrewcriddle wrote:Although the pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth is almost certainly wrong, there were real reasons why scholars a 100 years ago believed it.
Ancient texts that are in reality Manichaean (post-Christian) were mistakenly, but very plausibly, interpreted as Zoroastrian (pre-Christian).
I found it interesting that Hurtado brushes off the concept of a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth without so much as mentioning the chief still alive proponent, Birger Pearson, who is in fact a qualified, accredited scholar who regularly publishes peer reviewed books and articles on the subject. He really likes to appeal to authority to wave away what he finds offensive.
Who likes to appeal to authority? Hurtado? or Pearson?
Hurtado. I've read a fair amount of Pearson, and he never appeals to authority. No dodging or weaving. Pearson knows exactly why he thinks something is probably so, and spells it out without snide remarks or twisting of detail to make it say something that it does not really say.
DCHindley wrote:I found it interesting that Hurtado brushes off the concept of a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth without so much as mentioning the chief still alive proponent, Birger Pearson, who is in fact a qualified, accredited scholar who regularly publishes peer reviewed books and articles on the subject. He really likes to appeal to authority to wave away what he finds offensive.
.
Who likes to appeal to authority? Hurtado? or Pearson?
DCHindley wrote:Hurtado. I've read a fair amount of Pearson, and he never appeals to authority. No dodging or weaving. Pearson knows exactly why he thinks something is probably so, and spells it out without snide remarks or twisting of detail to make it say something that it does not really say.
Cheers. I assumed that, but wanted to fully confirm. Regards.
Blood wrote:Yeah, if Reitzenstein actually wrote anything that supports this statement: "...Reitzenstein took the Mandaeans and their texts as the key expression of a pre-Christian Gnosticism. Moreover, he also posited that these texts demonstrated a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth from which the sort of christology that we find in the NT, particularly in the Gospel of John, derived."
It's more difficult to read than I expected, as he puts everything into language dealing with "Aion" theology, where he unifies pretty much every religious thought of the hellenistic world (Acharya S would like it I guess) into some personified Aion idea. It's full of statements like: "I don't see any reason to speak of "Gnostic ideas of Aion". Also in these concepts, Gnosticism just presents itself as the final, necessary developmental stage of every hellenistic religion". He sure sees Persian (Mandaean) ideas at the basis of many Jewish or Christian religious concepts, even if often inverted. He races across texts, Enoch, Ascensio Jesaiae, Ignatius letter to the Ephesians, Paul's letters, looking for personified "Aion(s)". Marcion's Jewish "just" God ("evil" for his disciples) is the "Aion". Then these sentences: "Also the development from Paul to Marcion is not limited to Christianity and hardly originated from it. The prerequisite is the expansion and augmentation of Iranian dualism".
Sorry for the rambling. I haven't seen any mention of John yet. It's all a huge, eclectic mess. Now we are at a transfer of the "Aion" teachings to the Roman Janus (he cites Ovid), which means that Aion was the "gatekeeper" in early hellenistic Alexandria, which goes back to the Iranian Chrostag and the connected soteriological mysteries. He then connects Janus via the Gnostic Jaldabaoth to Yahweh and Sarapis, and Sarapis has "obvious" parallels with Mithras...
I guess that's enough to support that the interpretation of Hurtado is correct.
Blood wrote:Yeah, if Reitzenstein actually wrote anything that supports this statement: "...Reitzenstein took the Mandaeans and their texts as the key expression of a pre-Christian Gnosticism. Moreover, he also posited that these texts demonstrated a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth from which the sort of christology that we find in the NT, particularly in the Gospel of John, derived."
It's more difficult to read than I expected, as he puts everything into language dealing with "Aion" theology, where he unifies pretty much every religious thought of the hellenistic world (Acharya S would like it I guess) into some personified Aion idea. It's full of statements like: "I don't see any reason to speak of "Gnostic ideas of Aion". Also in these concepts, Gnosticism just presents itself as the final, necessary developmental stage of every hellenistic religion". He sure sees Persian (Mandaean) ideas at the basis of many Jewish or Christian religious concepts, even if often inverted. He races across texts, Enoch, Ascensio Jesaiae, Ignatius letter to the Ephesians, Paul's letters, looking for personified "Aion(s)". Marcion's Jewish "just" God ("evil" for his disciples) is the "Aion". Then these sentences: "Also the development from Paul to Marcion is not limited to Christianity and hardly originated from it. The prerequisite is the expansion and augmentation of Iranian dualism".
Sorry for the rambling. I haven't seen any mention of John yet. It's all a huge, eclectic mess. Now we are at a transfer of the "Aion" teachings to the Roman Janus (he cites Ovid), which means that Aion was the "gatekeeper" in early hellenistic Alexandria, which goes back to the Iranian Chrostag and the connected soteriological mysteries. He then connects Janus via the Gnostic Jaldabaoth to Yahweh and Sarapis, and Sarapis has "obvious" parallels with Mithras...
I guess that's enough to support that the interpretation of Hurtado is correct.
Thanks. I'm guessing that Reitzenstein was seeing the Mandeans as primarily a sect that evolved out of Zoroastrianism, and since that religion is older than Christianity, the Mandeans therefore have priority, ergo Gnosticism has priority. He apparently didn't consider that the Mandeans could have originated as a Christian sect, and given the centrality of Yohann the Baptist in their doctrine, I think that's most likely.
The biggest problem is that there are no early Mandean texts; though lack of early, datable texts has hardly stopped the Hurtados of the field from letting their imaginations run wild, either.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Blood wrote:Thanks. I'm guessing that Reitzenstein was seeing the Mandeans as primarily a sect that evolved out of Zoroastrianism, and since that religion is older than Christianity, the Mandeans therefore have priority, ergo Gnosticism has priority.
Yes, this is exactly as he saw it. He saw direct Persian influences already on earlier Jewish ideas. He also knew that this position was highly speculative and that he would get much flak for it. He seemed to be a bit in a hurry to publish his book, even though he had to rewrite parts of it at some point because the translations of the texts he was working with had not been finalized, and his interpretation was published before those texts were actually officially published.
Blood wrote:The biggest problem is that there are no early Mandean texts; though lack of early, datable texts has hardly stopped the Hurtados of the field from letting their imaginations run wild, either.
