Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:08 am
How do you know they were "gentiles"? Are you defining gentiles to include first or second generation converts to Judaism, who might still have one foot in the other culture?

My impression is that most (if not all) Gnostic writings (I'm thinking Nag Hammadi stuff) were written by gentiles with various degrees of knowledge of and attachment to Judaism, as were most (if not all) big name Gnostics. But sure, there were Jewish Gnostics, just like there were Jewish orthodox Christians (like Epiphanius).
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:47 pm They weren't weird Steve. They were typical Jewish mystics only developing tradition from the gospel and traditional Jewish writings.

Well, we're all "weird" (as humans), and it all seems "weird" to me (meaning Judaism and Christianity), from the OT on down. But some Jews and Christians seem "weirder" to me than others, just like in gentile culture, Plotinus seems "weird" to me but not as "weird" as Gnostics. But to each their own.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by John2 »

But setting aside the value judgement, you can take "weird" to mean not mainstream.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

I want a 3D map/timescale for The Spread of Gnosticism

Post by billd89 »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:03 amBild this is insightful. I would ask if transition from a Jewish to Gentile milieu might impact as well. A true gentile gnostic would have no problems adopting an Ialdabaoth demiurge. Is there any evidence of a previous iteration of gnostic thought in the surviving texts? I think there is. Numerous of these texts lack a demiurge like Thomas, Eugnostos the blessed, apparently the gospel of Mary, Thunder, and a few others with earlier layers. Not only that the Simonians are presented as using Hebrew scriptures - highly allegorically but still using them and they are supposed to be the origin of the gnostics by the church fathers. Also the 'gnostic-like' opponents in say 1 John are attacked for denying Jesus is the Christ or having a fleshly body - not for anything said about God (which is found in the later Jude/2 Peter)
So plenty of evidence to argue for an earlier and different phase of gnosticism that wasn't so cosmically dualistic as what came later!
Maybe the example of Hermeticism gives a clue what that might have been like
David-
My beef is that everything 'Gnostic' gets lumped together indiscrimately. I agree w/Scholem's call (that 2nd C AD Gnoticism is FREQUENTLY "metaphysical antisemitism") but even he doesnt reject all Jewish gnostics.

The Therapetue? Definitely gnostic. Menard (1866) claimed the Anonymous Author of the Poimandres (CH 1) was a Therapeut. That means the explanation for the 'Jewish' Hermetica is Jews, obviously. The Hermetica is definitely
Gnostic, 'first generation' perhaps. However, we must remember that the evidence which survives is neither 'the first' nor 'the beginning' - so add a generation or two, back in time.

Pearson (1981) unwittingly identified the main thesis and the hub of an epistolary network which I'm tracking: Eduard Norden. Norden taught, inspired/directed Hans Jonas, Hans Lewy, Elias Bickerman and my own Anonymous Author.

Metanoia - spiritual conversion. Metempsychosis - psychic change. Palingenesia, etc. were the point and goal of this process, a heterodox answer to man's crying need for salvation, and long before the Gnostic horrorshow post-115 AD.

I suspect an evolution went smthg like this : FIRST the movement was Judeo-Egyptian c.100 BC, then it was Judeo-Gentile c.25 BC, then it was heterodox (minorly Jewish) c.25 AD, then it was relic Jewish by 75 AD, then it became properly/ conventionally/ Classically Gnostic by 115 AD. Geographically: perhaps the 'trending idea' came out of the Fayum, from around Arshinoe? up the Nile to Alexandria, and thence radiating outward to a network of Diaspora synagogues, all over 4-6 generations. An Alexandrian meme is richly debated in Ephesus decades later, I assume.

Cerinthus appears to be denying the divinity of Jesus while defending the old Christos doctrine, 80 AD. That period, 80-140 AD, was when Xianity hijacked the existent Gnostic culture; not viceversa. Yes, I am well-aware that mine's the minority opinion!

My two cents.
Last edited by billd89 on Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by rgprice »

Well, having thought more about this, let me put this forward:

God-fearers/worshipers of Theos Hypsistos, had been around and been involved in the worship of the Jewish God and the use of the Jewish scriptures since at least the end of the second century BCE. Prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, there were growing bonds between Gentiles and Jews, with increasing numbers of Gentiles converting to Judaism outright or adopting the use of Jewish scriptures and worshiping at synagogues, even if not becoming circumcised or adopting the Law.

After the First war, tensions started to grow in this community and such God-fearers became increasingly uneasy with their ties to Judaism. This increased over time as the conflicts continued to roil. Thus, while Pauline communities may have originally been more comfortable with their ties to Judaism, and had adopted many aspects of Jewish thought and religion, there was an increasing desire to split from the Jews while also holding on to many of the religious ideas and traditions they had adopted and had become integrated into their communities.

Thus, Anti-Semitic Gnosticism emerged as sort of the device for separating from Judaism, while taking possession of the aspects of the religion that had become integral to these communities.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:44 pm Well, having thought more about this, let me put this forward:

God-fearers/worshipers of Theos Hypsistos, had been around and been involved in the worship of the Jewish God and the use of the Jewish scriptures since at least the end of the second century BCE. Prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, there were growing bonds between Gentiles and Jews, with increasing numbers of Gentiles converting to Judaism outright or adopting the use of Jewish scriptures and worshiping at synagogues, even if not becoming circumcised or adopting the Law.

After the First war, tensions started to grow in this community and such God-fearers became increasingly uneasy with their ties to Judaism. This increased over time as the conflicts continued to roil. Thus, while Pauline communities may have originally been more comfortable with their ties to Judaism, and had adopted many aspects of Jewish thought and religion, there was an increasing desire to split from the Jews while also holding on to many of the religious ideas and traditions they had adopted and had become integrated into their communities.

Thus, Anti-Semitic Gnosticism emerged as sort of the device for separating from Judaism, while taking possession of the aspects of the religion that had become integral to these communities.
.
I think all those things are feasible.

As to, "increasing numbers of Gentiles converting to Judaism outright or adopting the use of Jewish scriptures and worshiping at synagogues, even if not becoming circumcised or adopting the Law," there may be role of aspects of this happening to Gentile members of Jewish households (and in communities), including slaves.

There may be a significance role of the 'Fiscus Iudaicus / Judaicus' introduced after the First War by Vespasian for all Jews throughout the empire, and subsequent changes to it.

Domitian (r 81 to 96 AD) expanded the fiscus Iudaicus to include not only born Jews and converts to Judaism, but also those who concealed the fact that they were Jews or observed Jewish customs ie. those who merely "lived like Jews".

In 96 AD, Domitian's successor Nerva reformed the administration of fiscus Iudaicus: Did Nerva relaxing the fiscus Judaicus help Christianity?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by GakuseiDon »

I have my own crazy theory of Christian origins, which is my "magic heavenly Jesus" theory. As soon as Jesus was thought to be in heaven AND COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY INVOKED for magical healings and prophecies, various groups started doing just that. These were both Jewish and pagan groups, who didn't particularly care about religious purity but more about what actually worked. I think we tend to view ancient religious beliefs in the same way that we see modern religions: as monoliths. But ancient cultures were more pragmatic. If gods produced results, they were adopted.

It was only when the groups started to organise and proselytise that they needed to put their beliefs into philosophical structures. If the material world was evil, then what was the makeup of a Jesus who had descended into that world? How does an evil material world reflect on the creation of that world as detailed in the OT? Why does a perfect being need to create a material world, and how does He do that? This drove the development of the philosophical side of the beliefs, for the more educated pagans and Jews.

You can't have heresy without orthodoxy. And you can't have orthodoxy without power. Once groups got powerful enough they could split away ideas they didn't like. The fact that nearly all early groups adopted the letters of Paul and those Gospels in particular suggest they were central from the start. I don't think much thought was put into the Gospels other than to support the basis of Jesus being able to be invoked for magic purposes. Paul was a religious freelance entrepreneur. Later groups added and removed as required.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:11 am
John2 wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:29 pm Gnostics were "weirdos" who interpreted the religious and philosophical writings of their time in "weird" ways. Why did they bother to do that? Because they were weird.
As opposed to Nicene Christianity?
weird. is a value judgment. But the exegesis is different.
The orthodox tried to interpret scripture in relation to tradition and other scriptures.
Gnostic exegesis is more idiosyncratic (deconstructive to be anachronistic.)

See Dawson Allegorical Readers...in Ancient Alexandria

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by maryhelena »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:26 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:49 am
rgprice wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:25 pm It seems that even Marcion's Gospel and Marcion's version of the Pauline letters still deal with the Jewish scriptures and still present a Jesus who is at least tangentially tied to Judaism.
The spirit does not exist in a vacuum - body and spirit go together like a horse and carriage...you can't have one without the other. That is of course, if one wants to be rational and leave aside notions of spirits wandering around in the invisible heavens. The word became flesh (gJohn) is not about an invisible spirit from the invisible heavens taking on human flesh. In our modern 21st century speak - 'flesh it out' relates to an idea, an argument, given some substance. For instance; an architect might imagine how his design will look - but only when the brick and mortar are used to build that design will his idea become 'flesh', become a physical reality.

We really need to get away from the archaic idea that invisible heavenly spirits come down to earth, from outer space, and put on human flesh....Carrier notwithstanding....

Marcion has his Jesus decent in the 15th year of Tiberius - Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea. His Jesus descends into Jewish history. The heavenly spirit Jesus and the earthly Jewish Jesus are one and the same Jesus - in other words - the body and spirit of human reality. The flesh is Jewish but the spirit is free. However far Marcion was going with his non-Jewish Jesus - he did not, he could not, get away from the very Jewish Jesus of the gospel story. Downplay the Jewish Jesus, side-step the Jewish Jesus - and Marcion's non-Jewish Jesus would have faded away.......In effect, Marcion has combined the bodily Jewish Jesus with the spiritual, the intellectual or philosophical, Jesus. He has combined body and spirit - mind and matter.

A simple concept really - but one which the early church 'father's failed to grasp in their condemnation of Marcion.
Emphasis mine.
Of course Marcion didn't, why would he be interested in predating his story?
The Church Fathers naturally abused Marcion to insert some of their own inventions, such as this one. Brilliant hey, just claim that Marcion had the same material as they did but different so you can name and refute it, while its core is left intact

To Marcion, I am sure, IS was a concept: he comes 'from above', and John knows that and uses that.
Marcion highly likely did not have Coptic Thomas but only Greek copies that interpreted logion 28 in the wrong way:

28. said IS : did I stand to foot in the(F) middle of the World and did I reveal outward to they in Flesh ...

The Coptic is clear, IS "reveals" to "them in Flesh". How else could it be, the World in Thomas is everyone's own perceived Decoration (KOSMOS) of the world indeed.
Macrion didn't mention either body or spirit or flesh of IS, he just left it all like it is in Thomas: utterly unspecified. Which was a great problem for those who wanted to turn him into a man
Martin - my thinking about the whole body and spirit scenario is to try and understand what is at the root of what it was that the ancients were trying to articulate. After all, we do not live in the world of their imagination. Our 21st century world strives for logic and rationality. We can use science and psychology etc in attempting to understand our human nature. Yes, unfortunately, there are many today who choose to add a 'spiritual' component to their lives and deaths.

( a recent comment on Twitter, quoting I understand a Catholic hymn) regarding the stabbing to death of a UK politician: ''May the angels lead him into paradise; may the martyrs receive him at his arrival and lead him to the holy city Jerusalem. May choirs of angels receive him and may he have eternal rest.'')

The ancients had two options when looking around the world they lived in. The material world and the 'spiritual' world - the unknown world. Animals die, men die - but - vegetation dies but is reborn in the spring. Thus, went the thinking, man being part of nature, reflects not only nature's material aspect but also it's rebirth in the spring spiritual aspect. (Man being a higher animal than other animals...) Since no material/physical rebirth was observed for man - a spiritual rebirth, an unseen rebirth, was man's destiny. Gods and an unknown heaven became man's rebirth reward. A spiritual rebirth in the unknown heaven became the goal of man - hence Gnostics and all those who seek spiritual enlightenment - often at the expense of overlooking the material needs of themselves or the natural environment.

Logic and rationality lead us to question the ideas of the ancients; belief in the existence of spiritual beings in some spiritual world is simply imagination not scientific knowledge nor rational thought. But if god does not exist in the way attributed to such beings by the ancients - what is the god idea all about? If god is that North Star that leads the way to safety - then god is nothing more, or nothing less, than our human intellectual capacity. God then becomes the driving force, the spirit, that drives forward our intellectual evolution. Ideas come, they die, and they are reborn in the spring. Knowledge grows on what went before. Intellectual evolution reflects the natural cycles of the vegetation we see all around us. In contrast, our material bodies simply decay back into the natural environment. Our 'spiritual' aspect, our evolving evolutional intellect, dies with our material body. Man only lives forever in the 'body' of knowledge he has contributed to while living.

Plain, simple, facts of 21st century knowledge.

The intricacies of ancient thought might be interesting, in and of themselves - however, it's the underlying concepts that provide a way forward. Ancient concepts of body and spirit - concepts of human nature - need to be expressed in 21st century language. The intellectual framework in which the ancients lived is not our world. It is, in effect, a dead world. Our job today is not to attempt it's rebirth but to seek that new intellectual world that the ancients perhaps sensed in their musings but were unable to grasp and hence to articulate.

My thought for the day... :)
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by rgprice »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:40 pm I have my own crazy theory of Christian origins, which is my "magic heavenly Jesus" theory. As soon as Jesus was thought to be in heaven AND COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY INVOKED for magical healings and prophecies, various groups started doing just that. These were both Jewish and pagan groups, who didn't particularly care about religious purity but more about what actually worked. I think we tend to view ancient religious beliefs in the same way that we see modern religions: as monoliths. But ancient cultures were more pragmatic. If gods produced results, they were adopted.

It was only when the groups started to organise and proselytise that they needed to put their beliefs into philosophical structures. If the material world was evil, then what was the makeup of a Jesus who had descended into that world? How does an evil material world reflect on the creation of that world as detailed in the OT? Why does a perfect being need to create a material world, and how does He do that? This drove the development of the philosophical side of the beliefs, for the more educated pagans and Jews.

You can't have heresy without orthodoxy. And you can't have orthodoxy without power. Once groups got powerful enough they could split away ideas they didn't like. The fact that nearly all early groups adopted the letters of Paul and those Gospels in particular suggest they were central from the start. I don't think much thought was put into the Gospels other than to support the basis of Jesus being able to be invoked for magic purposes. Paul was a religious freelance entrepreneur. Later groups added and removed as required.
I can see that. I've thought this as well, though I'm not entirely sold that this was the main driver. I think certainly there is a lot to suggest that the worshiping of Jesus was tied to invoking the NAME of Jesus in magical rituals, particularly for healing. And among Jews, who were forbidden from using the name Yahweh, perhaps Jesus was a useable substitution that contained the name Yahweh within in.
Post Reply