Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by Jax »

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 completely agree with all of this! :thumbup:
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by DCHindley »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:17 am
DCHindley wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:30 amJosephus describes how polarized the regions of Judea/Samaria/Idumea and southern Syria became. It was very intense, involving ethnic cleansing, killing everybody even remotely perceived as a threat, and jailing of moderates on both sides as people not to be trusted. Just being friendly towards one another was enough to get people killed or arrested. Images of athletic fields being turned into detainment camps, and deciding to just kill the detainees rather than risk letting them "show their true colors," are not just for 1990s Bosnia Herzegovina.
Again, what evidence do we have that Josephus's portrayal -- and it was certainly an ideological one in the way (and for the reasons) that he portrayed ethnic atrocities -- effected Christians in Phrygia, Syria, Egypt, Greece, Italy? We do know that Vespasian's propaganda was spread through those regions and presumably had some impact on public attitudes. The ethnic troubles in Palestine were arguably what led to Roman intervention and the Jewish War in the first place, and they had been longstanding frictions. But is there any evidence that these frictions spilled over among Christians and Jews outside Palestine and Alexandria up to this time?
DCHindley wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:30 amIf you are a former gentile, your extended family may have supported you in better times, but now they think their convert relative is a lightning rod bringing down destruction on them. The converts were cut off, rejected. The sense of betrayal among the gentile converts would have been intense some some. I would suggest they renounced their conversions to Judaism and fealty to their Laws, and sought a way to rationalize what had happened. In southern Syria and Judean regions, these gentile converts were clearly worse off after the war.
Where are we thinking of? Christians in Judea during the War? Or Christians beyond Judea?

If we look at the recent examples of MIddle Eastern ethnic tensions that were provoked by terrorist attacks, we have seen how difficult it is to prise apart different ethnic and religious groups who have long lived as neighbours and friends. Those people pull together in the midst of wider crises around them.

But of course, we have very little reliable evidence that Christians were sizeable communities in Judea during these war years. Christianity as we have seen it evolve appears more reliably to have roots in Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Africa, Italy.
I posted this in 2014:

viewtopic.php?p=14553#p14553

It is a string of excerpts from Joesephus. I think I may also have posted similar or even more outrageous claims in FRDB/IIDB and CrossTalk2.

Anyways, I am re-posting below.

The scenes of mutual genocide and fighting that occurred between Jewish and gentile populations of Judaea, Samaria, Galilee and areas of lower Syria up to Tyre & Sidon is part of the reason why I have become convinced that this period was the catalyst that caused the synthesis of high christology from the preceding theses that 1) Jesus was the Jewish messiah figure who may have been resurrected after being crucified by the Romans, and that 2) there would be a coming fruitful "kingdom of God" on earth in which gentiles who revered the Judean God could participate. The interracial strife and the utter defeat of the Judean revolutionaries by the Romans made it pretty clear that no earthly kingdom of God was likely to ever occur. The destruction of the Judean cultic center and sacrificial system lent itself to the idea that perhaps God had somehow "demoted" the Judeans and their "Law."

Gentiles who had placed their bets on Jesus as a military messiah could give up on Judaism entirely, but they had already cut all family ties to convert to Judaism, and the war just made that cut even more deep. What they did, it seems, was to refashion Jesus into something that fit into a new and improved "plan of God" for the world.

Go and look at the passages in the gospels where Jesus predicts "brother will hate brother" and "father will hate son" (or vice versa) and "you will be hated by peoples of all nations for my sake" and you can likely find one or more parallel passage in Josephus' War or his Life.
Josephus, in Jewish War 2 wrote:
457 Now the people of Caesarea had slain the Jews that were among them on the very same day and hour [when the Roman soldiers who had agreed to surrender the citadel were slain in Jerusalem by the revolutionaries led by the Captain of the Temple, Eleazar], which one would think must have come to pass by the direction of Providence; insomuch that in one hour's time more than twenty thousand Jews were killed, and all Caesarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them in bonds to the galleys.
458 Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Caesarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians, and their neighbouring cities, Philadelphia, and Sebonitis, and Gerasa, and Pella, and Scythopolis,
459 and after them Gadara, and Hippos; and falling upon Gaulonitis, some cities they destroyed there, and some they set on fire, and then went to Kedasa, belonging to the Tyrians, and to Ptolemais, and to Gaba, and to Caesarea;
460 nor was either Sebaste (Samaria) or Askelon able to oppose the violence with which they were attacked; and when they had burnt these to the ground; they entirely demolished Anthedon and Gaza; many also of the villages that were around everyone of those cities were plundered, and an immense slaughter was made of the men who were caught in them.
461 However, the Syrians were even with the Jews in the multitude of the men whom they slew; for they killed those whom they caught in their cities, and that not only out of the hatred they bare them, as formerly, but to prevent the danger under which they were from them;
462 so that the disorders in all Syria were terrible, and every city was divided into two armies encamped one against another, and the preservation of the one party was in the destruction of the other;
463 so the daytime was spent in shedding of blood, and the night in fear--which was of the two the more terrible; for when the Syrians thought they had ruined the Jews, they had the Judaizers in suspicion also; and as each side did not care to slay those whom they only suspected on the other, so did they greatly fear them when they were mingled with the other, as if they were certainly foreigners.
464 Moreover, greediness of gain was a provocation to kill the opposite party, even to such as had of old appeared very mild and gentle toward them; for they without fear plundered the effects of the slain, and carried off the spoils of those whom they slew to their own houses, as if they had been gained in a set battle; and he was esteemed a man of honour who got the greatest share, as having prevailed over the greatest number of his enemies.
465 It was then common to see cities filled with dead bodies, still lying unburied, and those of old men, mixed with infants, all dead, and scattered about together; women also lay among them, without any covering for their nakedness: you might then see the whole province full of inexpressible calamities, while the dread of still more barbarous practices which were threatened, was everywhere greater than what had been already perpetrated.
And the case was worse for those who sided with the other race against those of their own race:
466 And thus far the conflict had been between Jews and foreigners; but when they made excursions to Scythopolis, they found Jews that acted as enemies; for as they stood in battle array with those of Scythopolis, and preferred their own safety before their relation to us, they fought against their own countrymen;
467 nay, their alacrity was so very great, that those of Scythopolis suspected them. These were afraid, therefore, lest they should make an assault upon the city in the night time, and to their great misfortune, should thereby make an apology for themselves to their own people for their revolt from them. So they commanded them, that in case they would confirm their agreement, and demonstrate their fidelity to them, who were of a different nation, they should go out of the city, with their families, to a neighbouring grove:
468 and when they had done as they were commanded, without suspecting anything, the people of Scythopolis lay still for the interval of two days, to tempt them to be secure; but on the third night they watched for their opportunity, and cut all their throats, some as they lay unguarded, and some as they lay asleep. The number that was slain was more than thirteen thousand, and then they plundered them of all that they had.
469 It will deserve our history to relate what befell Simon; he was the son of one Saul, a man of reputation among the Jews. This man was distinguished from the rest by the strength of his body and the boldness of his conduct, although he abused them both to the mischievousness of his countrymen;
470 for he came every day and slew a great many of the Jews of Scythopolis, and he frequently put them to flight, and became himself alone the cause of his army's conquering.
471 But a just punishment overtook him for the murders he had committed upon those of the same nation with him; for when the people of Scythopolis threw their javelins at them in the grove, he drew his sword, but did not attack any of the enemy; for he saw that he could do nothing against such a multitude; but he cried out, after a very moving manner, and said--
472 ``O you people of Scythopolis, I deservedly suffer for what I have done with relation to you, when I gave you such security of my fidelity to you, by slaying so many of those who were related to me. Therefore we very justly experience the perfidiousness of foreigners, while we acted after a most wicked manner against our own nation. I will therefore die, polluted wretch as I am, by mine own hands; for it is not fit I should die by the hand of our enemies;
473 and let the same action be to me both a punishment for my great crimes, and a testimony of my courage to my commendation, that so no one of our enemies may have it to boast of, that he it was that slew me; and no one may glory over me as I fall.''
474 Now when he had said this, he looked around him upon his family with eyes of pity and of rage; (that family consisted of a wife and children, and his aged parents;)
475 so, in the first place, he caught his father by his grey hairs, and ran his sword through him; and after him he did the same to his mother, who willingly received it; and after them he did the like to his wife and children, everyone almost offering themselves to his sword, as desirous to prevent being slain by their enemies;
476 so when he had gone over all his family, he stood upon their bodies to be seen by all, and stretching out his right hand, that his action might be observed by all, he sheathed his entire sword into his own bowels. This young man was to be pitied, on account of the strength of his body and the courage of his soul; but since he had assured foreigners of his fidelity [against his own countrymen], he suffered deservedly.
If one who even remembers the cases of Bosnia-Hergovina and Rwanda in the 80s and 90s, there were mass pogroms, instances of ethnic cleansing, and the dispatch (executions) of those who remained on friendly terms with the "enemy".
(JOE Jwr 2:477-480) 477 Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the Jews that were among them: those of Askelon slew two thousand five hundred, and those of Ptolemais, two thousand, and put not a few into bonds;
478 those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a greater number in prison; moreover, those of Hippos and those of Gadara, did the like, while they put to death the boldest of the Jews, but kept those of whom they were afraid in custody; as did the rest of the cities of Syria, according as everyone either hated them or were afraid of them;
This was not universally the case, though:
479 only the Antiochians, the Sidonians, and Apamians spared those who dwelt with them, and would not endure either to kill any of the Jews or to put them in bonds. And perhaps they spared them, because their own number was so great that they despised their attempts. But I think the greatest part of this favour was owing to their pity of those whom they saw to make no seditions.
480 As for the Gerasens, they did no harm to those who abode with them; and for those who had a mind to go away, they conducted them as far as their borders reached.
Some NT examples:

(RSV Mat 24:9-10) 9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another.

(RSV Mat 10:35-36) 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

(RSV Mar 13:12-13) 12 And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

(RSV Luk 6:22) 22 "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil ...!

(RSV Luk 14:26) 26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Last edited by DCHindley on Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by DCHindley »

Here is some of my foolish reasoning on FRDB from back in 2009:

Jesus parties in the agricultural areas and associated villages and towns (Galilee, Judaea): I do not think that the authors of the NT gospels were Jews by birth on account of their numerous allusions to Jewish ignorance of their own anointed savior, and that the consequence of that unbelief would be that faithful gentiles will ultimately receive the promises made to Abraham instead of his physical descendants (i.e., the Jews themselves). That being said, the authors of the NT gospels certainly do seem to know their Lxx pretty well, suggesting that they had some sort of close association with Judaism in the past. It didn't appear to have gone well, though. Something pretty serious would need to occur to separate these two groups - Jews by descent and faithful gentiles. I have proposed they were a kind of hangers-on to a messianic Jesus movement, maybe even putting all their eggs in the basket of a just earthly messianic kingdom, which of course didn't materialize and any hopes of which were crushed by the revolt of 66-70 CE. That revolt, though, also involved several attempts at ethnic cleansing by both Jews and Greeks, so you can imagine these "'tweeners" got a double whammy, but it must have been bitterest to have come from folks who they had considered to be their Jewish friends.

Jesus parties in metropolitan areas (Greek cities, Roman colonies, Egyptian nomes):

This is the Paul side. Here I think we were dealing with gentiles who were slaves or retainer/clients of well to do Jewish households (probably Herodian princes and princesses), and those gentiles who attended synagogue for a variety of reasons, who had contact with members of these house churches also attending synagogue. Social networks like these were immensely important to everyone, from patrons who needed to find capable people to get their pet projects done to clients looking for commissioned work (artisans, scribes, lower-level freehold and slave administrators and manager types), and while Judaism was generally looked down upon by Greeks, not all were totally against it, and some admired certain social and ethical aspects of it. Personally, I seriously doubt this kind of movement was associated with the Jesus movement at all at first. Only later, after the gentile associates of the Judaean/Galilean Jesus movement above split from Judaism proper and reinterpreted the messianism into a kind of savior cultus, and the war of 66-70 made close association with Jews a little dicier and less fruitful for many, a Jewish based savior cultus may have looked good as an alternative. Recognizing them as fellow travelers, members of the now much-evolved Jesus movement "hijacked" the Paul movement.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by DCHindley »

Modern analogues might be:

The conflict between Serbians and Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia Herzegovina between April 1992 and December 1995. As part of Yugoslavia, Muslims and Serbs got along, at least on the surface, partly because of Marshal Tito's influence. Once the country split along ethnic lines (Serbs, Croats & Bosnian Muslims) the Serbs tried to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of "Greater Serbia" and militias (mostly Serbian) started using snipers and strong arm tactics. The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide. In one case, about 7,000-8,000 Muslim men were rounded up in Srebrenica, hauled off in busses for "relocation", and then executed by firing squad in pits, Nazi style.

The 1990-1994 Rwandan civil war in which the ethnic Hutu, who had been forced from power by the Tutsi tribe in the 1960s, tried to wrest back political power. The conflict stratified the population so much that in 1994 Hutu extremists assassinated the moderate president (who was a Hutu to boot) and began a mass genocide of over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, with the fear factor so high that many regular Hutus feared reprisals if they did not participate in the killings. This included Catholic priests turning over Tutsis, who had sought sanctuary in their churches, to Hutu militiamen!
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by DCHindley »

As to scholars who have proposed the war as a driving factor that led to the rationalizations that I had proposed, I posted this on Crosstalk2 in 2002:

In Birger A. Pearson's Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), there is a chapter on "Anti-Heretical Warnings in Codex IX from Nag Hammadi" (pp. 183-193) but these all appear to be directed at other Gnostic groups or to adherents of more orthodox Christian practices and teachings. I cannot find anything directed at the Jewish people or Judaeans. If they were disposed to mock their opponents, the irony of the Creator God of the Jews allowing or causing the punishment of his own favored people would have been an ideal weapon.

Pearson says:

"What is of special interest ... is the hermeneutical principal at work in the Gnostic synthesis. This hermeneutical principal can be described as one of revolt. In the Gnostic reinterpretation the God of Israel, the God of history and creation, is demonized ... Inasmuch as the Gnostic synthesis reflects the use and reinterpretation of Jewish scripture and tradition, it is apparent that the Gnostic phenomenon itself originates in a Jewish environment as an expression of alienation from ("orthodox") Judaism. As a result a new religion, which can no longer be called "Jewish," is born." <pp. 37-38>

"probably the most important feature of Gnostic speculation on Seth is the idea that Gnostics constitute a special race of Seth." <pg. 68>

"Given the massive Jewish influence discoverable in Gnostic texts, how does one interpret the Gnostics' attitude vis-a-vis their roots? It is obviously not enough to speak of "Jewish Gnosticism," [not the type of Jewish mysticism that Gershom Scholem called by this name] for once the Gnostic hermeneutical shift has occurred one can no longer recognize the resultant point of view as Jewish. One finds, instead, an essentially non-Jewish, indeed anti-Jewish, attitude ... Concomitantly, one finds reflected in the Gnostic texts a radically new self understanding, expressed, to be sure, in many different ways." <pg 125>

"If the Gnostics are "no longer Jews," who, then, are they? Curiously enough, even their own self-definition turns out to be based to some extent on Jewish traditions!" <pg. 130>

If the Rabbinic condemnations of the Min and Minim in general included Jewish Gnostics, as is very likely, Gnostics must have also been rejected by their ethnic brothers, and subject to similar charges and "persecution" that was meted out to Christians, if only in their own perception. I think R. Travers Herford covers most of the Rabbinic references to the Min and Minum in _Christianity in Talmud and Midrash_ (KTAV, 1975 [1903]). Although Gnostics, like Christians, came to regard themselves an ideological "race," separate from their individual ethnic "races," on the basis of their common religious beliefs (see Denise Kimber Buell, "Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-Definition," HTR 94:4 (2001), 449-476, which can be found online at their web site), I still do not see angry gloating over the misfortunes of their (former) ethnic brothers, as I feel is the case in the NT, if the authors of the NT books are truly assumed to be (mainly) ethnic Jews. This difference in polemic argues against early Christians being ethnic Jews themselves, as Jewish Gnostics would still be, ethnically, Jews, yet still manage to refrain from such gloating.

So, how then does Pearson see the Jewish influence over the development of Jewish Gnosticism?

"Judaism, as a religion that takes history seriously, and that also has a market tendency in the direction of messianism, provides ipso facto a context in which, given the critical circumstances of history, an attitude of revolt could easily develop. There is a strong case to be made for the view that ancient Gnosticism developed, in large part, from a disappointed messianism, or rather a transmuted messianism.*" <pg. 28>

* "Cf. R. M. Grant's thesis Gnosticism developed out of disappointed apocalyptic hopes after the destruction of Jerusalem, in _Gnosticism and Early Christianity_ (New York: Harper & Row, 1966 [New York: Columbia U.P., 1959]), esp 27ff. His view that the fall of Jerusalem was the decisive historical event out of which Gnosticism arose is surely wrong, and has subsequently been withdrawn, but otherwise his theory has some merit." <pg. 28>

Later, he says:

"... it seems most plausible to conclude that the earliest Gnostics were Jewish intellectuals eager to redefine their own religious self understanding, convinced of the bankruptcy of traditional verities. It is quite possible that an important factor in the development of this Gnostic attitude was a profound sense of the failure of history. This appears to be reflected in the way in which the Gnostic sources depict the foibles and machinations of the Creator.*" <pp. 133-134>

* "Robert M. Grant's well-known theory that Gnosticism arose out of the debris of apocalyptic hopes shattered by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. has often been criticized, and has subsequently been abandoned by Grant himself; see _Gnosticism and Early Christianity_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959) 27-38. The socio-historical factors of the origins of Gnosticism are, nevertheless, worth pursuing, difficult as the task is. Cf. Rudolph, _Gnosis_, 275-94; and his "Forschungsbericht," ThR 36, 1971." <pg. 134>

This I take to mean that he sees the Jewish Gnostic synthesis as a psychological reaction to disappointed messianic hopes. His caution over attributing the destruction of Jerusalem as a cause for the creation of the Gnostic synthesis, it seems, is not so much directed at the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE influenced Gnostic development, but that it was *the decisive historical event* that did so. Rudolph, for sure, lists a multitude of other influences upon the Gnostic synthesis, such as Jewish apocalyptic and sectarian traditions, wisdom teaching, skepticism, Iranian ideas, Hellenistic ideas including middle Platonism, Egyptian Hermetic teachings, mystery religions, Orphism, tendencies toward individualism, esotericism and spiritualization, Graeco-oriental syncretism, socio-economic factors and forms of social protest, popularity of foreign cults, and religious intellectualism.

However, like some chemical reactions, the creation of a new substance from individual ingredients requires the influence of a catalyst. This is the function I would assign, in the case of early Christian development, to the war of 66-74 CE, especially as it affected Coele-Syria (including Judaea, Samaria, Transjordan and Galilee) and Syria (up through Tyre and Sidon).

In a similar manner, Pearson suggests the following origin for the Hermetic tractate _Poimandres_:

"How do we account for the curious mixture of Jewish piety, Gnosticism, and Hermetic paganism found here in the [Hermetic tractate] _Poimandres_? Is it possible to reconstruct the religious history of this text? To be sure, such a reconstruction would be, at best, tentative and incapable of proof. But I should like to suggest the following scenario: An individual who has been closely associated, perhaps as a proselyte or "God-fearer." with a Jewish community somewhere in Egypt (Alexandria? Hermopolis?) forms a new group devoted to the Egyptian god Hermes-Toth, the "thrice greatest," attracting like-minded followers to the new cult. In the formation of the group, familiar Jewish traditions and worship patterns are remodeled and recast, with the aid of further study of eclectic Greek philosophy and assorted other religious revelations readily available in Roman Egypt. ... Such a process would most likely occur in a historical situation in which Judaism is on the wane, and other religions and philosophies, including native Egyptian ones, are on the rise. A specific point in time and space can be suggested for this development: the aftermath of the Jewish revolt in Egypt against the Emperor Trajan, 115-117 (or 118) C.E. After this revolt Judaism ceased to represent an important religious force in Egypt, and other religions and philosophies filled the breach." <pg. 147>

It is not clear to me whether this is intended to make a differentiation between the origins of the person who wrote this Hermetic tractate (a Jewish convert or converts) and of those who synthesized Jewish Gnosticism as represented by Sethian Gnostic schools (Jewish intellectuals, presumably ethnically Jewish). However, the differences between Pearson's explanations for the Gnostic synthesis and my explanation for the Christian synthesis is that I cannot accept that early Christians were "Jewish" (ethnically, at least, for reasons indicated above and elsewhere).

Besides the different ethnic composition of the groups that synthesized Jewish Gnosticism and early Christianity, I see differences in location (Alexandria or Egypt for Jewish Gnosticism, and possibly Coele-Syria and Syria for early Christianity), each of which had different socio-economic situations, populations, etc.

As a result, I see a somewhat different set of previously existing conditions leading to the synthesis of early Christianity: Gentile associates or converts, rejected (or perceiving themselves to be rejected) by ethnic Jews in reaction to a traumatic social upheaval (the war of 66-74 CE), redefining traditions they had incorporated from their newfound Jewish faith under the influence of other ideas and traditions they were exposed to or had previously participated in, who then (re-)fashioned a new understanding of Jewish prophesy.

DCH
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

The Poimandres Mystery, indeed

Post by billd89 »

Dear Prof. Pearson doesn't know what he (re)discovered, way back in 1972/3, tho.
How do we account for the curious mixture of Jewish piety, Gnosticism, and Hermetic paganism found here in the [Hermetic tractate] Poimandres? Is it possible to reconstruct the religious history of this text? To be sure, such a reconstruction would be, at best, tentative and incapable of proof. But I should like to suggest the following scenario: An individual who has been closely associated, perhaps as a proselyte or "God-fearer," with a Jewish community somewhere in Egypt (Alexandria? Hermopolis?) forms a new group devoted to the Egyptian god Hermes-Toth, the "Thrice Greatest," attracting like-minded followers to the new cult. In the formation of the group, familiar Jewish traditions and worship patterns are remodeled and recast, with the aid of further study of eclectic Greek philosophy and assorted other religious revelations readily available in Roman Egypt. ... Such a process would most likely occur in a historical situation in which Judaism is on the wane, and other religions and philosophies, including native Egyptian ones, are on the rise. A specific point in time and space can be suggested for this development: the aftermath of the Jewish revolt in Egypt against the Emperor Trajan, 115-117 (or 118) C.E. After this revolt Judaism ceased to represent an important religious force in Egypt, and other religions and philosophies filled the breach.

Today I spent 3 hrs translating (fr German) fragments of Eduard Norden's Agnostos Theos (1913).

At that time, colleagues Norden and Werner Jaeger battled over the deeper meaning(s) of the Poimandres. A decade later, both taught Ludwig Edelstein in Berlin (1923/4). Then, in 1938, this meta conceptual question "Is it possible to reconstruct the religious history of this text?" was answered affirmatively. In a 400pp. book (written/paid for by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., at the Institute of the History of Medicine in Baltimore) which eventually became a veritable bible in +75 mln copies. And millions of recoveries were thereby effected...

I agree w/ Ludwig and Emma Edelstein's premise, in all its fantastical particulars. That at least one such Anonymous Author was:
a) a reborn (Jewish) Therapeut and Philonic Aletheian Anthropos (A. A.), who abandoned their fatherland and immigrated to the writers' colony in Alexandria, to live a philosophical life,
b) a heterodox itinerant healer familiar to the Temple of Serapis, who must have practiced a 'Chaldean' (Jewish) 12-step anagogy familiar to both Marcus Manilius' Astronomicon Book 4 and CH 13, and
c) a Classically-trained philosopher (after Posidonios, etc.) who could (re)write & 'modernize'/Judaize an older Graeco-Egyptian 'Serapis' myth complex for the masses, c.10 AD.

The Poimandres was so 'sensational' (as, to better effect, was the Anonymous Authors' recovery bible) that it sparked some outrage in the Greek community c.15 AD. But a new meta religion was born, of the fracture ...

Indeed, it was: w/ +2 mln Members, 80 yrs later. So, YES, Prof. Pearson has identified a most important topic!
Last edited by billd89 on Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by neilgodfrey »

DCHindley wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:05 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:17 am. . . .

Again, what evidence do we have . . . .
I posted this in 2014:

viewtopic.php?p=14553#p14553

It is a string of excerpts from Joesephus. I think I may also have posted similar or even more outrageous claims in FRDB/IIDB and CrossTalk2.

Anyways, I am re-posting below.
Thanks for this and the following posts where you set out your reasons for the view I questioned. It is too much for me to get into an in depth discussion on the entire argument, but just wanted to let you know I have read it all and understand better where you are coming from.

My own viewpoint would part company with your interpretation on what I see as two factors: the place of messianism in Jewish consciousness at the time of the war and preceding it, and in the relation between some of the gospel sayings and Josephus. I will try in future to take the time and effort to make it clearer what my presuppositions are when raising questions/expressing this or that view.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by DCHindley »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:08 pm
DCHindley wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:05 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:17 am. . . .

Again, what evidence do we have . . . .
I posted this in 2014:

viewtopic.php?p=14553#p14553

It is a string of excerpts from Joesephus. I think I may also have posted similar or even more outrageous claims in FRDB/IIDB and CrossTalk2.

Anyways, I am re-posting below.
Thanks for this and the following posts where you set out your reasons for the view I questioned. It is too much for me to get into an in depth discussion on the entire argument, but just wanted to let you know I have read it all and understand better where you are coming from.

My own viewpoint would part company with your interpretation on what I see as two factors: the place of messianism in Jewish consciousness at the time of the war and preceding it, and in the relation between some of the gospel sayings and Josephus. I will try in future to take the time and effort to make it clearer what my presuppositions are when raising questions/expressing this or that view.
Hi Neil,

You and I have known one another for many years know. Yeah, I've been working on developing my interpretation of the facts for over 20 years, maybe even 30.

There is an interesting section of the updated ET of Schuerer's *Jewish People* on the Messianic views of the Jews, I guess the key word there is the plural "views." I know you don't agree with some of the ways Vermes et al brought Schuerer "up to date" but I thought they were thorough. I also have the original five volume ET. I remember citing the updated Schuerer (about the events with Caligula and the statue) beck in CrossTalk2 days and someone advised me that what I had attributed to Schuerer was actually a revised account based on the latest studies (for that time).

You could check out the old IOUDAIOS discussion board archives, as I think there was something there about Messianism. Since I read a lot of OLD books, there was something about it by R H Charles. There are two, one on the Future Age and another on Religious Development between the "OT and the New." His way of talking is dated and stilted, but he tries to be fair.

As for advertising (proselytizing) there was the Jewish segments of the Sibylline Oracles, which promoted to the Greeks around the Mediterranean region the utopia that would be coming and warning the nations to beware and accept the change in world government. I believe that this was well known among gentiles, with some probably wanting to take part more directly. Hence, converts.

In a world that did not always condone the practice of Judaism by gentiles, some things seemed attractive. I think that the best known one was Sabbath observance and next was avoidance of eating pork. Roman citizens who did that were sometimes censured for it. They were not rushing out to be circumcised, let's just say. Those types (elites with the leisure to dedicate time to something new) are not the ones who I think were the source for early gentile followers of Jesus. Those were fellow peasant farmers, though gentiles, who lived in villages around the same towns and private estates. Village life exposed gentiles and Judeans to one another, and friendships and patron/client business relationships develop. If anyone was getting interested, they apparently had plenty of opportunity to study the Judean way of life through their synagogues. Judging from their ability to mine the books of the Law and Prophets for proof texts suggests long exposure to the Judean scriptures in Greek translation.

There must have been regular readings and maybe study groups where the texts being read aloud were subject to discussion. My guess would be these readings were led by Jews associated with the synagogues, but the discussion may have been lively among the hearers. They (gentiles with an interest) wanted to be part of this story, part of this people. Surely there must be a way to get along.

Paul was tapping into that spirit of getting along, "there will be enough for everybody, so no need to get defensive with one to another." He was just doing it in the Diaspora, where the dynamics were quite different than the rural farmsteads where gentile followers of Jesus first became "Christians." It was the first Judean war that threw a big wrench in Jewish-gentile relationships in the national homelands and in southern Syria, but I'm sure it probably also caused problems for gentiles attracted to Paul's message. The war was the catalyst that caused all the other ingredients to morph a Jesus anointed to lead a reform movement into Jesus Christ the heavenly being who saves us from dooooom. Of course, the war also affected gentiles resident far from lands heavily settled by Judeans, and hence the way the Christ movement tried to interject itself into the Paul movement and interpolated letters by this man to make it more up to date. Like you don't like the revised Schuerer, I fell that this adoption and adaptation of Paul's letters, which originally knew nothing of Jesus and especially Christ, was not done very well.

DCH
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by lsayre »

DCH, are you still of the opinion that the earliest core of Paul's letters knew nothing of a Jesus or a Christ? I recall that years ago you attempted reconstructions of the letters which eliminated all reference to Jesus Christ.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why did the Gnostics use Paul and Gospels?

Post by neilgodfrey »

DCHindley wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:15 pm I also have the original five volume ET.
I believe I know the volumes you are speaking of but what does ET stand for? Pardon ignorance or momentary brain lapse.
Post Reply