Since we don't have a form for Gnosticism, I'll just use this one.
It seems that a lot comes down to exegesis of the creation story, particular related to the Tree of Knowledge.
Obviously, Genesis portrays knowledge as something that God wanted to keep away from people. What other myths existed at the time that dealt with knowledge? Was knowledge usually portrayed positively? What about thy story of Prometheus? This seems to take a similar tact as Genesis in regard to knowledge of the gods. Were there origin myths that portrayed the giving of knowledge to people in a positive light?
Origins of "Gnosticism"
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
The somewhat dubious term "Gnosticism" refers to such a wide variety of historical traditions that you really need to specify what traditions you are referring to.
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
Michael A. Williams in Rethinking Gnosticism notes the following:
This makes sense, but what are examples of either myths of philosophical works that ascribe to a god or gods giving instruction to humans about how to tell good from evil?
What I'm getting at is that so many scholars of Gnosticism, many from Christian backgrounds of course, tend to see Gnosticism as a "radical" reaction against the Jewish scriptures . Yet, it seems rather that the Jewish scriptures were a radical reaction against many of the prevailing norms, including the Semitic norms and traditions. In other words, the Deuteronomistic creators of the Torah were the ones turning so many things upside down, including known versions of creation stories and including existing Israelite traditions.
It seems that the Gnostics were not radicals set on inverting an accepted tradition, but rather simply people bringing the Jewish scriptures back in line with Hellenistic, and perhaps even Semitic, norms. By ascribing everything to a single God, the Deuteronomistic writers had created many problems. Genesis isn't some well thought out philosophically sound erudite masterpiece, its actually quite a hack job. It truly doesn't make sense, and it doesn't make sense in many ways that thumbed its nose at the normative Hellenistic views of creation and origins. Genesis gets the problem of evil all mixed up and tied into a knot that cannot possibly be logically unraveled. Functionally Genesis is broken. All the "Gnostics" were doing was simply trying to untie the knot by separating everything back out and aligning the story with more normative Hellenistic views.
If there is only one God, God created the world and God is perfect, then how does evil exist? Many traditions had accounted for this. But Genesis seems to entirely fumble the problem and create a nonsense story. What the Gnostics say may seem like nonsense, but all they did was take Genesis back to the more standard approaches of dealing with the problem. The problem of evil was dealt with through layers of obfuscation. Now, of course even this can be criticized, but it was afar more standard view, than to try and say that there is just one God, that God did it all, he's perfect, oh but somehow it all went to hell.
So in the recognition that Genesis was nonsensical, their solution was that Genesis was written by Moses at the direction of the Creator. Genesis was the propaganda of the Creator, who deceived Moses. It was Genesis and the Torah that were the corruption, and the Gnostic solution was far more in line with Hellenistic norms. The only reason these people would have cared is of course that they were themselves Jews. Non-Jews wouldn't care about the scriptures. And the linguistic problems in the scriptures, particularly Genesis, combined no doubt with contradictory Israelite oral traditions, indicated that the scriptures were hiding the truth about the real Highest God. And of course, if Jews thought that the scriptures were hiding the truth about the real Highest God, then they may have expected a "savior"/Messiah, to be sent from the real Highest God to save them from the deceiver.
Julian asked why God would have denied humans the power to discriminate between good and evil. Given the entire thrust of Greek philosophical tradition, with its emphasis on honing the ability precisely to discern the good, Julian could not imagine that a truly divine power would withhold this ability (Against the Galileans 89a).
This makes sense, but what are examples of either myths of philosophical works that ascribe to a god or gods giving instruction to humans about how to tell good from evil?
What I'm getting at is that so many scholars of Gnosticism, many from Christian backgrounds of course, tend to see Gnosticism as a "radical" reaction against the Jewish scriptures . Yet, it seems rather that the Jewish scriptures were a radical reaction against many of the prevailing norms, including the Semitic norms and traditions. In other words, the Deuteronomistic creators of the Torah were the ones turning so many things upside down, including known versions of creation stories and including existing Israelite traditions.
It seems that the Gnostics were not radicals set on inverting an accepted tradition, but rather simply people bringing the Jewish scriptures back in line with Hellenistic, and perhaps even Semitic, norms. By ascribing everything to a single God, the Deuteronomistic writers had created many problems. Genesis isn't some well thought out philosophically sound erudite masterpiece, its actually quite a hack job. It truly doesn't make sense, and it doesn't make sense in many ways that thumbed its nose at the normative Hellenistic views of creation and origins. Genesis gets the problem of evil all mixed up and tied into a knot that cannot possibly be logically unraveled. Functionally Genesis is broken. All the "Gnostics" were doing was simply trying to untie the knot by separating everything back out and aligning the story with more normative Hellenistic views.
If there is only one God, God created the world and God is perfect, then how does evil exist? Many traditions had accounted for this. But Genesis seems to entirely fumble the problem and create a nonsense story. What the Gnostics say may seem like nonsense, but all they did was take Genesis back to the more standard approaches of dealing with the problem. The problem of evil was dealt with through layers of obfuscation. Now, of course even this can be criticized, but it was afar more standard view, than to try and say that there is just one God, that God did it all, he's perfect, oh but somehow it all went to hell.
So in the recognition that Genesis was nonsensical, their solution was that Genesis was written by Moses at the direction of the Creator. Genesis was the propaganda of the Creator, who deceived Moses. It was Genesis and the Torah that were the corruption, and the Gnostic solution was far more in line with Hellenistic norms. The only reason these people would have cared is of course that they were themselves Jews. Non-Jews wouldn't care about the scriptures. And the linguistic problems in the scriptures, particularly Genesis, combined no doubt with contradictory Israelite oral traditions, indicated that the scriptures were hiding the truth about the real Highest God. And of course, if Jews thought that the scriptures were hiding the truth about the real Highest God, then they may have expected a "savior"/Messiah, to be sent from the real Highest God to save them from the deceiver.
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
The answer might depend on how widely you want to go.
Clearly in the Greco-Roman sense—in the Hellenized Judaic sense—we're dealing with Greek/Hellenistic, Judaic, and possibly Egyptian (and maybe Roman) belief systems, though maybe Babylonian and anything in between Babylonia and the eastern Roman Empire. Whether Thracian or other [northern] systems had a role ...
Genesis 3 presents the snake presenting knowledge about knowledge:
4 The snake said to the woman, “You won’t die! 5 God knows that on the day you eat from it, you will see clearly and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
bild89 recently posted thisrgprice wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:53 pm it seems rather that the Jewish scriptures were a radical reaction against many of the prevailing norms, including the Semitic norms and traditions. In other words, the Deuteronomistic creators of the Torah were the ones turning so many things upside down, including known versions of creation stories and including existing Israelite traditions.
billd89 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:03 pm
The Moses Myth of c.273 BC is a synthesis of more recent Semitic and Hellenistic elements w/ ancient Syro-Egyptian folklore. Obviously, the snake-cult was subsumed by scribal rationalization into the National Hero Myth, but consider some of the prehistoric features outlined here. We Know that Ophites still existed in the 2nd C. AD; we Sould NOT assume they were 'new' at that point. It is apparent to me that some Wisdom literature (c.150 BC - 35 AD) was trying to 'rationalize' (i.e. abstract) the Semitic folklore of such quasi-Judaic snake-venerating (Ophite) groups, to 'bring them into the fold' as it were.
The snake symbolism in the LXX is not random, accidental, or meaningless. A number of Gnostic cosmogonies preserve elements of that Semitic (Phoenician?) serpent cult which had once been extensive throughout the E. Mediterranean c.1000 BC. The 'Ophites' were part of an ancient, archaic heterodox Judaic folk-culture, not some 'new' literary circle.
< . .snip . . >
As much for myself as for anyone interested, here is what I want to investigate further, https://live.jewishexpert.com/sacred-serpent.1
.
Astour(1965*) summarizes his case that the name Mosheh/Moses seems to be derived from the serpent god, rather than the Egyptian term for “born”:
For the Hebrew Môše, too, the association with the Canaaneo-Sumerian serpent-god seems to be much more convincing than with the pale banal Egyptian hypocoristic [diminutive] from some name composed with ms(w) “born.” The ophic features of Moses are very pronounced: his sacred emblems are the serpent-wand and the bronze serpent on a pole; his tribe is Levi, whose name signifies “serpent” and who was the son of Leah, the “cow”...; he is a healer in the full sense of this word, knowing both how to cause and to heal diseases.
We have seen how Moses and Aaron’s staffs turn into snakes (Exod 4:3, 7:10), how Yahweh sent “fiery serpents” against the Israelites (Num 21:6), and how the patriarch raised up a magical bronze serpent, נחשתן Nĕchushtan (2 Ki 18:4), as a talisman against death by snake bite (Num 21:9). We have noted too that the entwined snakes symbolizing the healing deity date to at least the third millennium BCE, with the magical and healing serpent controlling spells part of an ancient priesthood.
We also have discussed that the Levitical priesthood is named from the same root as “Leviathan,” connoting sea monster. Noteworthy too is Yahweh’s “hissing,” previously mentioned. Additionally, some of the muš terms, such as bašmu, are used to designate a horned serpent, providing yet another reason for that motif in the Moses myth.
Important also is the suggestion that the biblical term נחש nachash denoting “serpent” could represent the Babylonian snake god Šaḫan, cast in Genesis 3 in the role of bringer of knowledge and wisdom.
.
* outstanding free book! Strangely, no one here has mentioned Michael Astour's relevant work; the magnificent scope of his scholarship (imagine a legitimate G.Massey) is a treat. On Hellenosemitica, go to p.44.
.
1
MŜ The Sacred Serpent
Adding to the Mosaic syncretism, in the Ugaritic mythology appears a figure called Mŝ or Mush, son of Baal and Anath, possibly equivalent to Adar as “Mash,” son of Bel ...
SNAKE GOD
According to Astour, the term Mŝ reflects a Sumerian deity, the source of numerous Ugaritic references to a snake god, equivalent to Muš, meaning “serpent.” This moniker “Mush” thus would be appropriate for a serpent-cult founder, “Moses,” “Mosheh” or “Musa,” as in Arabic. In the Sumero Babylonian mythology, there appears also a constellation Muš, which “loosely corresponds” to the hydra or multiheaded snake/serpent. Hence, this Sumerian word and concept were passed along in the Babylonian tradition ...
ARCHAIC SERPENT CULT
We have seen numerous examples of snake worship, including and especially the serpent motifs in the Bible, particularly in the Moses account. In this same regard, serpent worship may be among the oldest known religious reverence ...
MOSHEH AND THE SERPENT
There exists good reason to suggest that the mythical and syncretic Moses is based significantly on not only the sun and wine god but also the serpent deity, including and especially Ningishzida as Muš, muš-huš or Mŝ, as he appears to have been passed along in the Ugaritic texts.
In this regard, Astour summarizes his case that the name Mosheh/Moses seems to be derived from the serpent god, rather than the Egyptian term for “born”:
We have seen how Moses and Aaron’s staffs turn into snakes (Exod 4:3, 7:10), how Yahweh sent “fiery serpents” against the Israelites (Num 21:6), and how the patriarch raised up a magical bronze serpent, נחשתן Nĕchushtan (2 Ki 18:4), as a talisman against death by snake bite (Num 21:9). We have noted too that the entwined snakes symbolizing the healing deity date to at least the third millennium BCE, with the magical and healing serpent controlling spells part of an ancient priesthood.
We also have discussed that the Levitical priesthood is named from the same root as “Leviathan,” connoting sea monster. Noteworthy too is Yahweh’s “hissing,” previously mentioned. Additionally, some of the muš terms, such as bašmu, are used to designate a horned serpent, providing yet another reason for that motif in the Moses myth.
Important also is the suggestion that the biblical term נחש nachash denoting “serpent” could represent the Babylonian snake god Šaḫan, cast in Genesis 3 in the role of bringer of knowledge and wisdom.
https://live.jewishexpert.com/sacred-serpent
.
1
MŜ The Sacred Serpent
Adding to the Mosaic syncretism, in the Ugaritic mythology appears a figure called Mŝ or Mush, son of Baal and Anath, possibly equivalent to Adar as “Mash,” son of Bel ...
SNAKE GOD
According to Astour, the term Mŝ reflects a Sumerian deity, the source of numerous Ugaritic references to a snake god, equivalent to Muš, meaning “serpent.” This moniker “Mush” thus would be appropriate for a serpent-cult founder, “Moses,” “Mosheh” or “Musa,” as in Arabic. In the Sumero Babylonian mythology, there appears also a constellation Muš, which “loosely corresponds” to the hydra or multiheaded snake/serpent. Hence, this Sumerian word and concept were passed along in the Babylonian tradition ...
ARCHAIC SERPENT CULT
We have seen numerous examples of snake worship, including and especially the serpent motifs in the Bible, particularly in the Moses account. In this same regard, serpent worship may be among the oldest known religious reverence ...
MOSHEH AND THE SERPENT
There exists good reason to suggest that the mythical and syncretic Moses is based significantly on not only the sun and wine god but also the serpent deity, including and especially Ningishzida as Muš, muš-huš or Mŝ, as he appears to have been passed along in the Ugaritic texts.
In this regard, Astour summarizes his case that the name Mosheh/Moses seems to be derived from the serpent god, rather than the Egyptian term for “born”:
For the Hebrew Môše, too, the association with the Canaaneo-Sumerian serpent-god seems to be much more convincing than with the pale banal Egyptian hypocoristic [diminutive] from some name composed with ms(w) “born.” The ophic features of Moses are very pronounced: his sacred emblems are the serpent-wand and the bronze serpent on a pole; his tribe is Levi, whose name signifies “serpent” and who was the son of Leah, the “cow”...; he is a healer in the full sense of this word, knowing both how to cause and to heal diseases.
We have seen how Moses and Aaron’s staffs turn into snakes (Exod 4:3, 7:10), how Yahweh sent “fiery serpents” against the Israelites (Num 21:6), and how the patriarch raised up a magical bronze serpent, נחשתן Nĕchushtan (2 Ki 18:4), as a talisman against death by snake bite (Num 21:9). We have noted too that the entwined snakes symbolizing the healing deity date to at least the third millennium BCE, with the magical and healing serpent controlling spells part of an ancient priesthood.
We also have discussed that the Levitical priesthood is named from the same root as “Leviathan,” connoting sea monster. Noteworthy too is Yahweh’s “hissing,” previously mentioned. Additionally, some of the muš terms, such as bašmu, are used to designate a horned serpent, providing yet another reason for that motif in the Moses myth.
Important also is the suggestion that the biblical term נחש nachash denoting “serpent” could represent the Babylonian snake god Šaḫan, cast in Genesis 3 in the role of bringer of knowledge and wisdom.
https://live.jewishexpert.com/sacred-serpent
.
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
also, fwiw
Snakes show up in Pharaoh’s court (Exodus 7:12), in the wilderness (Numbers 21:7)...and, of course, in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1).
Ever since Satan spoke his lies through the serpent to Eve, the snake has been associated with sin. The prophets liken the wicked to those who “hatch viper’s eggs” (Isaiah 59:5), to “a serpent [who] has swallowed us . . . and then has spewed us out” (Jeremiah 51:34), and to those who “will lick dust like a snake” (Micah 7:17). The poetic books speak of evil men making “their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s; the poison of vipers is on their lips” (Psalm 140:3), of liars having “venom . . . like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears, that will not heed the tune of the charmer, however skillful the enchanter may be” (Psalm 58:4–5), and of alcohol eventually biting “like a snake and poison[ing] like a viper” (Proverbs 23:32).
Jesus and John the Baptist both condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees by calling them a “brood of vipers” and “snakes” (Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33).
Jesus said that He had come to save us all from the serpent’s bite: “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him” (John 3:14–15; cf. Numbers 21:6–9).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-snakes.html
.
* an attempt to side-line and belittle the olde 'religions' ?It started in the Garden. “The serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals* the Lord God had made” (Genesis 3:1). In some way, the serpent was 'used by Satan' to lie to Eve and lead her into disobedience. Adam soon followed. As God was meting out punishments, He cursed the snake: “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:14). Every time we see a snake slithering, limbless, on the ground, we have a reminder of the Fall of man and the effects of sin.
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8409
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
Thanks MrMacSon. Yes, I think much of the problem of understanding "Gnosticism" comes from not understanding Judaism. If you think of Judaism as some well established ancient religion that was core to Israelite identity, with roots that go back into the first millennium BCE, then Jewish Gnosticism will seem strange. If you think that the Torah was a fully embraced work, that all Jews, or people of Israelite background, respected and believed, then again it will seem strange. But clearly, when you look at the works from Qumran, Philo, the Tarums, etc., may Jews had problems with the interpretation of the scriptures. When you recognize that the Torah was written in Hellenistic times, that it presents a very narrow perspective, that it essentially attempts to hijack Israelite history, and that it does so by adulterating existing Egyptian, Israelite, and Babylonian mythology, along with Platonic philosophy, you can understand the negative neo-Platonic reaction against it.
I'm tending to thinking of the Gnostics as more like maybe 20th century American college students who have read Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and then take a very different perspective on American history. They may then see the founders and villains, write works on the hypocrisy of Jefferson and the Constitution, etc. At the same time, such students would not be "anti-American", they should more properly be thought of as seeking to redefine American consciousness. I see the Gnostics as Jews in much the same vein. The effort was to "get past the lies" perpetuated by Moses and the Temple priesthood. (And again, note that many people took issue with how to interpret the scripters and felt that many traditions had been left out, hence Enoch, etc.)
The starting point has to be recognition that the Jewish scriptures truly are fraudulent, and some people, including Jews, recognized this. They didn't fully understand exactly what happened or how they were created, just as people didn't understand exactly how the Sibylline Oracles were written either, but they could see that something was wrong with them and they weren't what they purported to be.
I'm tending to thinking of the Gnostics as more like maybe 20th century American college students who have read Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and then take a very different perspective on American history. They may then see the founders and villains, write works on the hypocrisy of Jefferson and the Constitution, etc. At the same time, such students would not be "anti-American", they should more properly be thought of as seeking to redefine American consciousness. I see the Gnostics as Jews in much the same vein. The effort was to "get past the lies" perpetuated by Moses and the Temple priesthood. (And again, note that many people took issue with how to interpret the scripters and felt that many traditions had been left out, hence Enoch, etc.)
The starting point has to be recognition that the Jewish scriptures truly are fraudulent, and some people, including Jews, recognized this. They didn't fully understand exactly what happened or how they were created, just as people didn't understand exactly how the Sibylline Oracles were written either, but they could see that something was wrong with them and they weren't what they purported to be.
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
I think understanding 'Gnosticism' may require an understanding of Hellenism and [neo]Platonism as much as or even more than understanding Second Temple Judaism in Jerusalem.
Though 'Gnosticism' may only apply to Sethian and related 'systems' / 'religions' such as Orphitism and maybe Simoniansim/Simonism (sp.?)
Saviour- or Christ- infused Gnostic systems may be fore-runners to orthodox Christianity (though may have been concurrent to Paul)
viewtopic.php?p=128692#p128692 and subsequent posts on that thread
viewtopic.php?p=128696#p128696
+/- the notions of syncretism outlined in the Greek Magical Papyri viewtopic.php?p=128926#p128926
Though 'Gnosticism' may only apply to Sethian and related 'systems' / 'religions' such as Orphitism and maybe Simoniansim/Simonism (sp.?)
Saviour- or Christ- infused Gnostic systems may be fore-runners to orthodox Christianity (though may have been concurrent to Paul)
viewtopic.php?p=128692#p128692 and subsequent posts on that thread
viewtopic.php?p=128696#p128696
+/- the notions of syncretism outlined in the Greek Magical Papyri viewtopic.php?p=128926#p128926
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
For amusement you can type random words after "Gnostic" into Google and see what results you can get. If the word ever had any useful meaning it has been ruined, sorry. Let the new age hippies have it and talk about specific groups or traditions instead.
There is a strong neoplatonic influence in early Christianity which can be called Gnostic and there is also a strong dualist influence which can be called Gnostic. There are many, many cats that are Gnostic. There are many esoteric or mystical forms of monotheism that can equally be called Gnostic. Usually any pagan religion or mystery rite can be Gnostic. You can call Protestantism Gnostic and also Communism and Islam as well.
There is a strong neoplatonic influence in early Christianity which can be called Gnostic and there is also a strong dualist influence which can be called Gnostic. There are many, many cats that are Gnostic. There are many esoteric or mystical forms of monotheism that can equally be called Gnostic. Usually any pagan religion or mystery rite can be Gnostic. You can call Protestantism Gnostic and also Communism and Islam as well.
Re: Origins of "Gnosticism"
Actually, "Gnostic" isn't that hard to define. The central teachings are that there is a highest supra-transcended God, the Father. The material world was not created by this God. The material world is flawed because it was created by a lesser deity, who was either malicious, foolish, unskilled or something along those lines. The God of the Jews, is the deity who created the material world. This god is an arrogant and petty god, who punishes people. The Highest God will ultimately rescue the souls of humans from the suffering caused by the creator god.
Gnosticism is distinguished from Orphism and other such religions by its connection to the Jewish scriptures, and its identification of the god of Genesis as the arrogant god from which the souls of man need to be rescued. Whether there was any specific group of people who identified themselves as "Gnostics" in the first or second century is an open question, but regardless, of what labels may or may not have been used, we do know that there were at least individuals who espoused the above teachings, which were labeled by Irenaeus as "gnostic". Hence, the use of the term "Gnostic".
What are "Gnostics"? People who held the beliefs that Irenaeus labeled as "gnostic", which share the common theme described above.
Gnosticism is distinguished from Orphism and other such religions by its connection to the Jewish scriptures, and its identification of the god of Genesis as the arrogant god from which the souls of man need to be rescued. Whether there was any specific group of people who identified themselves as "Gnostics" in the first or second century is an open question, but regardless, of what labels may or may not have been used, we do know that there were at least individuals who espoused the above teachings, which were labeled by Irenaeus as "gnostic". Hence, the use of the term "Gnostic".
What are "Gnostics"? People who held the beliefs that Irenaeus labeled as "gnostic", which share the common theme described above.