The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by davidmartin »

To me the biggest issue is Paul's handling of the promise to Abraham
And also the passages dealing with the 'wrath' of God in general and where these are related to some OT events where it's invoked
I've always found Paul confusing and inconsistent and nothing has changed my mind about that. I don't see why we must think we can find a consistent ideology maybe there never was one! Even on which God was which. He probably did preach what Marcion believed at some point and to others he said something else

On a side note Paul is most famous for the doctrine of sin and the atonement but take a good look through his corpus. It's only Romans that really spells it out. Some barely mention sin at all and the rest are lacking or very skimpy on the classic Paul doctrines, and i see certain translations try to 'help' obscure this fact. It was only Romans it all came together right at the end of his career, were there people saying 'now what is Paul saying we have to believe?'
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:05 pmBut, we have to also consider the possibility, as stated earlier, that "Gnosticiszing" passages are Marcionite interpolations into the letters.
But are there in fact such passages in Paul? I agree that 2 Cor. 4:4 could be taken as such, but if "god of this world" is a reference to Satan, then it is at home with proto-orthodox beliefs. We can see that idea in other texts as well. John2 gives an example above from Ascension of Isaiah, and there are examples in the Gospels as well:

John 12:31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler [archon] of this world [kosmos] will be cast out.

The Synoptics have the devil taken Jesus onto a high mountain and offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, suggesting the devil had the ability to do this.
rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:05 pmIf that is true, then it means the Catholic letters are derived from Marcion's. If that is true then there would have been some original form, then (at least) a Marcionite form, and derived from that, a proto-orthodox form. The alternative is that these are genuine Pauline passages, which are proto-Gnostic, and the proto-orthodox revisions are more widespread than generally believed.
I'm thinking of the logic of this. If I understand you correctly, the alternatives are:

(1) Paul --> Marcion revisions --> proto-orthodox revisions
(2) Paul (proto-Gnostic) --> proto-orthodox revisions

The issue I have is that, if any passage that exists prior to proto-orthodox revisions makes it through to the proto-orthodox layer without being removed or changed, then it indicates some kind of consistency with proto-orthodox beliefs in the first place. At which point: why assume those beliefs are gnostic in origin in that first place? Obviously they might still be -- for example, Paul might have meant a gnostic demiurge for "god of this age" but the proto-orthodox read it as referring to Satan so left it in -- but for me Occam's razor could be applied here.
rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:05 pmIn either case, the there are proto-orthodox interpolations, its just a question so whether there really was a separate collection that was "unmolested" by Marcion from which the proto-orthodox worked, or if the proto-orthodox version is just an entire appropriation of Marcion's version.
What is needed is a list of gnostic/Marcionite passages in Paul that were left in by the proto-orthodox and an explanation of why they left it in. Were they consistent with proto-orthodox beliefs in the first place? If so, why believe they were gnostic in origin and not proto-orthodox?

There may also be an issue in thinking in terms of there being only two streams of early thought: gnostic/Marcionite and proto-orthodox. There were probably numerous numbers of ideas that incorporated an accessible heavenly Jesus, as per my own "magic Jesus" origin of Christianity theory. Some of those ideas were shared by a number of groups, and political and ideological pressures forced some ideas out and made the remaining ideas "orthodox".
rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:05 pmSo I am not certain whether some original layer of Pauline works contained these apparently Gnostic type ideas, but I think that passage such as these from 2 Cor do imply a separate god, the "god of this world", who is different from the Father of Jesus. Ultimately, whether that was from Paul or was added by a Marcionite, it still creates major problems for the traditional understanding of the material.
What major problems does it have with the traditional understanding of the material? (If you mean major problems with traditional proto-orthodox understanding, then I'd be interested in references. If you mean modern apologetic understanding, then I'm not interested I'm afraid.)

The word "god" didn't have the same implication 2000 years ago that it has today, with today's monotheistic notion of an all-powerful Creator God. People with power over others were described as "gods":

Exo 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god [elohim] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Paul writes in 1 Cor that lords [kyrios] on earth are called "gods":

1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:05 pmAlso, the whole idea of the material world being bad or corrupt is fundamentally at odds with the idea that the material world was created by "God" (the good God), and that idea is prevalent throughout Paul.
Again, we would need to examine individual passages to see if: (1) they are consistent with gnostic beliefs but not proto-orthodox, (2) consistent with proto-orthodox but not gnostic, or (3) consistent with both.

For example:

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

"Sin entered the world through one man". Is this consistent with gnostic ideas of Adam being a fleshly creation of the demiurge, who wakens to true knowledge thanks to the serpent? I don't think it is. But it is consistent with the proto-orthodox idea of a good world going bad through one man's transgression.

Do you have any passages in mind from Paul which is consistent with gnostic ideas but not consistent with proto-orthodox ideas?
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by rgprice »

@GakuseiDon
I agree that 2 Cor. 4:4 could be taken as such, but if "god of this world" is a reference to Satan, then it is at home with proto-orthodox beliefs.
But it seems that the proto-orthodox had to largely make due with what was in front them as best they could. The problem is that if Yahweh-God was the creator of the world and Yahweh-God is good and the Father of Jesus, then why should the world be bad at all? Why is the world ruled by Satan? The introduction of sin is one thing, but the idea that the material world should be wiped away entirely seems quite another.

Why would Paul have thought that the material world was bad, if he thought that the material world was created by the Father of Jesus?

The despising of the material world only makes sense if you think the material world was creator by the demiurge, who is not the Highest God and thus not Father of Jesus. So the issue is that the whole logic of "the spirit", which is espoused all over Paul, really only makes sense if one thinks that the material world is corrupt because it was not created by the Highest God. Can Satan really be so powerful as to utterly corrupt the material world to the point that you want to see God's creation destroyed? No. The logic of wanting to see the world come to an end only makes within a framework where the world is not the masterpiece of the Highest God.
The Synoptics have the devil taken Jesus onto a high mountain and offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, suggesting the devil had the ability to do this.
Mark doesn't say this. Only Matthew and Luke, which are proto-orthodox revisions. It was the proto-orthodox to essentially replaced the demiurge with Satan and positioned Yahweh-God as the Highest God.
The issue I have is that, if any passage that exists prior to proto-orthodox revisions makes it through to the proto-orthodox layer without being removed or changed, then it indicates some kind of consistency with proto-orthodox beliefs in the first place.
Not necessarily. I think that the revisions of the underlying texts were fairly poorly done. What I think happened was Marcion's material was the foundation upon which Luke, Acts, and the Pauline letters were built. That was likely done by a single individual. That person created Luke by simply just taking Marcion's Gospel and adding Luke 1 & 2, along with 24 to it, with some other relatively minor editing throughout the body. But you can see that they did a really bad job on Luke. Its a very inconsistent work with a number of editorial errors. So we can establish that they were a poor editor and they missed a lot of stuff. The same goes in Acts. I used to consider the "we passages" a result of "poor editing", but I no longer think so. Rather I think the we passages do come from a source, but they were intentionally left in the first person in order to appropriate the identity of the original writer (possibly Luke). But even still, there are many editorial errors in Acts. So, when it comes to the letters, I think we can expect the same. The editor wasn't able to thoroughly revise everything. It was likely a single person, working relatively rapidly, to put out a counter work to Marcion. They totally appropriated Marcion's work, didn't actually make that many changes to it, and focused largely on Acts to flesh out the narrative that tied Paul (Marcion's champion) to the "Law and Prophets" and to subordinate him to the disciples.

Now, whatever this person did was largely just accepted by those who received his work. They noticed problems in the text, but assumed it was all authentic, and thus we see people like Irenaeus, Origin, etc., all working to explain and deal with the problems that existed in the collection. So there weren't a bunch of people editing and revising these works to try and conform them to proto-orthodox views, there was just one person or small group, and everyone else just had to deal with what that person did. They accepted the works at face value, believing they were authentic.
There may also be an issue in thinking in terms of there being only two streams of early thought: gnostic/Marcionite and proto-orthodox. There were probably numerous numbers of ideas that incorporated an accessible heavenly Jesus, as per my own "magic Jesus" origin of Christianity theory.
True, but Marcion is the one that produced a collection of scriptures. It appears that, if anything, the works of the NT are largely built on Marcion's foundation. Yes there were others ideas, but it appears that the writings put forward by Marcion were the main works the proto-orthodox were dealing with. The Gospel of John, however appears to be a non-Marcionite "Gnostic" type work that was revised. I suspect that it comes from Valentinian origins. Thus the NT contains a collection of works from the two major Christian "Gnostics", which were appropriated and revised by proto-orthodox editors.
What is needed is a list of gnostic/Marcionite passages in Paul that were left in by the proto-orthodox and an explanation of why they left it in. Were they consistent with proto-orthodox beliefs in the first place? If so, why believe they were gnostic in origin and not proto-orthodox?
Agreed, this would be good.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:34 am @GakuseiDon
I agree that 2 Cor. 4:4 could be taken as such, but if "god of this world" is a reference to Satan, then it is at home with proto-orthodox beliefs.
But it seems that the proto-orthodox had to largely make due with what was in front them as best they could.
Yes, of course. First Century CE Jews inherited the OT which contained beliefs and ideas probably originating from times when the earth was thought to be flat. They had to deal with what was in front of them as best they could, since they knew then that the earth was a sphere. Writers like Philo tried to reconcile the ancient beliefs in scriptures to contemporary Platonism. In modern times, writers try to reconcile those beliefs in light of modern science.

The problem is: Paul also had to deal with what was in front of him, as much as the proto-orthodox had to deal with what Paul had written. We might say that "god of this age" was taken by the proto-orthodox one way, to explain away what Paul had written. But wouldn't Paul himself had faced ths same problem? The Old Testament are full of references to the existence of other gods, so Paul's "god of this age" is simply him dealing with that idea as best he can. Without evidence to support the idea that Paul has in mind a gnostic demiurge (and I'd argue the evidence within other passages is against that idea), Occam's razor can be applied nicely here.

It's not that the idea that Paul had a demiurge in mind is impossible, it just seems it isn't supported. Then again, we only have what the orthodox allowed us to have.
rgprice wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:34 amThe problem is that if Yahweh-God was the creator of the world and Yahweh-God is good and the Father of Jesus, then why should the world be bad at all? Why is the world ruled by Satan? The introduction of sin is one thing, but the idea that the material world should be wiped away entirely seems quite another.

Why would Paul have thought that the material world was bad, if he thought that the material world was created by the Father of Jesus?
You mean, it doesn't make sense, and religion should make sense? :) But these sound more like your own questions about a world created by a Good God rather than Paul's questions. The problem exists no more and no less for modern Christians than it did for people in Paul's day. Why isn't "Adam sinned and so it's all our own fault" not reason enough for Paul?

Anyway: I don't see that Paul saw the material world as created "bad". Certainly things took a turn for the worst after Adam's transgressions, and Paul's Christ came to clean up that mess. Flesh was temporary and corruptible and needs to be changed into something permanent. But "material world bad"? You'd need to show me passages for that view within Paul's letters. You may well be right, but I don't recall anything off-hand. What passages do you have in mind?
rgprice wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:34 am
The issue I have is that, if any passage that exists prior to proto-orthodox revisions makes it through to the proto-orthodox layer without being removed or changed, then it indicates some kind of consistency with proto-orthodox beliefs in the first place.
Not necessarily. I think that the revisions of the underlying texts were fairly poorly done. What I think happened was Marcion's material was the foundation upon which Luke, Acts, and the Pauline letters were built. That was likely done by a single individual. That person created Luke by simply just taking Marcion's Gospel and adding Luke 1 & 2, along with 24 to it, with some other relatively minor editing throughout the body. But you can see that they did a really bad job on Luke. Its a very inconsistent work with a number of editorial errors. So we can establish that they were a poor editor and they missed a lot of stuff.
Sure, all that is possible. But I'd be wary of the issue of selecting the data to fit the theory, rather than selecting the theory to fit the data. The problem is we don't have any unadulterated texts, so determining what is data in the first place is difficult.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by ABuddhist »

rgprice wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:34 am Can Satan really be so powerful as to utterly corrupt the material world to the point that you want to see God's creation destroyed? No.
With all due respect, why do you think this? I mean, Christians' views about Satan's powers and corruption of the world vary a lot today with a standard canon, so why could early Christians such as Paul, unrestrained by a fixed canon, have devised such a doctrine?
User avatar
Thomas R
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:32 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by Thomas R »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:44 pm
Maybe we need to all agree what gnosticism is.
The whole reason the term is so popular is that it is so meaningless.
User avatar
Thomas R
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:32 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by Thomas R »

rgprice wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:15 am While I would say that most of the Pauline letters don't seem too overtly "Gnostic" are Marcionite in nature, 2 Corinthians 3 - 5 seem to be an extraordinary exception, even in the Catholic version.
A lot of what you think is "gnostic" is core Christian theology.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by ABuddhist »

Thomas R wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:13 pm
rgprice wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:15 am While I would say that most of the Pauline letters don't seem too overtly "Gnostic" are Marcionite in nature, 2 Corinthians 3 - 5 seem to be an extraordinary exception, even in the Catholic version.
A lot of what you think is "gnostic" is core Christian theology.
Yes; see, for example, Richard Carrier said "the idea that this creation is corrupt and evil and we have to escape it is not only entirely orthodox, it’s canonical (2 Peter 3, 2 Peter 2, 1 Thess. 4, Jude, Romans 8, Galatians 4, 1 John 2, 1 John 5, Ephesians 6, Colossians 2, 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 4-5). It is thus not distinctive of any such thing as “Gnosticism.” Likewise, the role of secret knowledge (literally, gnosis) in ensuring salvation—a fact which many orthodox authors speak of approvingly as actually a component even of so-called orthodox Christianity; as we see from Paul and Hebrews, to Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (see OHJ, Elements 11 & 13, Ch. 4)." at his article "Gnosticism Didn’t Exist (Say What Now?)" [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17119].
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by Irish1975 »

The question that needs to be addressed is why Paul would refer to Satan as a god? He has no problem elsewhere refering to angels, demons, idols, thrones, archons, etc. He also refers precisely to “so-called gods” in 1 Cor 8, and in 2 Thessalonians 2, in contrast with the one God.

Indeed, it is hard to square the author of 2 Cor 4:4 also having written 1 Cor 8: 4-7:
…we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. However not all men have this knowledge.
I don’t understand the reasoning here:
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:22 pm Paul sees that this age itself is evil:

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world ("evil age" [aion]), according to the will of God and our Father:

So, to me, Paul's "god of this age" seems more likely to refer to Satan rather than a gnostic demiurge. Just my own amateur 2 cents of analysis! Still, I'd be interested in seeing passages supporting Paul meaning a gnostic demiurge, since Paul's use of the term certainly opens up the door to that idea.
Paul’s belief that the age is evil does not imply anything about what entity is the god of it, whether a demiurge, or a wicked angel like Satan. Either way, it’s an evil age, from which redemption is necessary.

And what is the argument from the Martydom/Ascension of Isaiah?
John2 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:18 pm As the Ascension of Isaiah 2:4 puts it (for example), "the angel of lawlessness, who is the ruler of this world, is Belial." Paul goes on to mention Belial in 2 Cor. 6:15-16.
What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.
This text calls Belial an angel, not a god. It also calls him a “ruler” (i.e. archon); in the NT, that expression is hardly if ever the semantic equivalent of “god.”

It is also not clear what the mention of Belial in 2 Cor 6 implies about his possible identity with “the god of this aeon.” This text associates him with unbelief in Christ, and with idols. In a Pauline context, these associations imply a demon, not a god.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by GakuseiDon »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:22 pm The question that needs to be addressed is why Paul would refer to Satan as a god? He has no problem elsewhere refering to angels, demons, idols, thrones, archons, etc. He also refers precisely to “so-called gods” in 1 Cor 8, and in 2 Thessalonians 2, in contrast with the one God.

Indeed, it is hard to square the author of 2 Cor 4:4 also having written 1 Cor 8: 4-7:
…we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. However not all men have this knowledge.
Well, I actually used 1 Cor 8:4-7 to support my view. To paraphrase Paul from above": "There are many gods and many lords, but for us there is but One God and One Lord". Those other gods are being worshipped as gods. Does Paul think there are actually other gods? If so, what does he mean by "god"?

Paul seems to follow the idea that the One God is the Creator God of the Jews and the creator of Adam. Unless Paul is following a Zoroastrian belief of two equal but opposed Gods, how is calling a non-Creator demiurge a "god" any more valid than calling Satan a "god"?

It's not that "god of this age" can't mean a Gnostic Creator God, because obviously it can. It's that the rest of Paul's description negates the idea AFAICS.
Irish1975 wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:22 pmI don’t understand the reasoning here:
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:22 pm Paul sees that this age itself is evil:

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world ("evil age" [aion]), according to the will of God and our Father:

So, to me, Paul's "god of this age" seems more likely to refer to Satan rather than a gnostic demiurge. Just my own amateur 2 cents of analysis! Still, I'd be interested in seeing passages supporting Paul meaning a gnostic demiurge, since Paul's use of the term certainly opens up the door to that idea.
Paul’s belief that the age is evil does not imply anything about what entity is the god of it, whether a demiurge, or a wicked angel like Satan. Either way, it’s an evil age, from which redemption is necessary.
I agree. But my point there was more about addressing rgprice's view that Paul thought the material world was bad. I don't see that view in Paul. Certainly Paul thought the present age was bad after the transgression of Adam, and it was about to come to an end, but I can't see Paul having the gnostic view that matter itself was bad. That is, I'd like to see any passages supporting that idea. The age was evil, not the world.
Irish1975 wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:22 pmAnd what is the argument from the Martydom/Ascension of Isaiah?
John2 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:18 pm As the Ascension of Isaiah 2:4 puts it (for example), "the angel of lawlessness, who is the ruler of this world, is Belial." Paul goes on to mention Belial in 2 Cor. 6:15-16.
What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.
This text calls Belial an angel, not a god. It also calls him a “ruler” (i.e. archon); in the NT, that expression is hardly if ever the semantic equivalent of “god.”

It is also not clear what the mention of Belial in 2 Cor 6 implies about his possible identity with “the god of this aeon.” This text associates him with unbelief in Christ, and with idols. In a Pauline context, these associations imply a demon, not a god.
Fair points.
Post Reply