Considerations about Gnosticism are completely divorced from common sense. Just because it is mentioned by heresiologists in the second century, it is dated to… the second century. How many heresiologists do we have in the first century? Really…
Gnosticism seems to be the original Christianity, as indicated by its great diversity and local character. Such diversity arises in the absence of dominant entities in the Christian movement and the lack of distribution of common content. All players are small, local and draw their concepts from their own religious imagination.
Such dominant entities begin to form only in the 2nd century. They finally have attractive content that allows them to conduct an organized missionary campaign and, in parallel, take over existing congregations. When it comes to content, they supposedly use old texts, which always makes me smile and think how one can be so naive. Invented tradition allows you to present your offer as the original and only true one.
New organizations have a better product and a developed mission methodology. Since at this stage of conquering the market, what matters more is acquiring new believers than maintaining the existing ones, this is their offer towards local independent congregations. Either you join us or you die. Something like Pablo Escobar – plata o plomo.
Heresiologists are spetsnaz from the 2nd century, when the meaning of the word heresy was first changed and then a few theologians were ordered to attack Late Marcion because he was too successful in proselytizing and creating his own congregational structure. In the process, they dealt with these little competitors called Gnostics
David Brakke, among others, has questioned the utility of an identifier like “Gnosticism”. Second Century proto-orthodox Christianity wouldn’t be the first group to define itself and its message in opposition to real or perceived “enemies”. Gnosticism reflected the spirit of its age: alienation; world denial; a quest for personal transcendence. Christianity in all its forms partakes in much of this as well. In the heresy hunt, once you accept that there is a line to be drawn, then the argument becomes where you draw the line. Would Valentinus have even recognized himself in proto-orthodox polemics? Would he have been shocked that anyone thought of him as anything other than a Christian?
Gnosis is a way of symbolic, figurative interpretation of stories and texts in terms of a spiritual world separated from our material reality. It coexists with the literal interpretation, because as Ghandi used to say – “not everyone is born a philosopher” to analyze ethereal divine beings, personified divine powers, divine Jesus, etc..
A very good attempt at Gnostic exegesis of Paul’s letters was conducted by Elaine Pagels.
Marcionism, and later orthodoxy, placed emphasis on literal interpretations intended for a general audience. They focused on the main goal, which was a mass missionary campaign. Everyone gets the same product. It’s quantity, not quality, that counts.
Gnostics were less effective because by creating degrees of religious advancement they complicated the offer.
In addition to heretical gnosis, there was orthodox gnosis, for example the teaching of Clement of Alexandria.
I claim that Christ was first developed by the Gnostics due to the lack of a biography of the historical figure of Jesus. They abhorred vulgar solutions good for the plebs and focused on the spiritual Savior. This can be seen in the letters of Paul who, knowing the literature and the LXX, was disgusted by the fictitious biography of Jesus invented on their basis.
He was wrong. People will buy anything if you offer it well.
I am talking about the levels of communication for gnosis and for orthodoxy. Already in Paul’s case we have two-level communication. Elementary knowledge vs. advanced, secret knowledge. The first is described in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 and is intended for the hoi polloi. Message with subtext: You will understand no more, this is all that is sufficient for your salvation. The latter is intended for the advanced reader of 1 Corinthians 2:6-7.
And the key question is what came first?
Didn’t a gnostic sometimes want to go beyond the modest circle of advanced recipients and develop something for the masses to taste quantitative success? Looking at Bart’s career, which I will use as a benchmark (sic!), this is the preferred scenario. A jump from the hermetic market of university publishing houses to the most mass market, printing everything it can make money on, Harper One.
The other way around is much more difficult – well, I can’t imagine that Bart’s reader would eventually reach a level that would allow him to publish in OUP or CUP.
Paul is the nickname of a ghostwriter or a group of ghostwriters who wrote the letters. If this confuses you, we can agree that I will call him Suzi from now on.
Dear Robert,
I always wrote that the author of the letters either did not know these stories or did not believe them. This was a different level of communication that he despised as an educated man. Incarated Christ in this shit-hole in the corner? yeah but not.
Something like the Marian apparition in Medjugorje for a theologically refined Franciscan who, when he heard it, thought: WTF. Here we go again? When will this end?
The largest religious project in my country was created by a simple priest and a group of retired housewives with no education. A faculty of medicine has just been opened at the university they founded. Miracles and signs…
As we discuss, I come to the conclusion that it could have been a strategic decision of the author of the letters to separate his tradition from the Gospel one. His story about Paul, set in the past, follows a classic pattern and is safe.
And suddenly someone talks about the incarnation of Christ in a specific person located in time and place, with quotes and stories creating some sort of chronology. Something he hasn’t heard before in 20-30 years of his life suddenly appears out of the clear air.
Even if it is written down, it is risky to join a narrative that you do not believe in yourself. For a simple reason – he created the myth of Paul himself, he knows how to do it.
Both the letters and the gospels and other writings are still subject to future market verification.
Look at the Marian apparition – enthusiasts go on a pilgrimage, sometimes a few times, and that’s the end of it. The content of the revelation is always the same, tailored to its recipient – pray, otherwise it will be bad. The case ends and another apparition is attached to Mary’s account.
But if someone stated that in some village 100 years ago there lived a woman who was the incarnation of Mary and left behind an extensive teaching and an instruction to share it after she was taken back to heaven, that would be a completely different story.
There will be enthusiasts – whether they will manage to create something new depends on their enthusiasm and consistency in action.
The apparition in Medjugorje was not a big deal. More important was the question asked by Father Tadeusz Rydzyk to the pilgrims he brought. “We came. We saw. You see for yourself what it’s like here. If Mary has gathered us for a purpose, maybe we can do something together? What do you think?”
I can see this is quite an old thread, but it is also the most interesting area of reflection among the topics that Bart covers.
Long before I encountered Bart’s work, I was coming at the issue of gnosticism from a metaphysical angle, as part of a quest to define the smallest number of separable metaphysical models.
I would argue these are:
1. Materialism/physicalism = “stuff is here, there’s only stuff, and don’t ask us anything else about it”
2. Idealism (including ‘multi-aspect monism’, since they have the same implications when taken as the basic metaphysic) = stuff is really just consciousness, which is all there is
3. Classical theism (including even some fringe varieties like panentheism and pandeism) = God made all the stuff and everything we do is contained within and defined by God’s teleology
4. Gnosticism…
Here, gnosticism defines itself as apart from the others because it alone says that the world which we inhabit is not just an ‘illusion’ as say the Vedantists would suggest, but a kind of prison built to house is, while the truest reality lies outside of the prison walls.
For me, the implications of accepting or rejecting this metaphysic are so all-encompassing that it has to be the most interesting thing about gnosticism.
Downstream differences between the various proponents about specifics are also interesting, but in a different way. Whether I’m looking at Marcion, Thomas, Carpocrates or any other ‘camp’, I’m most interested in what they have to say about the prison and the nature of our imprisonment and any potential means of escape.
What do y’all think?
Welcome wolfilauter!
I would first point out that what you call “Materialism/Physicalism” is not an assumption but a conclusion based on the available data. The reason to think there is only “stuff” is because of the lack of evidence that there is anything else.
“Gnosticism” as a category is problematic because it encompasses groups in antiquity that seem to have very little in common with each other. Valentinus, for example, would proabably have been shocked to find out he wasn’t considered just a Christian.
I suspect what we call “Gnosticism” was simpy the spirit of the age. A certain world-weariness combined with a longing for trancendence filtered through the collision of Greek philosophy with Judeo-Christianity.
As far as ideas from the East, we know there were Buddhist missionaries as far West as Alexandria.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)