Loading...I can now describe as succinctly as possible the basic views that appear to have been widely shared among various of the Gnostic groups, before giving a bit more detailed information on one of our best known groups, the Sethians. All this is taken from my textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press).
******************************
MAJOR VIEWS OF VARIOUS GNOSTIC GROUPS
Despite the many differences among the various Gnostic groups, most of them appear to have subscribed to the following views:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I am hardly an expert on any of these Gnostic issues. I did read Elaine Pagels book on ‘The Gnostic Gospels’ years ago and since then I am intrigued by just how Jesus Christ was brought into this belief structure that seems so far removed from what we know or think we know about the earliest Christian adherents.
Such variation that seems to have developed so quickly from the time of the first third of the first century of the common era has always puzzled me. Is there another whole belief structure out there as yet undiscovered that might explain this? What would have caused this original humble, probably illiterate apocalyptic preacher to have been adopted by such diverse groups as the Gnostics, Ebionites, and later proto orthodox devotees with such differing views of reality?
I do’nt think it was a matter of later groups adopting an apocalyptic message of illiterate preachers. These groups didn’t exist prior to taking on their distinctive Christian viws. They came into being as Christian groups. The Christian movement was varied at the outset and grew differently in different locations and communities, going in a wide variety of direectdions over the decades, in some ways that were unrecognizable to each other. You may want to read my books The Triumph of Christianity and Lost Christianities in tandem to see how it would have worked.
Several factors that I find significant:
First, that the real Jesus – as opposed to a mythic character – must not have explained himself explicitly and sufficiently, so that such gnostic beliefs could not be formed. After all if Jesus’ message were explicit and sufficient then gnostics would not be able to support their positions.
Second, even in the absence of writings immediately after Jesus’ death, verbal stories should have led to a form of christianity much more orthodox and consistent across christian sects. This did not happen. Your book “Lost Christianities” is an effective treatment that this did not happen.
Third, such views of Jewish theology hierarchy are supported in the Pentateuch. Only later treatments by Jewish philosophers such as Philo attempted to change this view. So, gnostics view of a hierarchy of gods is consistent with older Judiasim tradition. Additional evidence from the OT include: holy spirit, cherubim, seraphim, angels. Although not necessarily described as gods, they are spiritual beings which appear to live forever and have certain powers.
I think Neil Stephenson gives a good example in his book Anathem. In this parallel Earth, a Greek sculptor has a vision of a perfect triangle. He describes this vision to his two daughters and then promptly dies. One daughter understood it as a vision of Paradise, and founded a religion. The other understood it as a Platonic ideal, and founded a field of mathematics. Same vision, same explanation, two wildly different interpretations.
Great book. I don’t remember this bit of it. Thanks.
Wow. Bizarre at first glance, but in a sense Gnosticism in all its complexities seems more “cerebral” than orthodox Christianity.
Reading through the Gospel of Thomas there seem to be hints of Gnosticism here and there, e.g., “Blessed are the solitary ones, the elect. For you will find the kingdom. For you come from it and will return to it.” Do scholars consider this gospel Gnostic?
They did originally. Most do not now. I tend to think that it has gnostic influences (and was certainly *read* gnostically). I’ll be talking about all that in posts soon.
Well done, however, I was struck by one passage “In many of these myths, the various aeons that make up the Pleroma arise in gender pairs, male and female. One of the female characters far up the chain of divinity is named Sophia (meaning “wisdom”), who for some reason conceives offspring without her male consort. Among Sophia’s resulting offspring is a deity named Sakla (also called Ialdabaoth).” THERE IT IS – the fact that Sophia “for some reason” did her act – there are multiple possibilities, but it wasn’t just that, and it had extreme consequences for the entire Universe.
Yes, but perhaps trivial (even zero) consequences from the POV of the constituents of the Pleroma.
Is it clear from the Sethian literature whether they forbade and/or discouraged marriage and procreation, as some Gnostics apparently did, on the grounds that it imprisoned more souls in material bodies?
It doesn’t appear that they did, no.
Most of what I know (or think I know) about Christian Gnostics comes from Elaine Pagels’ book “The Gnostic Gospels”. How would you say that this book holds up to scrutiny? Has it been superseded by subsequent scholarship, or is it (for the most part, at least) still a reliable guide to Christian Gnosticism?
It’s a book for a broader audience based on perspectives that were widely held in the 1970s. She herself disagrees with parts of it today. There are much better places to go now for a general introduction — e.g., for Sethian Gnostics (which he maintains are the only group we should call Gnostics — a view I disagree with), David Brakke’s book The Gnostics and Nicola Denzy Lewis, Introduction to Gnosticism.
Sorry for being completely off-topic, but I’m curious as to what you make of Jesus’ statement in the story of The Rich Man in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 10:30; Matthew 19:29; Luke 18:30). He seems to be promising his disciples a lot now (and interesting enough in Mark, “persecutions”). The persecutions happened, of course, but not the affluence. It also strikes me as more than a little odd that he’s telling them that they’ll have things (in Mark, “houses” and “fields”) when he just got done telling the rich man to sell all he had and give it to the poor and that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. Perhaps, I’m misunderstanding what he meant by “this age”. What do you think he meant?
He is saying that those who abandon everything in this life for the sake of the kingdom — leaving family, friends, relatives, homes — will find better substitutes now — more of all that, among those in the faith who support them; and in the kingdom they will be richly rewarded, not with material goods but with life everlasting.
THank u
Dear Bart, How do you ever get your head around this stuff!? That said, does this have an ethnic or religious origin i.e where does it come from? Christianity comes out of Jewish traditions and then is nudged in various directions but what about this. A ‘Paul’ just didn’t walk up to a group of innocent people and tell them, ‘Hey there’s this god/divine whatever called Seth etc etc etc. ‘
It appears to be a confluence of a number of philosophical and religious traditions, in particular Middle Platonism in conjunctdion with some forms of Christianity. And yeah, it sometimes makes my head explode.
I think one factor to consider regarding Paul: We don’t know what he did in the desert for 3 years. What he studied, or how he patterned his theology – if at all. We only know the outcome based on his letters. So, you are correct he did not just begin to preach his theology, but we don’t know the influences on him as he reformulated his ‘Jew of Jews’ orthodoxy.
I know it’s an impossible question but did most Gnostics lead an ascetic life? The later Cathars seemed to have (from what I have read), whereas Proto-Orthodox heresiologists often characterised Gnostics as libertines.
It’s impossible to know what most of them actually did on Saturday nights, but hte texts we have promote a rigorous ascetic approach to life rather htan the libertine frolics the proto-orthodox accuse them of.
This is fascinating stuff. I was wondering if you know of, or could point me toward, any scholarly literature that examines the possible relationship between these Sethian Gnostic beliefs and the mythology surrounding the ancient Egyptian god Set (or Seth)? Just a cursory examination of the mythos makes me wonder if the Sethians were perhaps influenced by older Egyptian mythology. If there is a connection, it is an “unholy” mish-mash of influences and syncretic blends. One fascinating possible parallel is that Set later, during the rule of the Hyksos pharaohs (c. 1630–1521 bce) in the northeastern Nile river delta, became identified with the Canaanite storm god Baal. (Yahweh would be the Hebrew storm god equivalent). Perhaps this is how Yahweh acquired his bad rep among the later Sethian Gnostics? Anyway, just random thoughts and speculation, obviously. Here’s a short background blurb on the Egyptian god Set if you’re interested: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Seth-Egyptian-god.
I don’t know of any connection or of any scholarship on it. But possibly somenoe else does? Connectoins 2000 years apart are usually not considered probative; usually temporal proximity is what you’re looking for. In any event, Seth is regularly linked to the figure in Genesis 4, not to the Egyptian God.
Hard to imagine polytheists tossing out all their theology for this new one. I bet many pagan temple complexes just added a christian shrine too keep up to date. Not only were silks an such coming in from the East in boat loads, so were priests and their texts. At the same time period, were the Goths, who waged Holy War with Rome and must have changed religious tolerance of smaller sects.
Where do I begin entry into the Gnostic scriptures? Is the Nag Hammadi collection the ideal starting point, or are there many other texts that it excludes? Maybe there is an anthology that you could recommend?
You might start with Bentley Layton’s The Gnostic Scriptures. And maybe Nicola Denzey Lewis’s explanaiton of these texts, in her book Introduction ot Gnosticism.
Wow! My understanding Gnosticism was extremely over-simplified. I got the impression that the essential belief was that our godliness could be found through inner wisdom and contemplation. I had no idea about the hierarchy of beings and their roles. What astounds me the most is my own prejudice against it. Although I now consider myself to be agnostic, my Catholic background has me shaking my head at the details, and yet…. I can see the appeal of the concept that an inferior creator-divinity designed the earth. It certainly addresses the question of suffering rather effectively – much better than the Book of Job, IMHO. I come away from this realizing I’m not quite as objective as I think I am, but somewhat in awe of how humans have struggled for eons trying to understand the universe.