What is Gnosticism Anyway? June 9
I suppose it would be good to define Gnosticism and Gnostic Christianity, since some today say we should no longer use the term. Gnostic Christianity refers to a movement that combines the Greek philosophy of neo-Platonism with some aspects of Christian symbolism.
I suppose it would be good to define Gnosticism and Gnostic Christianity, since some today say we should no longer use the term. Gnostic Christianity refers to a movement that combines the Greek philosophy of neo-Platonism with some aspects of Christian symbolism. Among its key beliefs are a creation story where God has created numerous attendant gods (often called demiurges, which means artisans, or luminaries). These underling gods are often responsible for the creation rather than the key god (e.g., see the Apocryphon of John as noted in an earlier blog Myth No. 1). The result is that matter is inherently corrupt, so the body is not redeemable. Thus for some forms of Christian Gnosticism there can be no incarnation, since the living Jesus from above cannot dwell in a body, but only can visit it. Salvation in this view is to find the divine spark within us. In the end our spirit will be saved but not our body, because matter cannot be redeemed. It is this spirit-body dualism that often helps one see that Gnosticism is present. This dualism alongside the hierarchical luminary structure are keys to seeing its presence. The movement probably emerged full blown in the ealry second century from Egypt, but "proto-Gnostic" hints are seen in things the epistles of John discuss (such as Jesus not really coming inthe flesh; c. AD 90-95). A good sample of a Gnostic Gospel is the newly released gospel of Judas with its cosmology the multiple luminaries, its resurrection of the spirit, and the idea that Sakla (an underling god) created Adam and Eve. For this second century gospel, see http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document.html These gospels would have never been received as authentically Christian, because they denied that creation was a work of the one God, something Christianity inherited from Judaism, which stands at the roots of thre Christian view of creation.
20 Comments
Jerry Heath
Gnosticism
Gsoticism was a definite threat to the church in the early days of the churches development. It seems to have developed in Egypt and perhaps also grew in the Eastern areas more than Europe. Interestingly Islam appears to be philosophically the opposite of Gnosticism.
Presently the teaching of the church is threatened by the New Age thinking. Gnosticism and Gnostic thinking is definitely a large part of this movement. It is interesting the combination of beliefs that go into the New Age: Budhism, Hinduism, Gnosticism, Shamanism, etc. The list seems endless. These ideas were very much in opposition in the past, but, today, seem to be holding hands. These ideas do not make a consitent whole so it is hard to argue against the New Age.
I think there are two very important links that are part of this New Age.
1. The Light seems to be important all New Agers (see The Tibetan Book of the Dead). Although the Light is separate from God (in a very Gnosgtic view) the Light they are talking about is exactly what Jesus meant when he said “I am the Light.”
2. They all understand the futality of the attempt to achieve salvation through physical striving (although salvation may have some different manings for the different groups). This is really only a slight difference with “we are saved through grace lest anyone should boast.” We need to make it clear exactly what that means.
Kushana Torumekia
Gnosticism
I can’t think of a form of Gnosticism that had more than one Demiurge. Although the name is borrowed from a neutral creator-figure in Platonic philosophy, the Demiurge was an example of “splitting” (as children sometimes do with their parents): God in Gnosticism held the libration, the light, the goodness traditionally associated with God while the Demiurge (called Yaldabaoth or Saklas, both Aramaic names) was the taskmaster, the arrogant and petty elements of God. Gnosticism came out of Judaism, just as Christianity did (scholars argue which is the older of the two: it’s difficult to date ideas). Think of Paul’s discussion of the Law: what does that make God as the Lawgiver? What does that do to one’s view of God?
Some branches of Judaism became disappointed with God both because of advances in science (see Gregory Riley’s _River of God_ for a description of this process) and because of the general disappointment with traditional ideas of the divine (including the Greek gods) in contemporary Platonic philosophy. (Syria is also a good canditate for the origin-place of some forms of Gnosticism.)
-Kushana
bock
Gnosticism – DLB
Kushana:
There are actually several demiurges, depending on which texts one reads, although like Satan, there can be one who is more primary. Yes, many do see Gnosticism coming out of Judaism, but as a pretty complete rejection of it. This is where its character makes it unlikely as a direct reflection of the earliest Christianity which gives evidence in all of its earliest sources as embracing the picture of the God of Israel as Creator.
Kushana Torumekia
Gnosticism
Which text did you have in mind that mentions multiple demiurges? (I can’t think of a one I’ve read that does.)
The important thing to ask about historical rejections is “why?”
Gnosticism bears the marks of disappointment: I can’t imagine a non-Jew in Antiquity being that interested in the book of Genesis or exactly in what was wrong with the Jewish deity and the traditional account of his words and deeds. The way Gnosticism thinks also looks more Jewish (remembering to include all the Jewish literature since the rebuilding of the Temple) than not; the peppering of Aramaic names and puns in Gnostic literature adds to this impression.
-Kushana Torumekia
bock
Gnosticism dlb
Kushana:
The demiurges are the "underling deities." The Gnostic texts are full of these with various names. I agree that Gnostic roots are a Judaism that has rejected traditonal expressions of Judaism. It is also trying to be more culturally palatable to the Greco-Roman world, who can be fascinated with various gods and would identify with elements of the dualism in these texts.
dlb
zone rezidentiale bucuresti
reply
Ancient and modern studies of Gnosticism have approached the subject with motives of defining true Christianity. No individual writing fits the various definitions of Gnosticism. Gnosticism is an unreal, artificial, false, and harmful category. All definitions of ‘Gnosticism’ have always been artificial and unreal and have heavily misrepresented, to the point of complete polemical fantasy, the writings they purport to generally categorize.
bock
reply dlb
Just read Ancient Gnsoticism by Birger Pearson or Gnosticism by Kurt Rudolph and you will see that what you claim about Gnsoticism is not true, nor does it reflect the materials we have found.
dlb
Xrumer
Thanks.
Thanks.
tampa divorce lawyer
replay
Gnosticism, from the Greek “Gnosis,” meaning “to know,” refers to a number of different groups in the second centuryC.E. Roots of the movement are evident in the Christian New Testament writings of the first century; they drew on various Pagan, Jewish.
Kathy
how beliefs change
I’m no scholar, you’ll be able to tell by this question which is very basic. How do ideas change? The comments were that Gnosticism came about because of dissatisfaction with Jewish belief. How did that occur? Do teachers begin having different ideas because of their dissatisfaction? Were books/scrolls written even back then to offer different ideas?
This fascinates me. Today, I think I can see how things change. IE McLaren is dissatisfied with the way Christianity is portrayed and he has thought of some different ideas, maybe talked to people, starts preaching different ideas, writes books, etc. People are interested, they jump on his ideas. Then someone adds or deletes, etc etc.
Is this how changes occur?
Thank you,
Kathy
true religion
reply
A particular problem with Gnosticism is that the term was coined relatively recently and implies a unity. Another problem is that so little has been known about the early Christians held to be heretics by those who “won”, even with the finding of Nag Hammadi texts, themselves hard to assess due to previous scholary speculations.
bock
reply dlb
Check out Rudolph’s work on the Gnostics. It shows a core similarity among the variations. Also note that Irenaeus described Gnosticism well, when he described the Apocryphon of John, the work Nag Hammadi gace us several copies of, showing its importance. All of this to say, the discussion is not so distorted as some make us think.
dlb
Colin Barnes
What is gnosticism anyway?
The origins of gnosticism are rather obscure, or so it seems to me! . “Gnosticism is an extremely widespread phenomenon in late Hellenism, occurring in many different communities-Jewish, Christian and pagan” (A. Segal, 1986) On the Jewish side, the 400 years without an authoritative word from God seems to have spurred thought about the next level of spiritual beings, angels and demons, as found in the intertestamental literature. Jewish theology within the inter-testamental period in general evidenced an increasing distancing of God; a lessening of direct references to God, the bat kol and so on. A. Segal, 1986, posits the development of this trend within the Jewish community to the point of its becoming the “two powers” heresy, a form of Gnosticism. This would eventually lead to the Kabalistic strand of Judaism. For example, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts refer to the mystic significance of the number 72. There are no parallels in Patristic, Hermetic or Rabbinic works, but the concept reappeared in a 12th century Kabbalistic work, , indicating “the presence of a Jewish Gnostic tradition one thousand years earlier.” (Sed, 1979) The rabbis were opposed to this trend, and some see the Talmud as employing anti-gnostic polemic.
This Jewish gnosticism seems to have been largely seperated from the gentile variety, and especially, from the gentile Christian variety, which was an attempt by some in the emerging gentile church to jetison its Jewish roots, and replace them by grafting onto popular pagan religiosity. This gentile Christian gnosticism was defined by its anti-Jewishness. “the nature of the relation of Gnosticism to Judaism in itself an undeniable fact is defined by the anti-Jewish animus with which it is saturated” H. Jonas. Likewise, W. H. C. Frend, 1984 (himself no friend of Judaism) “Judaism was to be the one continuous theme through all the variations of Gnosticism”. “Gnostics, too, viewed the whole of creation, including the Jewish scriptures, to be the work of the (sometimes evil) Demiurge”. S. Wilson, 1995, while Valentinus has been described as a Christian who sought “to set forth the living essence of their Religion in a form uncontaminated by the Jewish envelope in which they had received it”. F. Burkitt. “[Basilides] castigated Yahweh as an aggressive deity and the Jews as a people who took after him, aspiring to subjugate other nations, an interesting comment perhaps on the feeling in Alexandria in the years between the Jewish rebellion of 115 and the rising of Bar Kochbar in 132 … Basilides hated Judaism”. W. H. C. Frend, 1984. The use of the Old Testament within Gnostic literature supports this view. The gentile, Christian Gnostic knowledge of the Old Testament has not only been described as “meager and truncated”, but we also find reference to “the massive evidence of anti-Jewish use of Jewish material”. R. Wilson, 1974, “there are no Old Testament references in the Nag Hammadi library which do not also occur in the New Testament. Jewish origin of Gnosticism seems less probable than the view that Gnosticism is the product of the hellenisation of Christianity” W. Beltz, “Gnosis und Altes Testament”, Zeitschrift fpr Religions und Geistgeschichte 28-4 (1976). In comparing the Gnostic writings quoted by the Patristics and the library of Nag Hammadi, it should be noted that the Patristic collection has a far higher density of Old Testament quotes than the Nag Hammadi, though of a smaller range. The higher density may be due to the selection process of the Partistics, but also to the fact that the Nag Hammadi library was “largely made up of Gnostic holy books meant only for internal consumption, but the heresiologists like Irenaeus had only Gnostic missionary documents which made the movement appear to be a Christian heresy”. F. Wisse, 1971.
Members of the Church experimented with Gnosticism at a time when to be associated with Judaism was politically, legally and socially damaging, and that the general anti-Jewish sentiment was shared by many in the Church. It is this desire to distance themselves from Judaism that gives us the motive underlying the movement (of gnostic Christianity). It was Christians wishing to escape the reproach of being labeled with Jews that formed the adherents of Marcionism and Gnosticism. The force of such sentiment can be seen from the success of the Marcionite church, which in the 3rd century, was larger in the eastern empire than the orthodox church. It is also found in the polemics and propaganda of the time. Marcionites, Gnostics and pagans all reproached the orthodox as “Jews”, stressing their continued use of the Jewish scriptures etc. While sharing with Marcionites the negative view and use of the Old Testament, Gnostics moved beyond Marcion when they tried to find a substitute body of scripture. This comprised both Christianized earlier Gnostic works, and their own writings. As seen, even the LXX was totally disdained by the Gnostics. Given its usage by the early church (especially in Alexandria), this can only be explained by the pervasive anti-Jewish sentiment of the Gnostics, and their disdain for “psychic” Christians as “Jews”.
Hope this adds to the discussion,
Colin
bock
What is Gnosticism? dlb
Colin:
Thanks for this walk through. My own take is tha the origins of the Gnosticism that attached itself to Christianity came as a reaction to the disappointment of a crushing Roman put down of Jewish efforts to rebel in Egypt in the early second century. This explains why so much OT is prominent and the retake (read revision) on many themes the Hebrew Scriptures also discuss.
I discuss this in my Missing Gospels, chapter 3.
dlb
Divorce Lawyer
I find studying gnosticism
I find studying gnosticism very fascinating. All Christians currently agree that Jesus was God incarnate, but this was not a forgone conclusion since the times of Jesus. This is actually something much debated and argued over. I’m also not quite sure why it’s considered a heretical belief. Whether Jesus was God or merely man speaking God’s message, does the message not remain?
bock
Studying Gnosticism dlb
It was not as debated as is claimed. Look at Gospel of Thomas saying 77 ("I am the all") and ask yourself if this sounds like a human (or the fact that Jesus is called "indescribable" in saying 13). Yes, the Ebionites denied Jesus was God. but the church coming from those who ministered about and witnessed to Jesus were not there. It actually does make a big difference because his role and function in his message is a central part of the message. This is why the early church worshipped Jesus (something that represented a departure for people of Jewish roots which is where the Jesus movement came from). We know this worship appeared very early (read our earliest sources of the movement from the late 40 to mid 50s).
dlb
Nazorean
Gnostic Roots
The idea that Gnosticism was a product of the second century is pure Christian nonsense. Nowhere is Gnosticism more prevalent then in the pre-gospel writings of the Apostle Paul. Either you have to believe that the Pauline Epistles were a product of the second century or that Gnoticism preceded so-called Orthodox Christianity. Otherwise, where did Paul get his ideas. Even the Archbishop of Lyon Iranaeus claimed, when he published the gospels, that he knew that they were authentic because he got them from the 4 main Gnostic sects. You are sadly mistaken and being led astray if you believe that Christianity is the netzer of Judaism. It emphatically is not. It has nothing to do with Judaism. The Epistles of Paul were the first Christian scriptures written and the author knows as little about Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus knows about the Jewish God Yahweh or Jehovah. If you haven't noticed, Jesus makes no mention of either. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that a pre-Christian Gnostic sect known as the Nazoreans existed in what is modern day Iraq, but does not acknowledge the obvious, that Jesus was called the Nazorean because he was a member of that sect and not because he was born in the mythical city of Nazareth. Jesus and the Nazoreans taught a living breathing form of Christianity known as 'The Way' and not the false dead dogmatic religion of Paul and the Romans. To learn more about how Paul and the Romans usurped the teachings of Yeshu and the Nazoreans and proclaimed them the revelations of their godman Jesus Christ visit: http://www.nazoreans.com
Darrell L. Bock
Gnostic Roots- Sorry, Not Buying It
Nazorean:
Sorry, what you call Gnostic in Paul is classic Greek neo-Platonic thought, not Gnosticism. The distance you place between Paul and Jesus does not exist. The idea that Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism ignores the Jewish roots of Jesus and all the apostles, as well as Paul. James is especially important here. Not sure how you know Nazareth is a mythical city. Looks pretty basic to the four gospels. All the gospels mention it. So not sure where your history is coming from and I am not buying it.
Joshua Tilghman
I think Gnosticism cannot be
I think Gnosticism cannot be so easily defined. We presume to know, but what if most of the dieties mentioned in the Gnostic text (like the demiurge) are just metaphors for something "within" us.
There are many similarities in the Gospel of John to the Gnostic texts. There's more going on here than we will probably ever know.
Darrell L. Bock
Gnosticism Cannot…
We know more about Gnosticism than your short post suggests. These ancients were not moderns, so that just thinking of these as metaphors underestimates how religious ancients were and how the transcendent is seen everywhere.
As for John's gospel, we are not even sure Gnoticism existed yet when he wrote. The parallels you see are more about Platonic dualism than Gnosticism, especially given how physical a resurrection is seen in John 21.