The Origins and Definition of Gnosticism [Archive] - Historum

Kuon

01-19-2010, 05:09 AM

Can you clarify what you mean by "competing Christian faiths in the beginning"?

Loose terminology on my part. Try sects instead of faiths.

Simply put? By adding to the original message. Again, we don't have to go any farther than Paul, Peter, Jude (and John now that I think about it) to see evidence of this. The gospels even show Jesus dealing with similar issues among the Jews and the dualistic ideologies that had saturated their religion.

John huh? The Gospel of John is quite interesting. Quite a few Gnostic echoes in there...

What we see presented in the New Testament. A good starting place is to compare the Apostle's public speeches as told in Acts to show what the original movement believed.

O.K. Thanks for your answer though I was hoping you would be a bit more specific than this, but I shall look into the sections you refer to.

On the other hand, there is real good possiblity that biblical scholars have pinpointed the original sayings of Jesus. Have you ever heard of the Book of Q? Biblical scholars believe this "book" contained the original sayings of Jesus. They also believe that many of the sayings within the original four gospels drew their sayings from Jesus from this, which could also mean that it is likely that Jesus' original message might have been included.

Fascinating. I didn't know of this previously, shall look further into the text now.

Fortigurn

01-19-2010, 05:11 AM

John huh? The Gospel of John is quite interesting. Quite a few Gnostic echoes in there...

More pre-Christian Gnosticism! To which pre-Gnostic works are you referring?

Kuon

01-19-2010, 05:42 AM

More pre-Christian Gnosticism! To which pre-Gnostic works are you referring?

My comment was a tad sly, and refers to the well known Gnostic-type use of language in John. The Plemora, Logos, and such. It's been commented on by others. It's seems to be a more superficial resemblance to Gnostic thought, hence I wrote of "echoes."

Fortigurn

01-19-2010, 06:14 AM

My comment was a tad sly, and refers to the well known Gnostic-type use of language in John. The Plemora, Logos, and such. It's been commented on by others. It's seems to be a more superficial resemblance to Gnostic thought, hence I wrote of "echoes."

When you say 'Gnostic-type use of language', do you mean use of language similar to that which the Gnostics had used before John, were using contemporary with John, or used after John? Or something else? The word 'echo' suggests that which follows, not that which precedes.

Back to the question, which pre-Christian Gnostic texts do we have?

Kuon

01-19-2010, 06:39 AM

When you say 'Gnostic-type use of language', do you mean use of language similar to that which the Gnostics had used before John, were using contemporary with John, or used after John? Or something else? The word 'echo' suggests that which follows, not that which precedes.

Primarily previous to John. Keep in mind I used the caveat of "Gnostic-type language," and "echoes." In that it has so often been interpreted as Gnostic. I didn't categorically state that John is a Gnostic text.

Back to the question, which pre-Christian Gnostic texts do we have?

It would seem that many scholars say that genuine pre-Christian Gnostic texts don't exist, but of course movements that were seen to have elements of Gnostic-type dualism were in existence previous to Christianity. The Jewish apocalyptic writers influenced by Zoroastrian thought as my main example. They have been said to be one such influence on John I believe.

Keep in mind my comment was somewhat flippant, designed to get someone's goat. I think I may have succeeded. :D

Fortigurn

01-19-2010, 06:49 AM

Primarily previous to John. Keep in mind I used the caveat of "Gnostic-type language," and "echoes." In that it has so often been interpreted as Gnostic. I didn't categorically state that John is a Gnostic text.

Oh certainly, I understood you weren't refering to John as a Gnostic text, rather a post-Gnostic text which uses established literary conventions from pre-Christian Gnostic texts.

It would seem that many scholars say that genuine pre-Christian Gnostic texts don't exist, but of course movements that were seen to have elements of Gnostic-type dualism were in existence previous to Christianity. The Jewish apocalyptic writers influenced by Zoroastrian thought as my main example. They have been said to be one such influence on John I believe.

Mmmm, so we shift ground from pre-Christian Gnostics to pre-Christian Jews.

Keep in mind my comment was somewhat flippant, designed to get someone's goat. I think I may have succeeded. :D

If our Texan finally rises to the bait, you will be right. But in this case I think he's going to remain remarkably restrained.

Kuon

01-19-2010, 07:01 AM

Mmmm, so we shift ground from pre-Christian Gnostics to pre-Christian Jews.

As far as I'm aware I never mentioned "pre-Christian Gnostics" specifically, as in fully fledged Gnostic thought as we know it today. I made a vague reference to "Gnostic echoes," in a largely flippant remark. There is a solid case though for the existence of non-Christian Gnostic thought (though not in its fully fledged form), and hence language, prior to Christianity. Besides, the example I provided would seem quite valid, as the Jewish Apocalyptic writers seemed to be employing a type of dualistic thought process that was later to become part of Gnosticism in it's proper form.

Fortigurn

01-19-2010, 08:35 AM

There is a solid case though for the existence of non-Christian Gnostic thought (though not in its fully fledged form), and hence language, prior to Christianity.

Great, I'd love to see it. When can we start?

Besides, the example I provided would seem quite valid, as the Jewish Apocalyptic writers seemed to be employing a type of dualistic thought process that was later to become part of Gnosticism in it's proper form.

Mmmm, that seems to give the game away. An X from which a Y is eventually developed, is not a Y.

Kuon

01-19-2010, 09:31 AM

Many scholars agree on individual points of Gnosticism existing prior to Christianity. I'm sure you're aware of those arguments, though of course various scholars from opposite sides of the debate rubbish one another on these points. Shall I be more specific and exact and refer to to pre-Christian Gnosis, and not Gnosticism?

The following is an article by Edwin M. Yamauchi on the issue of pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism, and though this piece seeks to refute many such scholar's ideas on this it does summarise the position taken by many:

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html

6.The Jewish Evidence

a. A Pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism?

Impressed by the great number of 'Jewish' elements such as the use of the Old Testament and midrashic interpretations in the Nag Hammadi texts a number of scholars are now maintaining the thesis of a pre-Christian 'Jewish' Gnosticism, that is, a Gnosticism which somehow developed from within Judaism itself. B. Pearson, the scholar who has been most effective in ferreting out traces of Jewish traditions in the Nag Hammadi texts, is convinced that Friedländer was correct in postulating 'that Gnosticism is a pre-Christian phenomenon which developed on Jewish soil'.110 (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html#110)
Kurt Rudolph believes that Gnosticism proceeded from the sceptical and cynical Jewish wisdom tradition of Ecciesiastes, which he dates to c. 200 BC on the assumption that it had been influenced by Greek rationalism and early Hellenstic popular philosophy.111 (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html#111) Pearson is quite impressed by Rudolph's arguments for a Jewish origin from Syro-Palestine Jewish circles.112 (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html#112) MacRae believes that 'Gnosticism arose as a revolutionary reaction in Hellenized Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic circles'.113 (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html#113)If you go to the article itself you will see the section dealing with doubts on this position.

Fortigurn

01-19-2010, 10:35 AM

Kuon

01-19-2010, 10:58 AM

Again, I wasn't referring to pre-Christian Gnosticism in the specific form you have railed on here. My comment in this post here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=184119&postcount=42) merely mentioned "Gnostic echoes" which was, as I explained in later posts, referring to individual points of Gnostic thought and to possible influence from Jewish apocalyptic writers on John. I believe that Judith L. Kovacs goes into this here (if you have access to JSTOR): http://www.jstor.org/pss/3266937 I was never referring to a complete and fully fledged Gnostic system, however much you'd like to think I was.
Excessive pedantry aside, I'd be pleased to see some recent scholarly commentary on the subject.

Texadelphos

01-19-2010, 02:19 PM

John huh? The Gospel of John is quite interesting.

I was actually referring to 1-3 John.

O.K. Thanks for your answer though I was hoping you would be a bit more specific than this, but I shall look into the sections you refer to.
Let me dig up the notes I have on this.

Kuon

01-19-2010, 04:54 PM

I was actually referring to 1-3 John.

Ah, my mistake.

Let me dig up the notes I have on this.

Don't go to any special trouble. I'll look into the sections you mention and perhaps I'll come back to you if I have questions. Perhaps just not as badly as Fortigurn has remonstrated with me this thread...:cool:

*He says as he looks around nervously, ducks and covers*

laketahoejwb

01-19-2010, 06:10 PM

Again, I wasn't referring to pre-Christian Gnosticism

The tremendous effect that Mithraism must be fused into the Early Development of Christianity. http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html summarizes this here. .... Mithraism and Judaism merged and became Christianity. Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. St Paul as the first "Christian" bears much of the responsibility for merging the two in his preaching and teaching, and also comes from Tarsus, a major Mithraist center.

The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.

Fortigurn

01-20-2010, 01:31 AM

Again, I wasn't referring to pre-Christian Gnosticism in the specific form you have railed on here.

Goodness, I haven't railed on anything, let alone any specific pre-Christian Gnosticism. I thought we were all agreed that neither of us could find any specific pre-Christian Gnosticism.

My comment in this post here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=184119&postcount=42) merely mentioned "Gnostic echoes" which was, as I explained in later posts, referring to individual points of Gnostic thought and to possible influence from Jewish apocalyptic writers on John.

Yes, certainly, understood.

I believe that Judith L. Kovacs goes into this here (if you have access to JSTOR): http://www.jstor.org/pss/3266937

Thanks, I'll look it up.

I was never referring to a complete and fully fledged Gnostic system, however much you'd like to think I was.

No, no, not at all. I didn't ever think you were referring to any such thing. The most I thought you were referring to were specific Gnostic works. I'm really not trying to be difficult here, I thought you had some new information. I've been back and forth over this issue throughout the years, depending on the latest scholarly consensus, so I'm entirely willing to review new findings. I have no agenda here either way.

Excessive pedantry aside, I'd be pleased to see some recent scholarly commentary on the subject.

Certainly, I'll look through my notes later today and see what I can dig up.

Fortigurn

01-20-2010, 07:20 AM

A few initial quotes.

‘Egypt has yielded early written evidence of Jewish, Christian, and pagan religion. It has preserved works of Manichaean and other Gnostic sects, but these are all considerably later than the rise of Christianity.’

'Even if it could be proven that any of the previously discussed works or, for that matter, any of the NH tractates are non-Christian Gnostic documents, that would not in itself be evidence for pre-Christian Gnosticism.’

‘And even if we are on solid ground in some cases in arguing the original works represented in the library are much older than extant copies, we are still unable to postulate plausibly any pre-Christian dates.’

‘It is precarious, as Edwin Yamauchi and others have shown, to assume gnostic backgrounds for New Testament books. Although the phrase, "falsely called knowledge," in 1 Timothy 6:20 contains the Greek word gnosis, this was the common word for knowledge.’

Kuon

01-20-2010, 09:42 PM

Fortigurn

01-21-2010, 12:32 AM

Hmmm...Fortigurn. In informing me of my redundant use of 25 year old scholarship to back up my position and asking if I wished to see some "contemporary scholarship" you've now given me quotes from papers by Unger (published in 1959), a quote of MacRae by Combs, from MacRae's 1978 article, the Combs article is from 1987, and the quote from Liefeld is from a 1986 publish date.

But of course! I'm establishing a continuity of scholarly opinion from the past to the present (I did say that these were 'initial quotes'). I'll have to wait until I've reinstalled Logos 4 in order to get hold of my latest materials (I just upgraded to Windows 7, and I'm in the annoying stage of reinstalling applications).

The Combs paper I had read some time ago, the others I'm trying to locate on the 'net. Any links from your end to any of them? I've got the Combs piece in a PDF but I am certainly interested in reading the others.

Unfortunately I don't 'do' links, I use Logos 4 Portfolio (http://www.logos.com/portfolio), including all the additional material I've purchased for it over the last three years. With all the standard lexicons and dictionaries, a number of the standard encyclopedias, around two dozen journals, and several hundred academic works, it's a lot more useful to me than Google.

Kuon

01-21-2010, 12:45 AM

Very good. I'll wait till you've reinstalled your software then.

Fortigurn

01-21-2010, 01:08 AM

Very good. I'll wait till you've reinstalled your software then.

While we're on the subject, what do you use for research?

Kuon

01-21-2010, 05:52 AM

While we're on the subject, what do you use for research?

Hard copy texts and the internet, the latter including Questia. Considering that my research is amateur, fairly nascent and not being able to afford $4,200 to spend on Logos 4 software presently I'm kind of relying on you to help me out here. Asking you to lend a poor brother a hand, so to speak. ;)

sylla1

01-21-2010, 06:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuon http://www.historum.com/images/545/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?p=184224#post184224)
Again, I wasn't referring to pre-Christian Gnosticism in the specific form you have railed on here.

Goodness, I haven't railed on anything, let alone any specific pre-Christian Gnosticism. I thought we were all agreed that neither of us could find any specific pre-Christian Gnosticism.
That naturally depends largely on your definition for Gnosticism.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia (Funk & Wagnalls, 1906):

"Jewish Gnosticism.
Jewish gnosticism unquestionably antedates Christianity, for Biblical exegesis had already reached an age of five hundred years by the first century C.E. Judaism had been in close contact with Babylonian-Persian ideas for at least that length of time, and for nearly as long a period with Hellenistic ideas.
Magic, also, which, as will be shown further on, was a not unimportant part of the doctrines and manifestations of gnosticism, largely occupied Jewish thinkers.
There is, in general, no circle of ideas to which elements of gnosticism have been traced, and with which the Jews were not acquainted.
It is a noteworthy fact that heads of gnostic schools and founders of gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the Church Fathers.
Some derive all heresies, including those of gnosticism, from Judaism (Hegesippus in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 22; comp. Harnack, "Dogmengesch." 3d ed. i. 232, note 1).
It must furthermore be noted that Hebrew words and names of God provide the skeleton for several gnostic systems.
Christians or Jews converted from paganism would have used as the foundation of their systems terms borrowed from the Greek or Syrian translations of the Bible.
This fact proves at least that the principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation, while it does not preclude the possibility of new wine having been poured into old bottles.

Pre-Christian.
Cosmogonic-theological speculations, philosophemes on God and the world, constitute the substance of gnosis.
They are based on the first sections of Genesis and Ezekiel, for which there are in Jewish speculation two well-established and therefore old terms: "Ma'aseh Bere****" and "Ma'aseh Merkabah."
Doubtless Ben Sira was thinking of these speculations when he uttered the warning: "Seek not things that are too hard for thee, and search not out things that are above thy strength. The things that have been commanded thee, think thereupon; for thou hast no need of the things that are secret" (Ecclus. [Sirach] iii. 21-22, R. V.).
The terms here emphasized recur in the Talmud in the accounts of gnosis.
"There is no doubt that a Jewish gnosticism existed before a Christian or a Judæo-Christian gnosticism. As may be seen even in the apocalypses, since the second century B.C. gnostic thought was bound up with Judaism, which had accepted Babylonian and Syrian doctrines; but the relation of this Jewish gnosticism to Christian gnosticism may, perhaps, no longer be explained "(Harnack," "Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur," p. 144).
The great age of Jewish gnosticism is further indicated by the authentic statement that Johanan b. Zakkai, who was born probably in the century before the common era, and was, according to Sukkah 28a, versed in that science, refers to an interdiction against "discussing the Creation before two pupils and the throne-chariot before one."

Note: the name "B-e-r-e-s-h-i-t"(SIC)above was automatically censored as "Bere****".
Not my fault.

Kuon

01-21-2010, 07:02 AM

The point of contention seems to have been largely that here. The exact definition of Gnosticism. I have been discussing the possible Gnostic-type influences on John, from Jewish apocalyptic literature. The following is an example of my case:

In searching for John's background, the general tendency of recent decades has been to lessen the emphasis on gnosticism and Hellenism and to focus rather on Judaism. The Judaism in question, however, is not simple. Apart from being affected significantly both by Hellenism (Hengel, 1974, 104) and the roots of gnosticism (Fujita, 1986, 193‐ 200), Judaism was in ferment. Qumran was just one symptom of a larger process of searching and rethinking. As Kysar (1985, 2425) concludes: "the Judaism we are seeking to unearth behind the gospel was rooted in the OT and related to the rabbinic movement, but also swayed by 'sectarian' features which might have included apocalyptic, mystical, and Qumranian characteristics." What this in fact suggests is that John has filtered and synthesized virtually the whole spectrum of contemporary Jewish writing and thought. - The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach - Thomas L. Brodie (Oxford University Press, 1993)

Perhaps we can agree on some definition of Gnosticism before we go any further, so good suggestion Sylla1. I've found this problem in my readings into Gnosticism and heresies in general. I like this quote from Ioan Culianu on the problem, which seems to crop up the more I read on the subject:

Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient Gnosis and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of Gnosticism occur again.
I was to learn soon, however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the catholic authors were gnostic, the neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka, Rilke, Proust, Joyce, Musil, Hesse, and Thomas Mann were gnostic. From very authoritative interpreters of Gnosis, I learned further that science is gnostic and superstition is gnostic; power, counter-power, and lack of power are gnostic; left is gnostic and right is gnostic; Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; Freud is gnostic and Jung is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally gnostic.So what definition can we agree on? Here's one possibility:

[Gnosticism is]...a coherent series of characteristics that can be summarized in the idea of a divine spark in man, deriving from the divine realm, fallen into this world of fate, birth and death, and needing to be awakened by the divine counterpart of the self in order to be finally re-integrated. Compared with other conceptions of a “devolution” of the divine, this idea is based ontologically on the conception of a downward movement of the divine whose periphery (often called Sophia [Wisdom] or Ennoia [Thought]) had to submit to the fate of entering into a crisis and producing—even if only indirectly—this world, upon which it cannot turn its back, since it is necessary for it to recover the pneuma—a dualistic conception on a monistic background, expressed in a double movement of devolution and reintegration.
The type of gnosis involved in Gnosticism is conditioned by the ontological, theological and anthropological foundations indicated above. Not every gnosis is Gnosticism, but only that which involves in this perspective the idea of the divine consubstantiality of the spark that is in need of being awakened and reintegrated. This gnosis of Gnosticism involves the divine identity of the knower (the Gnostic), the known (the divine substance of one's transcendent self), and the means by which one knows (gnosis as an implicit divine faculty is to be awakened and actualized. This gnosis is a revelation-tradition of a different type from the Biblical and Islamic revelation tradition).- Bianchi, Le Origini, xxvi–xxvii.

Fortigurn

01-21-2010, 01:52 PM

Hard copy texts and the internet, the latter including Questia. Considering that my research is amateur, fairly nascent and not being able to afford $4,200 to spend on Logos 4 software presently I'm kind of relying on you to help me out here. Asking you to lend a poor brother a hand, so to speak. ;)

As a long term client of Logos, the upgrade to Portfolio only cost me US$775. As an information professional, I would recommend you avoid Questia unless you have nothing else (JSTOR is invaluable).

That naturally depends largely on your definition for Gnosticism.

The starting point was Greek Gnosticism, which is the Gnosticism referred to commonly in these discussions.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia (Funk & Wagnalls, 1906):

This article (from 1906), contains a good deal more speculation than fact. That there existed Jewish mystical dualist and wisdom traditions is not in dispute, but 'Gnosticism' as a Greek syncretic movement does not predate the 2nd century. Furthermore, uncritically accepting the Early Fathers' claims that the heads of Gnostic schools were all Jews (as if they didn't have an agenda for identifying Jews as the founders of competing religious sects!), is not only unsound but leads to unsound conclusions (such as that posited, that the Jews invented Gnosticism and the Greeks took it over).

It must furthermore be noted that Hebrew words and names of God provide the skeleton for several gnostic systems.
Christians or Jews converted from paganism would have used as the foundation of their systems terms borrowed from the Greek or Syrian translations of the Bible.
This fact proves at least that the principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation, while it does not preclude the possibility of new wine having been poured into old bottles

I'd like to see a little more in the way of explanation of what you mean, and textual evidence to demonstrate it.

Cosmogonic-theological speculations, philosophemes on God and the world, constitute the substance of gnosis.

Well yes, but not all cosmogenic-theological speculation, philosophemes on God and the world, constitute Gnosticism.

Doubtless Ben Sira was thinking of these speculations when he uttered the warning: "Seek not things that are too hard for thee, and search not out things that are above thy strength. The things that have been commanded thee, think thereupon; for thou hast no need of the things that are secret" (Ecclus. [Sirach] iii. 21-22, R. V.).

Doubtless?

The terms here emphasized recur in the Talmud in the accounts of gnosis.

I don't think a 3rd century CE text is a useful means of understanding a 2nd century BCE author. It seems that we're reading the later text back into the earlier.

"There is no doubt that a Jewish gnosticism existed before a Christian or a Judæo-Christian gnosticism. As may be seen even in the apocalypses, since the second century B.C. gnostic thought was bound up with Judaism, which had accepted Babylonian and Syrian doctrines; but the relation of this Jewish gnosticism to Christian gnosticism may, perhaps, no longer be explained "(Harnack," "Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur," p. 144).

Harnack's views on this were popular in 1906 (104 years ago).

The great age of Jewish gnosticism is further indicated by the authentic statement that Johanan b. Zakkai, who was born probably in the century before the common era, and was, according to Sukkah 28a, versed in that science, refers to an interdiction against "discussing the Creation before two pupils and the throne-chariot before one."

This is evidence for 'the great age of Jewish gnosticism'? By the time the Mishnah was written (Sukkah 28a), Zakkai had been dead for almost 200 years. Note the string of assumptions:

* 'Zakkai, who was born probably in the century before the common era'
* 'versed in that science', according to a text written at least 150 years after he had died!
* 'discussing the Creation before two pupils and the throne-chariot before one', nothing uniquely Gnostic about this whatsoever

We have a lot of Zakkai's comments. He was a very traditional rabbinical expositor. His methodology is classic 2nd Temple rabbinical methodology, nothing remotely out of the ordinary, certainly nothing uniquely Gnostic.

Perhaps we can agree on some definition of Gnosticism before we go any further, so good suggestion Sylla1.

I haven't seen any evidence for a scholarly consensus on pre-Christian Jewish or Greek Gnosticism, but if someone can find evidence for such a consensus, I would say that would be a great place to start.

Kuon

01-21-2010, 07:58 PM

As a long term client of Logos, the upgrade to Portfolio only cost me US$775. As an information professional, I would recommend you avoid Questia unless you have nothing else (JSTOR is invaluable).

I'm not affliated to any insitution to have access to JSTOR and so I pay for individual articles if needed. I'll keep going with what I have for the time being.

The starting point was Greek Gnosticism, which is the Gnosticism referred to commonly in these discussions.

Only if you assumed so. In my case, I wasn't.

I haven't seen any evidence for a scholarly consensus on pre-Christian Jewish or Greek Gnosticism, but if someone can find evidence for such a consensus, I would say that would be a great place to start.

I didn't mention scholarly consensus. Only made the suggestion for a look toward some sort of working definition for the purposes of this discussion. I take it that the candidate I nominated in an earlier post doesn't suit?

Fortigurn

01-22-2010, 04:05 AM

I'm not affliated to any insitution to have access to JSTOR and so I pay for individual articles if needed. I'll keep going with what I have for the time being.

I would recommend as many peer reviewed sources as you can find.This (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~estec/tutorials/scholarly.htm) brief animated guide explains what a scholarly journal is, and how to identify them.

Here are some links to lists or collections of free online scholarly journals:

* 100 Free Academic Journals You Can Access Online (http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2008/09/17/100-free-academic-journals-you-can-access-online/)
* Directory of Open Access Journals (http://www.doaj.org/)
* List of journals available free online (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journals_available_free_online)
* Scholarly Exchange (http://www.scholarlyexchange.org/hosted.html)

These are some of the sources I use regularly when researching religious topics.

* JANES (http://www.jtsa.edu/Scholars_and_Research/JANES.xml) (Journal of Ancient Near East Studies, useful for archaeological information)
* Quodlibet (http://www.quodlibet.net/) (Christian journal on Biblical interpretation, theology, science, and social issues)
* JASA (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.html) (extremely useful journal on the interaction between science and the Bible, written by Christians, many of whom have scientific training)
* iTanakh (http://itanakh.org/) and The New Testament Gateway (http://www.ntgateway.com/) (two online resources aimed at providing material at an undergraduate level or higher for the study of the Old Testament and New Testament/Christian origins, respectively)

The following are journals I own (aside from my Logos journals), which are useful for research on a range of topics relevant to the Bible and religion. Almost all of them are peer reviewed (I also own a smaller collection of non-peer reviewed journals).

* The Bible and Critical Theory, 2004-2009 (ISSN 1832-3391)
* Bible and Spade, 1972-2000 (ISSN 1079-6959)
* The Bible Translator. Technical Papers, 1950-2008 (ISSN 0260-0935)
* Biblical Archaeology Review, 1975-2005 (ISSN 0098-9444)
* Bibliotheca Sacra, 1934-2005 (ISSN 0006-1921)
* Bulletin for Biblical Research, 1991-2008 (ISSN 1065-223X)
* Journal for Christian Theological Research, 1996-2007 (ISSN 1087-1624)
* Journal for the Renewal of Religion and Theology, 2006-2009 (ISSN 1834-3627)
* Journal of Biblical Studies, 2001-2006 (ISSN 1534-3057)
* Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 1996-2009 (ISSN 1203-1542)
* Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture, 2007-2008 (ISSN 1754-517X)
* Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, 2007-2009 (ISSN 1177-2484)
* Journal of Ministry and Theology, 1997 (ISSN 1092-9525)
* Journal of Philosophy & Scripture, 2003-2008 (ISSN 1555-5100)
* Journal of Religion and Society, 1999-2009 (ISSN 1522-5658)
* Lectio Difficilior, 2000-2008 (ISSN 1661-3317)
* The Saint Anselm Journal, 2003-2008 (ISSN 1545-3367)
* Semeia Studies, 1974-2002 (ISSN 1567-200X)
* Society of Christian Ethics Journal, 1975-2009 (ISSN 1540-7942)
* T C: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1996-2009 (ISSN 1089-7747)
*Trinity Journal, 1980-2004 (ISSN 0360-3032)

On textual criticism, I would recommend the site Evangelical Textual Criticism (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com). It's a 'forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology'. It is not an amateur blog (membership is by application only, restricted to evangelicals actively involved in textual criticism). Two main figures responsible are Peter Head (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/Staff/Head/index.htm) and Tommy Wasserman (http://www.teol.lu.se/nt/forskning/wasserman.html).

Examples of the material which is featured in ETC include:

Review of Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2005/12/review-of-bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus_31.html)
Checking patristic citations cited in NA27 (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/09/checking-patristic-citations.html)
The Houghton Library (Harvard) papyri online (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2007/12/harvard-papyri-online.html)
Discussion of possible linguistic problems in Heb 6v9 (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/05/hebrews-69-future-or-present.html)
Inerrancy and textual criticism (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/02/inerrancy-and-textual-criticism_28.html)

Although written by and for academic textual critics, it is not entirely inaccessible. The book reviews are in fact quite useful, as are the pointers to upcoming scholarly papers.

Only if you assumed so. In my case, I wasn't.

It seems you've shifted ground somewhat on exactly what you had in mind. First you said simply 'Quite a few Gnostic echoes in there', where 'Gnostic' by default refers to Greek Gnosticism. Later, ' the well known Gnostic-type use of language in John. The Plemora, Logos, and such. It's been commented on by others'. This is specifically Greek Gnosticism. Later you started to refer to 'elements of Gnostic-type dualism' in early Judaism.

I didn't mention scholarly consensus.

No, I did. It should be our starting point. I've found it curious that some here seem to avoid the scholarly consensus on any given issue, and even avoid the relevant scholarly literature (Edgewaters is a typical case in point). This is typically symptomatic of bias resulting from denialism or personal ideology.

In Edgewater's case for example, he'll be asked to provide evidence for his case, or at least his sources, and he'll simply repeat his view, sometimes in a little more detail, without providing evidence or his sources. If you grab a few phrases and throw them into Google, you'll sometimes find them appear in a Wikipedia article. The phrases have been altered slightly, and the word order changed around, but sometimes the words are even in the same order, or only slightly different. It's symptomatic of his ad hoc apologetic approach to subjects, reflecting his prior assumptions (it's the opposite of research, in other words).

Only made the suggestion for a look toward some sort of working definition for the purposes of this discussion. I take it that the candidate I nominated in an earlier post doesn't suit?

I have absolutely no information about his qualifications or authority in the relevant fields, and the definition provided was broad to the point of vagueness. This does not inspire me with confidence that his definition is sufficiently reliable for this discussion, but I'm open to more evidence.

sylla1

01-22-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 http://www.historum.com/images/545/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?p=185478#post185478)
That naturally depends largely on your definition for Gnosticism.

The starting point was Greek Gnosticism, which is the Gnosticism referred to commonly in these discussions.
Yes, but your definition for Gnosticism is:

Fortigurn

01-22-2010, 07:14 AM

sylla1

01-22-2010, 07:29 AM

Yes, but your definition for Gnosticism is:
?
Then, if you don't know what Gnosticism is, how can you be so sure that there was no Pre-Christian Gnosticism?

Fortigurn

01-22-2010, 07:33 AM

Yes, but your definition for Gnosticism is:

Then, if you don't know what Gnosticism is, how can you be so sure that there was no Pre-Christian Gnosticism?

You misunderstood my post. I was asking you to complete your sentence. When you've done that, I can respond.

sylla1

01-22-2010, 07:50 AM

You misunderstood my post. I was asking you to complete your sentence. When you've done that, I can respond.
No, there was no misunderstanding at all.

I didn't state anything; it was you.

You explicitly stated there was no pre-Christian Gnosticism.

Therefore, you must know what "Gnosticism" is.

If you know it, you can tell us.

Fortigurn

01-22-2010, 09:28 AM

No, there was no misunderstanding at all.

There was. You didn't understand that I wanted you to complete the sentence. As a result, you wrongly assumed that I didn't know what Gnosticism is.

I didn't state anything; it was you.

Of course you did. You said 'Then, if you don't know what Gnosticism is, how can you be so sure that there was no Pre-Christian Gnosticism?'.

You explicitly stated there was no pre-Christian Gnosticism.

Yes. I quoted several sources to this effect.

Therefore, you must know what "Gnosticism" is.

Yes.

If you know it, you can tell us.

In the context of this discussion, it's the body of Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards. There is no evidence for this body of knowledge prior to the 2nd century, either in Greek or Jewish writings. That is why the scholarly consensus holds that there is no pre-Christian Gnosticism.

Kuon

01-22-2010, 09:30 AM

Here are some links to lists or collections of free online scholarly journals:

Thanks. These look to be useful.

It seems you've shifted ground somewhat on exactly what you had in mind. First you said simply 'Quite a few Gnostic echoes in there', where 'Gnostic' by default refers to Greek Gnosticism. Later, ' the well known Gnostic-type use of language in John. The Plemora, Logos, and such. It's been commented on by others'. This is specifically Greek Gnosticism. Later you started to refer to 'elements of Gnostic-type dualism' in early Judaism.

Not exactly. You've caught me out on loose and unexacting terminology in a somewhat flippant comment, the latter part I've already addressed here previously. It's always beneficial to be precise when dealing with such matters and I wasn't being so. A similar thing occurred with Texadelphos earlier in this thread. It is useful for such things to occur, for purposes of learning. I know what I meant as I had been discussing such things with a friend, who is an amateur Bible scholar, relating to the Gospel of John some months ago. My terminology and full recall of this wasn't exacting enough.

I look forward also to seeing the contemporary scholarship on the subject you have mentioned previously as there have been quite a few useful pieces of information presented here by yourself thus far.

In the context of this discussion, it's the body of Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards. There is no evidence for this body of knowledge prior to the 2nd century, either in Greek or Jewish writings. That is why the scholarly consensus holds that there is no pre-Christian Gnosticism.

Perhaps we have some sort of basis to go further. Do you count the Mandaeans as Gnostic then, for instance? Or the Manichaeans?

Fortigurn

01-22-2010, 10:13 AM

Thanks. These look to be useful.

You're welcome. That list of journals I provided is a list of freely available journals by the way, you can download them to your hard drive without charge.

Not exactly. You've caught me out on loose and unexacting terminology in a somewhat flippant comment, the latter part I've already addressed here previously. It's always beneficial to be precise when dealing with such matters and I wasn't being so. A similar thing occurred with Texadelphos earlier in this thread. It is useful for such things to occur, for purposes of learning. I know what I meant as I had been discussing such things with a friend, who is an amateur Bible scholar, relating to the Gospel of John some months ago. My terminology and full recall of this wasn't exacting enough.

Fair enough, let's move on.

I look forward also to seeing the contemporary scholarship on the subject you have mentioned previously as there have been quite a few useful pieces of information presented here by yourself thus far.

Thank you. I left my computer this morning still downloading 12GB of updates from Logos, and anticipate that it will be complete by this evening. I will try to post something then, as I will be out of the city and in another province for the whole day tomorrow.

Perhaps we have some sort of basis to go further. Do you count the Mandaeans as Gnostic then, for instance? Or the Manichaeans?

I would have to check the relevant scholarly literature. I have little personal knowledge of either group.

sylla1

01-22-2010, 04:50 PM

Fortigurn

01-22-2010, 07:52 PM

That's not a definition; not all Greeks mystics from the 2nd century onwards were Gnostics (or were they?).

That is a definition. Not all Greek mystics from the 2nd century were Gnostics, but all Gnostics were mystics from the 2nd century onwards.

You only told us when and where they were, not what they were.

On the contrary, I've told you exactly what they were.

And purported authority arguments are not a definition either.[/qutoe]

If you mean you're going to continue to refuse the definition of the scholarly consensus, there's nothing more to say.

[quote]This is a simple direct question that asks for a simple direct answer; which are the criteria that you use to define "Gnosticism"?

I don't define it, I note the definition of the scholarly consensus. Why should I make things up?

Plainly, if you are not able to define something, you are simply unable to determine when or where was that stuff present or not.

As I have already pointed out, the definition has already been decided on by the scholarly consensus. That is why, as I also pointed out, the scholarly consensus is that pre-Christian Gnosticism did not exist. Your objection to the scholarly consensus has no weight unless you have new evidence with which to contest it.

sylla1

01-22-2010, 09:02 PM

That is a definition. Not all Greek mystics from the 2nd century were Gnostics, but all Gnostics were mystics from the 2nd century onwards.

On the contrary, I've told you exactly what they were.

If you mean you're going to continue to refuse the definition of the scholarly consensus, there's nothing more to say.

I don't define it, I note the definition of the scholarly consensus. Why should I make things up?

As I have already pointed out, the definition has already been decided on by the scholarly consensus. That is why, as I also pointed out, the scholarly consensus is that pre-Christian Gnosticism did not exist. Your objection to the scholarly consensus has no weight unless you have new evidence with which to contest it.

You're right in only one point; there's nothing more to say if you don't even know what are you talking about (Gnosticism in this case).

I'm not sure what do you expect to achieve for your religion by permanently evading logic.

It would be far more easier if you simply explained all by a single testament of faith.

Kuon

01-23-2010, 06:15 AM

In the context of this discussion, it's the body of Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards. There is no evidence for this body of knowledge prior to the 2nd century, either in Greek or Jewish writings. That is why the scholarly consensus holds that there is no pre-Christian Gnosticism.

Perhaps we have some sort of basis to go further. Do you count the Mandaeans as Gnostic then, for instance? Or the Manichaeans?I would have to check the relevant scholarly literature. I have little personal knowledge of either group.I have a feeling that you're going to ask me for some relevant, contemporary scholarly literature here to back up my reply, but let's try anyway.

I see that the definition of Gnosticism as "...Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards," whilst surely concise and a step toward a consensus for this discussion, is too vague itself. "Greek mysticism" is too broad a term to be suitable as a definition to my mind. To approach such a definition perhaps we can define the characteristics of Gnostic (heretical) thought as opposed to Christian (orthodox), and perhaps such a starting point would be this excerpt from Hans Jonas' "The Gnostic Religion" 9 (p. 307):

'Here is one simple criterion for what is "Christian" (orthodox) or "Gnostic" (heretical): whether the guilt is Adam's or the Archon's, whether human or divine, whether arising in creation or before creation. The difference goes to the heart of the problem.'This seems to me to really cut to the heart of the chase if we consider how the Gnostic world view operated, with the material world in "error," a black iron vault that imprisoned the human soul in putrefying flesh, the result of a primal error of supernatural beings. Gnosticism, to my mind, is the rejection of the world and the cosmos as a literal hell, a place of imprisonment and sanction until the soul can return to the world beyond this, back to the source. I argue that Gnosticism is the complete inverse of orthodoxy. To add to your definition, it was a supreme form of counter-cultural mysticism.
The Manichaens had a very similar cosmological view, so too the Mandaeans.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 06:13 AM

You're right in only one point; there's nothing more to say if you don't even know what are you talking about (Gnosticism in this case).

I do know what I'm talking about. I've made that clear.

I'm not sure what do you expect to achieve for your religion by permanently evading logic.

Please identify why you consider consulting the scholarly consensus as 'permanently evading logic'.

It would be far more easier if you simply explained all by a single testament of faith.

This statement has no relevance to the topic under discussion, and recommends an irrational course of action.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 06:32 AM

I see that the definition of Gnosticism as "...Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards," whilst surely concise and a step toward a consensus for this discussion, is too vague itself. "Greek mysticism" is too broad a term to be suitable as a definition to my mind.

I think it's a usable definition of the topic, it's just not a usable definition of the specific teachings recognized as the body of Gnostic thought. As I said before, not all Greek mysticism was Gnostic, but Gnosticism was a form of Greek mysticism.

To approach such a definition perhaps we can define the characteristics of Gnostic (heretical) thought as opposed to Christian (orthodox), and perhaps such a starting point would be this excerpt from Hans Jonas' "The Gnostic Religion" 9 (p. 307):

Yes, I think that's a useful starting point. To substantiate your point:

Early Christian writers already used the term as a general name for various social groups which were not content with orthodox practices and beliefs otherwise widely accepted.

Radical dualism was a prime factor in the gnostic conceptual framework.

The 2d century is the period of the great gnostic systems and the flourishing of Gnosticism (this term is assigned to this period in particular).

The two essential elements of Gnosticism are (a) cosmological dualism consisting of matter and spirit, the one evil and therefore not created directly by a good spirit, and the other good; and (b) esoteric knowledge, limited to those who are initiated into the gnosis, by which they are able to be “saved,” i.e., freed from evil material existence to enter into pure spiritual life. Both elements have seeming relationships with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Both, however, come into basic conflict with biblical doctrine.

Some modern researchers suggest that several NT and related texts evidence contact with “Gnosticism” in various stages of its development.

Texts that especially stand out are Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude, 2 Peter, and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 115) and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. ca. 165) among others.

But even here the issues discussed are diverse, demonstrating a complex assortment of competing new religious movements, but no evidence of “Gnosticism.”

Further studies of “Jewish Gnosticism” are needed, but nothing will be gained by obscuring the clear distinctions between “Jewish Gnosticism” and the Gnosticism that developed in the Hellenistic world after the 1st cent A.D.

As you can see, I've managed to reinstall Logos 4. You can also see there more references to the fact that 'Gnosticism' as we are discussing it did not precede Christianity. The recent commentary for which I was looking the other day is Lüdemann (2003). He explains how the case for 'pre-Christian Gnosticism' was originally framed by Bultmann, developed by Schmithals, and finally rejected by the scholarly consensus:

Bultmann’s pupil Walter Schmithals took great pains to analyse the penetration of Gnostic teachers into the Pauline churches, thereby putting historical flesh on the bones of his teacher’s general hypothesis of Gnosticism as a rival movement of early Christianity.198

In general, Schmithals’ bold reconstruction, also based on an elaborate partition theory of the Pauline letters,200 has found little assent in scholarship.

To formulate a preliminary conclusion: the thesis of a Gnostic movement that systematically invaded the Pauline communities finds little or no support in the earliest extant letter of Paul, 1 Thessalonians.

Studies of the other Pauline communities (Corinth, Philippi, Galatia) do not yield any different result.203 Scholarship must in all likelihood abandon the hypothesis that a cohesive Gnostic movement204 is reflected in Paul’s letters.

‘The plain truth is that you could not have found anyone in Corinth to direct you to a Gnostic church; the overwhelming probability is that there was no such thing.’205

Indeed, the same negative statement applies to the suggestion that there were Gnostic churches in Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus or in the province of Galatia.

If in all likelihood, with the possible exception of the Simonians, there was no such thing as a rival Gnostic movement within or competing with Pauline Christianity, the question arises whether there ever was a specific Gnostic myth as an entity of its own.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 06:42 AM

I do know what I'm talking about. I've made that clear.

This statement has no relevance to the topic under discussion, and recommends an irrational course of action.
Actually, what is relevant for my question is just the definition of Gnosticism that you have been persistently unable to explain after so many posts.

You previously stated that there were no pre-Christian Gnostics.

How would you be able to detect them if you can't even define what Gnosticism is?

How can you tell who is a Gnostic and who is not?

Please identify why you consider consulting the scholarly consensus as 'permanently evading logic'. Aside from my answer above in this same post, a nice example of a fallacious appeal to authority can perfectly be identified in your very last statement. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html.

That, sir, is evading logic here and elsewhere.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 07:03 AM

Actually, what is relevant for my question is just the definition of Gnosticism that you have been persistently unable to explain after so many posts.

I haven't been able to explain it. I already explained it. Did you miss that?

You previously stated that there were no pre-Christian Gnostics.

How would you be able to detect them if you can't even define what Gnosticism is?

How can you tell who is a Gnostic and who is not?I never said it wasn't possible to define what Gnosticism is, and I gave a definition. Why do you say that I didnt?

Aside from my answer above in this same post, a nice example of a fallacious appeal to authority can perfectly be identified in your very last statement. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html.

That, sir, is evading logic here and elsewhere.No, that is not a fallacious appeal to authority. That is a quotation of examples from the scholarly consensus. An appeal to authority is predicated on the authority of a given source. Read the definition given by the site to which you just linked:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. I did not make any such appeal. I did not, for example, say something like this:

* 'This is a quote from Freedman, whom we all know is authoritative in this field'

* 'Bromiley's definition of Gnosticism must be accepted because everyone knows it is the only recognized definition'

* 'Lüdemann says there was no such thing as pre-Christian Gnosticism, so we cannot deny that pre-Christian Gnosticism did not exist'

Nor did I make any appeal to the authority of any individual not qualified in the subject. In fact I didn't make any appeal to the authority of any individual at all.

You have not understood the definition of the fallacy of authority, nor have you correctly read my posts. An appeal to the scholarly consensus is the opposite of an appeal to the authority. That's the usefulness of the scholarly consensus. That's the point of peer review.

This (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Eestec/tutorials/scholarly.htm) brief animated guide will help you understand the process and importance of the peer review process. This quote from the link you provided will help you understand how you misunderstood what constitutes a false appeal to authority:

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

Of course I didn't make an appeal to authority in the first place, but it's important for you to understand how you misread the site. Have you actually had any formal training in logical argumentation?

sylla1

01-24-2010, 07:22 AM

I haven't been able to explain it. I already explained it. Did you miss that?

I never said it wasn't possible to define what Gnosticism is, and I gave a definition. Why do you say that I didnt?

No, that is not a fallacious appeal to authority. That is a quotation of examples from the scholarly consensus. An appeal to authority is predicated on the authority of a given source. Read the definition given by the site to which you just linked:

I did not make any such appeal. I did not, for example, say something like this:

* 'This is a quote from Freedman, whom we all know is authoritative in this field'

* 'Bromiley's definition of Gnosticism must be accepted because everyone knows it is the only recognized definition'

* 'Lüdemann says there was no such thing as pre-Christian Gnosticism, so we cannot deny that pre-Christian Gnosticism did not exist'

Nor did I make any appeal to the authority of any individual not qualified in the subject. In fact I didn't make any appeal to the authority of any individual at all.

You have not understood the definition of the fallacy of authority, nor have you correctly read my posts. An appeal to the scholarly consensus is the opposite of an appeal to the authority. That's the usefulness of the scholarly consensus. That's the point of peer review.

This (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Eestec/tutorials/scholarly.htm) brief animated guide will help you understand the process and importance of the peer review process. This quote from the link you provided will help you understand how you misunderstood what constitutes a false appeal to authority:

Of course I didn't make an appeal to authority in the first place, but it's important for you to understand how you misread the site. Have you actually had any formal training in logical argumentation?
So after all that long post (and many more) and such immense evasion of logic, you still can't define what Gnosticism is...

Have you tried any dictionary of Philosophy?

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 07:47 AM

So after all that long post (and many more) and such immense evasion of logic, you still can't define what Gnosticism is...

Why do you say that? I already defined it in my own words, and I further defined it using the relevant scholarly literature. Why do continue to deny this?

I note you have failed to acknowledge your misreading of the Nizkor site, and failed also to defend your charge of 'immense evasion of logic'. Is there a reason for this?

Have you tried any dictionary of Phylosophy?

Assuming you mean 'philosophy', I could but there's no need (interestingly the SEP (http://plato.stanford.edu/) doesn't even have a separate entry on Gnosticism). I have already used sufficient sources from the relevnat scholarly literature.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 08:02 AM

Why do you say that? I already defined it in my own words, and I further defined it using the relevant scholarly literature. Why do continue to deny this?

I note you have failed to acknowledge your misreading of the Nizkor site, and failed also to defend your charge of 'immense evasion of logic'. Is there a reason for this?

Assuming you mean 'philosophy', I could but there's no need (interestingly the SEP (http://plato.stanford.edu/) doesn't even have a separate entry on Gnosticism). I have already used sufficient sources from the relevnat scholarly literature.
It seems that an operative definition would be absolutely needed to determine if Gnosticism (or any other thing, for that matter) was or not present at any time or place.

Just for the record, I would ask you once again, can you please just post your explicit definition for Gnosticism between brackets or inverted commas?

Something like "Gnosticism is... " followed by the defining criteria for this concept.

Why do I ask this?
Because (if it has not already been obvious to you for a while) I would like to verify if there were any pre-Christian authors that could have fulfilled the required criteria.

Would you find that unreasonable?

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 08:08 AM

It seems that an operative definition would be absolutely needed to determine if Gnosticism (or any other thing, for that matter) was or not present at any time or place.

I posted an operative definition. Kuon commented on it. We agreed on its usefulness as a starting point, as well as its limitations. You cannot have missed this exchange, because you commented on it. So you are fully aware that I gave a definition previously.

I also followed this up with the relevant scholarly literature, which you wrongly dismissed as a logical fallacy. Do you have any formal training in logic?

Just for the record, I would ask you once again, can you please just post your explicit definition for Gnosticism between brackets or inverted commas?

Something like "Gnosticism is... " followed by the defining criteria for this concept.This is is an unnecessary request, since you know I have answered this previously. In this (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=186207&postcount=86) post you posed the same question:

Therefore, you must know what "Gnosticism" is.

If you know it, you can tell us.

I gave a definition here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=186219&postcount=87):

In the context of this discussion, it's the body of Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards. There is no evidence for this body of knowledge prior to the 2nd century, either in Greek or Jewish writings. That is why the scholarly consensus holds that there is no pre-Christian Gnosticism.

You didn't like the definition, but you cannot in honesty deny that I gave one.

Why do I ask this? Because (if it has not already been obvious to you for a while) I would like to verify if there were pre-Christian authors that could have fulfilled the required criteria.

Would you find that unreasonable?

Not at all. I already gave you a definition. I already gave you the scholarly consensus which is the rationale for the definition. I further provided specific quotes from the scholarly consensus which define specific Gnostic criteria, and explain why it is important to differentiate between early Greek and Persian Gnosis, early Jewish Gnosis, and what is referred to commonly as 'Gnosticism', which involves a rejection of Christian doctrine. You found this unreasonable, and wrongly claimed I was committing a logical fallacy.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortigurn
In the context of this discussion, it's the body of Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards. There is no evidence for this body of knowledge prior to the 2nd century, either in Greek or Jewish writings. That is why the scholarly consensus holds that there is no pre-Christian Gnosticism.

You didn't like the definition, but you cannot in honesty deny that I gave one.

Irrespectively if I like it or not, that is not a definition (i.e. " the concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol")

You are only telling us when and by whom do you consider that such "mystic thought" was developed.

So far you have still not stated in all your posts from this thread any single defining feature or attribute of such "mystic thought".

How can you know that Gnosticism didn't appear centuries before, if you can't even define what does it mean?

Let us try again: "Gnosticism is ..."

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 08:34 AM

Irrespectively if I like it or not, that is not a definition (i.e. " the concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol")

It is a definition. Kuon even noted it is 'concise'.

You are only telling us when and by whom do you consider that such "mystic thought" was developed.No. I have not only told you when and by whom, I have actually defined Gnosticism as a specific body of knowledge, namely a specific form of Greek mystic thought. I have given details of that specific mystic thought here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98).

So far you have still not stated in all your posts from this thread any single defining feature or attribute of such "mystic thought".That is completely untrue. I have done so in detail here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98).

Let us try again: "Gnosticism is ..."Please read (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98). You will find there specific quotes from the scholarly consensus which define specific Gnostic criteria, and explain why it is important to differentiate between early Greek and Persian Gnosis, early Jewish Gnosis, and what is referred to commonly as 'Gnosticism', which involves a rejection of Christian doctrine.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 08:56 AM

It is a definition. Kuon even noted it is 'concise'.

No. I have not only told you when and by whom, I have actually defined Gnosticism as a specific body of knowledge, namely a specific form of Greek mystic thought. I have given details of that specific mystic thought here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98).

That is completely untrue. I have done so in detail here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98).

Please read (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98). You will find there specific quotes from the scholarly consensus which define specific Gnostic criteria, and explain why it is important to differentiate between early Greek and Persian Gnosis, early Jewish Gnosis, and what is referred to commonly as 'Gnosticism', which involves a rejection of Christian doctrine.
I don't think it would be especially useful to point each one of your countless fallacies (both logical & formal), as you will predictably just deny them by bare statements.

If you are satisfied with the current status of your own logical process, that's not my business.

The evident point here is that at this very moment you're simply unable to explain what Gnosticism is; period.

Ergo, all along this thread you have been making constant statements on something that you most evidently can't define.

I can perfectly understand that you may find desirable to prove the logic behind the dogmas of your religion.

Being that the case, we must admit that you seem to be currently doing a poor job.

Frankly, a mere statement of faith would have been more useful.

BTW, there is of course a definition of Gnosticism; with some time I'm sure you will master it.

Then, and only then, we will be able to retake this discussion and verify if any pre-Christian author may have fulfilled such criteria or not.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 09:18 AM

I don't think it would be especially useful to point each one of your countless fallacies (both logical & formal), as you will predictably just deny them by bare statements.

Surely you can spare time for one or two? You tried to assert one, but failed. I demonstrated not only that your charge was false, but that you had misread your source.

The evident point here is that at this very moment you're simply unable to explain what Gnosticism is; period.

To date I've given my own definition, as well as the definition of the scholarly consensus. Why have you not addressed any of those quotes?

I can perfectly understand that you may find desirable to prove the logic behind the dogmas of your religion.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the logic behind the dogmas of my religion. Whether Gnosticism predated Christianity or not makes no difference to me. As I've already pointed out, I've changed my own view on this issue several times, according to how well informed I've been. Previously I did believe that Gnosticism predated Christianity.

At present it is clear that the scholarly consensus is that Gnosticism did not predate Christianity, and that's the view to which I submit. If the scholarly consensus changes, I will submit to the new consensus.

BTW, there is of course a definition of Gnosticism; with some time I'm sure you will master it.

Then, and only then, we will be able to retake this discussion and verify if any pre-Christian author may have fulfilled such criteria or not.

Why have you failed to address any of the relevant scholarly literature I quoted? What objections have you to the definition presented there?

You can start here:

* I find Freedman's definition inadequate because...
* I reject Lüdemann definition because...
* I dispute Bromiley's definition because...

When you're ready.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 09:26 AM

* I find Freedman's definition inadequate because...
* I reject Lüdemann definition because...
* I dispute Bromiley's definition because...

When you're ready.
Immediately; just post such definitions here, so we may use them.

If you like, you may also explain why you didn't post them looong ago.

For the record; are you using several definitions at the same time?

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 09:38 AM

Immediately; just post such definitions here, so we may use them.

If you like, you may also explain why you didn't post them looong ago.

I did (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98). Please read them. I will provide more from Lüdemann, since it may not have been sufficiently clear for you.

The related Gnostic myth can be described as follows. It

depicts the cosmic drama by which the imprisonment of the sparks of light came about, a drama whose end is already beginning now and will be complete when they are released. The drama’s beginning, the tragic event of primeval time, is variously told in several variants of the myth … The demonic powers get into their clutches a person who originates in the light-world either because he is led astray by his own foolishness or because he is overcome in battle … Redemption comes from the heavenly world. Once more a light-person sent by the highest god, indeed the son and the ‘image’ of the most high, comes down from the light-world bringing Gnosis. He ‘wakes’ the sparks of light who have sunk into sleep or drunkenness and ‘reminds’ them of their heavenly home.193

It is in this sense that I will use the term ‘Gnosticism’. First, it is the designation of a specific myth. Secondly, it provides us with the name of a movement that was a rival of the early Christian groups.

Note that it must be a 'specific myth', and a 'rival of the early Christian groups', according to this definition.

For the record; are you using several definitions at the same time?

No. I can tell you haven't been reading my posts.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 09:41 AM

No. I can tell you haven't been reading my posts. Judge by yourself.

Needless to say, that is not a definition (you have clearly deliberately ignored my previous posts, as you have ostensibly read them). The meaning of the word "Gnosticism" is not explained there (nor in any other of your posts):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerd Lüdemann, Primitive Christianity : A Survey of Recent Studies and Some New Proposals (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 147-148.
It is in this sense that I will use the term ‘Gnosticism’. First, it is the designation of a specific myth. Secondly, it provides us with the name of a movement that was a rival of the early Christian groups.

Plainly, not all the "rivals of early Christian groups" were Gnosticism.
Besides, not all the "specific myths" were Gnosticism.

Therefore, even if those two criteria were universally accepted (which under Lüdemann's own explicit statement it is not the case) they would not be enough to determine who was and who wasn't a Gnostic.

Even more; that is explicitely the way Lüdemann "uses" the word; then, other scholars admittedly use it in a different way.

Ergo, the same ancient author (even pre-Christian) can be considered as Gnostic or non-Gnostic by different scholars.

Can you understand now why a definition is required?

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 09:50 AM

Judge by yourself.

I have. You haven't so much as mentioned any of the definitions I provided.

Needless to say, that is not a definition (you have clearly deliberately ignored my previous posts, as you have ostensibly read them). The meaning of the word "Gnosticism" is not explained there (nor in any other of your posts).

This is further evidence you have not read my posts. Look at the quotes I've provided you with:

* 'It is in this sense that I will use the term ‘Gnosticism’' (following a definition)
* 'The two essential elements of Gnosticism are' (preceding a definition)
* 'Early Christian writers already used the term as a general name for' (preceding a definition)
* 'the Gnosticism that developed in the Hellenistic world after the 1st cent A.D.' (following a definition)

Is there a reason why you are ignoring these definitions? If you have read them, as you claim, you can certainly answer my simple questions.

* I find Freedman's definition inadequate because...
* I reject Lüdemann definition because...
* I dispute Bromiley's definition because...

sylla1

01-24-2010, 09:57 AM

Please read my previous post.

Work is calling; see you later (with an operative definition, I hope).

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 10:02 AM

Please read my previous post.

I have. It doesn't address anything I wrote. Specifically, it does not explain why you find the definitions I provided inadequate. Do you intend to address this at any time in the future?

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 10:07 AM

Kuon, although sylla1 has refused to discuss the definition of Gnosticism, I trust you and I can continue making headway.

Please read my post here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98). In that post I agree substantially with the definition you provide here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=186957&postcount=95) as a starting point (sylla1 never read it), and I provide additional substantiation for that definition from the relevant scholarly literature. I believe we have enough to move forward now. Let me know what you think.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 10:12 AM

I have. It doesn't address anything I wrote. Specifically, it does not explain why you find the definitions I provided inadequate. Do you intend to address this at any time in the future?
Maybe.
You have time to find the definition of Gnosticism; it exists, believe me.

You may also try to find additional logical resources beyond simple bare statements.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 10:15 AM

Plainly, not all the "rivals of early Christian groups" were Gnosticism.

Irrelevant. Lüdemann is not saying that any rival of early Christian groups must have been Gnostic.

Besides, not all the "specific myths" were Gnosticism.

Irrelevant. Lüdemann is not saying that all expressions of the specific myth he describes were Gnosticism.

He is defining Gnosticism as a specific myth the precise details of which he describes at length using Bultmann's definition, and which is a rival of early Christian groups.

In order to qualify as 'Gnosticism' therefore, Lüdemann says that a teaching must:

* Express the specific myth he quotes from Bultmann
* Be a rival of an early Christian group

That is his definition. He points out that this was Bultmann's definition and Schimthal's definition. It remains the definition of the scholarly consensus.

Therefore, even if those two criteria were universally accepted (which under Lüdemann's own explicit statement it is not the case) they would not be enough to determine who was and who wasn't a Gnostic.

Why not? Contrary to what you claimed, both criteria must be met.

Even more; that is explicitely the way Lüdemann "uses" the word; then, other scholars admittedly use it in a different way.

You are creating a contrast which he did not. Which scholars? Please name three.

Ergo, the same ancient author (even pre-Christian) can be considered as Gnostic or non-Gnostic by different scholars.

But not by the scholarly consensus. You keep missing this point.

Can you understand now why a definition is required?

I understand that a definition has been given, and you don't like the definition. A definition was provided. I quoted several scholars from the relevant literature who agree. This is the definition of the scholarly consensus. What is your definition?

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 10:16 AM

Maybe.

At least you've acknowledged now that you haven't attempted to address what I wrote.

You have time to find the definition of Gnosticism; it exists, believe me.

It does indeed. I've already provided it. You say you disagree with it, but since that's the definition of the scholarly consensus, and since you are unable to explain your objection to it, your personal view can be dispensed with.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 10:37 AM

It should be remembered sylla1 that the only definition of Gnosticism which you posted was from the hopelessly outdated 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which you represented as authoritative. This article contains a good deal more speculation than fact. That there existed Jewish mystical dualist and wisdom traditions is not in dispute, but 'Gnosticism' as a Greek syncretic movement does not predate the 2nd century. Furthermore, uncritically accepting the Early Fathers' claims that the heads of Gnostic schools were all Jews (as if they didn't have an agenda for identifying Jews as the founders of competing religious sects!), is not only unsound but leads to unsound conclusions (such as that posited, that the Jews invented Gnosticism and the Greeks took it over).

Comet

01-24-2010, 12:57 PM

I suggest reading this selection:

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

This comes from a Gnostic Bishop. He offers an inside look at what Gnosticism is.

Also, I want to share a short piece from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia in explaining its definition of Gnosticism:

"However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm) is labour lost"

As you can see, the definition of Gnosticism is up for debate...there won't be a single, solid definition.

sylla...we need your definition of Gnosticism. I respectfully ask that you provide your definition as asked by Fortigurn.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 01:13 PM

I suggest reading this selection:

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

This comes from a Gnostic Bishop. He offers an inside look at what Gnosticism is.

Well he offers an inside look at what one branch of modern Gnosticism is. But interestingly enough, his description of Gnosticism matches the scholarly literature I've quoted.

Also, I want to share a short piece from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia in explaining its definition of Gnosticism:

"However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm) is labour lost"

As you can see, the definition of Gnosticism is up for debate...there won't be a single, solid definition.

The source you quoted doesn't actually say 'the definition of Gnosticism is up for debate', or 'there won't be a single, solid definition'. It says that it's fruitless to look for a generic definition of Gnostic sects. This doesn't mean criteria can't be used to identify Gnostic sects, or it wouldn't even be able to mention them.

Indeed, the encyclopedia's actual article on Gnosticism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm) makes it clear that:

* 'so much light has been shed on the problem by the combined labours of many scholars that it is possible to give the following tentative solution'

* 'it had some leading ideas, which are more or less clearly traceable in different schools'

* 'a fair idea of Gnostic doctrines can be obtained from the articles on leaders and phases of Gnostic thought'

It describes typical Gnostic doctrines in detail, and although it argues that Gnosticism predated Christianity (typical of late 19th century scholarship, though the idea has now been debunked), it does so on the basis that Gnosticism can in fact be defined. Not only that, it defines Gnosticism using almost the same criteria as the scholars I've already quoted.

The definition of Gnosticism isn't up for debate. You're quoting a 1911 source which was entirely ignorant of the wealth of new material which has been found since. The Nag Hammadi Library wasn't found until about another 30 years after that encyclopedia was published. I've quoted extensively from the standard works in the relevant scholarly literature. Look at the works quoted by Lüdemann. There's a broad level of agreement in the current literature.

sylla...we need your definition of Gnosticism. I respectfully ask that you provide your definition as asked by Fortigurn.

It would be useful, yes.

Comet

01-24-2010, 01:29 PM

Well he offers an inside look at what one branch of modern Gnosticism is. But interestingly enough, his description of Gnosticism matches the scholarly literature I've quoted.

The source you quoted doesn't actually say 'the definition of Gnosticism is up for debate', or 'there won't be a single, solid definition'. It says that it's fruitless to look for a generic definition of Gnostic sects. This doesn't mean criteria can't be used to identify Gnostic sects, or it wouldn't even be able to mention them.

Take what you will from it. My overall point is that there is no one definition. I can attest since I've briefly worked with the Gnostic gospels and Gnosticism before in an academic setting.

Of course its just one branch...but it provides the basics to come up with a definition.

For all intensive purposes, my post was to keep you guys on track. Let's get a working definition and move on...keep the thread rolling :)

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 01:49 PM

Take what you will from it. My overall point is that there is no one definition. I can attest since I've briefly worked with the Gnostic gospels and Gnosticism before in an academic setting.

Instead of saying there's no one definition, it's closer to the truth to say that there's no single Gnostic systematic theology. There is however a core Gnostic cosmogony and theology which all Gnostic literature shares.

Otherwise you wouldn't be able to say that you have worked with the Gnostic gospels and Gnosticism, because you wouldn't be able to identify what is Gnostic and what isn't.

Of course its just one branch...but it provides the basics to come up with a definition.

I agree. Kuon and I had already reached an agreement on a good starting point from the relevant scholarly literature. sylla1 interrupted saying all that literature is wrong, and disputing the modern scholarly consensus, insisting that the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is more accurate. He has yet to explain why. He has apparently invented his own secret definition of Gnosticism, which he won't share.

For all intensive purposes, my post was to keep you guys on track.

For what it's worth, you mean 'For all intents and purposes'. The phrase 'For all intensive purposes' is a common malapropism.

Let's get a working definition and move on...keep the thread rolling :)

I agree with you. Although it is now buried, Kuon and I had a good working definition here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98).

Comet

01-24-2010, 01:56 PM

For what it's worth, you mean 'For all intents and purposes'. The phrase 'For all intensive purposes' is a common malapropism.

Thank you and that is what I meant. Writing and word usage tends to be my worst quality :). Please don't hesitate to correct me.

I agree with you. Although it is now buried, Kuon and I had a good working definition here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98).

I saw and thought it was a good working definition.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 02:01 PM

Kuon, more here.

Of weightier and more enduring influence was the growing History of Religions conviction that Gnosticism, previously regarded as simply a Christian heresy, had much deeper roots, represented a quite independent religious philosophy, and, putting the theory of influence into reverse, had been the source of Christianity’s own theology of salvation.

The high water mark of this particular tide of speculation was Rudolf Bultmann’s famous claim that behind Paul’s christology lay the Gnostic Redeemer myth.31 This was the belief that the human condition was one of imprisonment and ignorance, the spirit within (‘sparks of light’) needing to be enlightened, given knowledge (gnosis) as to its true nature and origin. In the myth, salvation is brought by the ‘light-person’ who enters this lower world to bring the saving, life-giving gnosis.

Bultmann was sure that passages like 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:6–11 and Eph. 4:8–10 reflected the Gnostic myth of the descent and re-ascent of the Gnostic Redeemer.

The problem is that no extant version of the Gnostic Redeemer myth predates Christianity. The Jewish talk of divine Wisdom’s descent to earth (as in Sir. 24:8–12 and 1 Enoch 42) is best seen not as the broken fragment of some complete, earlier myth, but as the sort of building block out of which the later myth was constructed.

The fact that redeemer figures (like Simon Magus) only appear subsequent to Jesus probably indicates that early Christian, not least Pauline christology, was itself another of the building blocks which second-century Gnosticism built into its syncretistic myth.

The Nag Hammadi codices (discovered in 1945) have provided a life-support system for Bultmann’s thesis (particularly The Gospel of Philip 58:17–22; 71:9–17 and The Sophia of Jesus Christ 100–1), but the thesis still depends on the false premise that ‘independent means prior’.

It is hardly to be denied, of course, that Paul shared with his environment language and concepts like ‘knowledge’ (gnosis) and ‘spiritual’ (pneumatikos).

But it is now widely agreed that the quest for a pre-Christian Gnosticism, properly so called, has proved to be a wild goose chase. As with the sacraments, there are far more obvious roots for Paul’s christology, particularly the already well-developed Jewish reflection on Adam and Wisdom.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 02:01 PM

Comet, thank you. You may find my latest quote from Dunn of interest.

Comet

01-24-2010, 02:15 PM

Comet, thank you. You may find my latest quote from Dunn of interest.

I love Dunn's work. This is a good source. He certainly gets to the point doesn't he?

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 02:19 PM

I love Dunn's work. This is a good source. He certainly gets to the point doesn't he?

Dunn is sober, well informed, and very direct. Always a good read.

sylla1

01-24-2010, 06:43 PM

sylla...we need your definition of Gnosticism. I respectfully ask that you provide your definition as asked by Fortigurn.
Actually, I respectfully point out that I have been repeatedly asking for an operative definition of Gnosticism all along this thread , not offering one.

As previously noted, I need such definition explicitly to determine if there were Gnostics or not before Christianity, as previously stated by other members here.

Thanks for your linked article; I will check it out a little later, with the time and care that it deserves.

My point here is mainly that asseverations are being made on the presence of something that has not been defined yet; far as I can tell, that is impossible.

Kuon

01-24-2010, 07:19 PM

To approach such a definition perhaps we can define the characteristics of Gnostic (heretical) thought as opposed to Christian (orthodox), and perhaps such a starting point would be this excerpt from Hans Jonas' "The Gnostic Religion" (p. 307):

Yes, I think that's a useful starting point. To substantiate your point:So what you're proposing here, to summarise the information from your quotes in that previous post (I can't put the quoted text here for some reason), is that Gnosticism is:

"A mystical system of thought, of Hellenistic influence, incorporating radical dualist principles of matter and spirit in direct opposition to Christian orthodox thought, and that this was based on esoteric intuitive knowledge, known as Gnosis. This system of thought originated from about the 2nd century onwards."

if you think this is a correct summary of the information you have presented, let me know. Then I can make further comments.

I have read your later posts, some interesting information there.

Comet

01-24-2010, 08:24 PM

Thanks for your linked article; I will check it out a little later, with the time and care that it deserves.

No problem. I know you will take the time and care to read it :). Take the time to get a good working definition. If you don't like the one given by Kuon and Fortigurn, use the link to help formulate your own.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 09:09 PM

Actually, I respectfully point out that I have been repeatedly asking for an operative definition of Gnosticism all along this thread , not offering one.

You've been repeatedly given one from the modern scholarly consensus, and you've repeatedly rejected it without explaining why. You keep claiming that there is a definition you prefer, but you can't explain it.

As previously noted, I need such definition explicitly to determine if there were Gnostics or not before Christianity, as previously stated by other members here.

Such a definition was given.

Thanks for your linked article; I will check it out a little later, with the time and care that it deserves.

It's interesting that you're prepared to give such time to an article written in 1911 and not to contemporary scholarship which is far better informed.

My point here is mainly that asseverations are being made on the presence of something that has not been defined yet; far as I can tell, that is impossible.

That is completely false. Gnosticism has been defined, repeatedly, from the relevant scholarly literature. You may dispute the definition, but it is a falsehood to claim a definition has not yet been given.

Fortigurn

01-24-2010, 09:10 PM

Kuon, thanks but until the troll has been dealt with this discussion is going to be repeatedly derailed. I'm not interested in continuing if the conversation is going to be maintained at kindergarten level. PM me if the moderators choose to raise it to the level of adult discourse.

Texadelphos

01-25-2010, 12:06 AM

Kuon, thanks but until the troll has been dealt with this discussion is going to be repeatedly derailed.

I concur.

Pericles

01-25-2010, 03:20 AM

Kuon, thanks but until the troll has been dealt with this discussion is going to be repeatedly derailed. I'm not interested in continuing if the conversation is going to be maintained at kindergarten level.
Fortigurn,

Please don't call people trolls. Name-calling is not permitted in the Religion subforum.

Pericles

01-25-2010, 03:28 AM

You have time to find the definition of Gnosticism; it exists, believe me.
sylla1,

I am repeating Comet's request that you provide your definition of Gnosticism. Fortigurn has already given you his definition. If you think there is a better one, then stop playing these silly cat-and-mouse games and tell us what it is.

Pericles
Historum Administrator

Fortigurn

01-25-2010, 03:41 AM

Fortigurn,

Please don't call people trolls. Name-calling is not permitted in the Religion subforum.

Is there a better name for this kind of behaviour?

crossroadclarence

01-25-2010, 03:47 AM

Fortigurn: Is there a better way you could handle this behaviour without calling names?

We are united on this forum against any sort of slander or personal attacks; discuss ideas, not how you feel about members, please, or all of your data could be tainted with great doubt, especially in a religious arena.

Thanks.

Pericles

01-25-2010, 03:59 AM

Is there a better name for this kind of behaviour?
Fortigurn,

In case you hadn't noticed, I have actually taken your side in this particular dispute. I have asked sylla1 to provide his definition of Gnosticism. All I am asking of you is to be mindful of the civility rule (http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=10490).

Fortigurn

01-25-2010, 04:49 AM

Fortigurn: Is there a better way you could handle this behaviour without calling names?

Apart from:

* Repeatedly answering questions put to me
* Providing extensive quotes from the relevant scholarly literature
* Identifying the scholarly consensus

Apart from that?

We are united on this forum against any sort of slander or personal attacks; discuss ideas, not how you feel about members, please, or all of your data could be tainted with great doubt, especially in a religious arena.

If you are seriously prepared to call into question the scholarly literature I have quoted, simply because I called one of your mates a troll for his behaviour, then this is not a forum which maintains intellectual integrity. It is irrational to say 'You called him a name, therefore James Dunn is wrong!'. Surely you don't mean that.

I am not disputing your rule against name calling. I am prepared to abide by it. What I need to know is if you have an equally strong commitment to intellectually honest behaviour.

I expected this forum to have a higher commitment to intellectual honesty and genuine scholarly endeavour than most. I expected the post content to be of a far higher quality. Instead I find (taking just two threads as an example), posts full of unsubstantiated claims (Edgwaters), random Googling (Edgewaters), pastes of uncritically examined material (Edgewaters and sylla1), thinly disguised rewordings of Wikipedia articles (Edgewaters), a paucity of logical argumentation even to the point that of quoting a site defining a particular logical fallacy and managing to completely misread it (sylla1), and a consistent rejection of relevant scholarly literature (Edgewaters, sylla1), all of which is justified on the grounds of 'freedom of speech'.

Freedom of speech is one issue. Accurate critical analysis of history is another issue. They are not necessarily incompatible, but success with regard to the latter requires establishing standards of discourse which do not permit people to literally say whatever they like.

You're sufficiently aware of that to establish rules against name calling, so I expect you to be equally aware that letting people make whatever unsubstantiated claims they like concerning historical issues, and permitting them to derail discussions with wholesale rejection of relevant scholarly literature, is counterproductive to intelligent discourse on this subject.

Fortigurn,

In case you hadn't noticed, I have actually taken your side in this particular dispute. I have asked sylla1 to provide his definition of Gnosticism. All I am asking of you is to be mindful of the civility rule (http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=10490).

I'm aware of that. I'm not complaining that you've asked me to be mindful of the rules. I'm content to operate within the rules. I have asked you specifically for a description of that behaviour which is within the rules.

Pericles

01-25-2010, 05:00 AM

Fortigurn,

I realize you are very new to Historum, and therefore you probably missed the series of events that led to the creation of the Religion subforum. Please review this thread; it is important that you understand this, because the moderators are taking this matter very seriously:

http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=10424

We have no "description of behaviour which is within the rules." The only behavior that is explicitly forbidden in the Religion subforum is that outlined in the civility rule (http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=10490). Again, I am merely calling it to your attention because it appeared that you may not have been aware of it.

As for a "commitment to intellectual honesty and genuine scholarly endeavour," we do have plans to introduce specific guidelines covering the need to cite sources, and the like. We hope to be announcing those guidelines within the next several weeks.

Fortigurn

01-25-2010, 05:21 AM

Fortigurn,

I realize you are very new to Historum, and therefore you probably missed the series of events that led to the creation of the Religion subforum. Please review this thread; it is important that you understand this, because the moderators are taking this matter very seriously:

Thank you.

We have no "description of behaviour which is within the rules."

My meaning was 'lawful description of the kind of behaviour sylla1 has shown', or 'an accurate description of the kind of behaviour sylla1 has shown, which is within the rules'. It seems 'silly cat and mouse games' is appropriate.

As for a "commitment to intellectual honesty and genuine scholarly endeavour," we do have plans to introduce specific guidelines covering the need to cite sources, and the like. We hope to be announcing those guidelines within the next several weeks.

Thank you again.

Pericles

01-25-2010, 05:32 AM

It seems 'silly cat and mouse games' is appropriate.
It is not appropriate, and the moderators are taking steps to address these problems. Please be patient; we will be announcing a series of new guidelines within the next several weeks.

Fortigurn

01-25-2010, 05:44 AM

It is not appropriate...

I was referring to your description of sylla1's behaviour. It seems that 'silly cat and mouse games' is an appropriate description of sylla1's behaviour.

Kuon

01-25-2010, 05:48 AM

Fortigurn,

I propose that we perhaps wait and see if this issue is resolved, hopefully when sylla1 returns to the thread, before we continue with the discussion.

Fortigurn

01-25-2010, 05:51 AM

Fortigurn,

I propose that we perhaps wait and see if this issue is resolved, hopefully when sylla1 returns to the thread, before we continue with the discussion.

A very good suggestion.

Kuon

01-26-2010, 05:05 AM

sylla1 hasn't returned yet Fortigurn. Shall we continue or wait yet further?

Fortigurn

01-26-2010, 06:54 AM

sylla1 hasn't returned yet Fortigurn. Shall we continue or wait yet further?

Well at this point I think we'd be better off starting a new thread anyway, as our discussion is wildly off topic. I'm sure the mods will keep an eye out for sylla1 to see if he answers the question and addresses the topic properly or not.

Kuon

01-26-2010, 07:12 AM

How about you kick off and do so? Kill two birds with one stone and start your first Historum thread. I've already started a few.

Kuon

01-27-2010, 10:03 AM

This thread will carry on part of the discussion from the The Early Development of Christianity (http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=10590) thread that deviated toward a discussion of Gnosticism, its origins, and what consitutes Gnosticism in contemporary scholarship.
The discussion proper takes shape from around this point (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=184119&postcount=42).

See this post from Fortigurn (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98) for examples of some contemporary scholarly discourse on the idea of pre-Christian Gnosticism (whether it existed or not) and what constitutes Gnosticism. Here is my summary of these quotes for the purpose of attempting to approach a definition for the purposes of this discussion:

So what you're proposing here, to summarise the information from your quotes in that previous post (I can't put the quoted text here for some reason), is that Gnosticism is:

"A mystical system of thought, of Hellenistic influence, incorporating radical dualist principles of matter and spirit in direct opposition to Christian orthodox thought, and that this was based on esoteric intuitive knowledge, known as Gnosis. This system of thought originated from about the 2nd century onwards."

if you think this is a correct summary of the information you have presented, let me know. Then I can make further comments.

I have read your later posts, some interesting information there.

Over to you Fortigurn.

Fortigurn

01-27-2010, 04:03 PM

Thanks. You previously wrote:

To approach such a definition perhaps we can define the characteristics of Gnostic (heretical) thought as opposed to Christian (orthodox), and perhaps such a starting point would be this excerpt from Hans Jonas' "The Gnostic Religion" 9 (p. 307):

'Here is one simple criterion for what is "Christian" (orthodox) or "Gnostic" (heretical): whether the guilt is Adam's or the Archon's, whether human or divine, whether arising in creation or before creation. The difference goes to the heart of the problem.'

Yes, I think that's a useful starting point. I will corroborate your point further with Lüdemann:

The related Gnostic myth can be described as follows. It

depicts the cosmic drama by which the imprisonment of the sparks of light came about, a drama whose end is already beginning now and will be complete when they are released. The drama’s beginning, the tragic event of primeval time, is variously told in several variants of the myth … The demonic powers get into their clutches a person who originates in the light-world either because he is led astray by his own foolishness or because he is overcome in battle … Redemption comes from the heavenly world. Once more a light-person sent by the highest god, indeed the son and the ‘image’ of the most high, comes down from the light-world bringing Gnosis. He ‘wakes’ the sparks of light who have sunk into sleep or drunkenness and ‘reminds’ them of their heavenly home.193

It is in this sense that I will use the term ‘Gnosticism’. First, it is the designation of a specific myth. Secondly, it provides us with the name of a movement that was a rival of the early Christian groups.

Note that it must be a 'specific myth', and a 'rival of the early Christian groups', according to this definition.

I'll follow up with this quote from Dunn.

Of weightier and more enduring influence was the growing History of Religions conviction that Gnosticism, previously regarded as simply a Christian heresy, had much deeper roots, represented a quite independent religious philosophy, and, putting the theory of influence into reverse, had been the source of Christianity’s own theology of salvation.

The high water mark of this particular tide of speculation was Rudolf Bultmann’s famous claim that behind Paul’s christology lay the Gnostic Redeemer myth.31 This was the belief that the human condition was one of imprisonment and ignorance, the spirit within (‘sparks of light’) needing to be enlightened, given knowledge (gnosis) as to its true nature and origin. In the myth, salvation is brought by the ‘light-person’ who enters this lower world to bring the saving, life-giving gnosis.

Bultmann was sure that passages like 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:6–11 and Eph. 4:8–10 reflected the Gnostic myth of the descent and re-ascent of the Gnostic Redeemer.

The problem is that no extant version of the Gnostic Redeemer myth predates Christianity. The Jewish talk of divine Wisdom’s descent to earth (as in Sir. 24:8–12 and 1 Enoch 42) is best seen not as the broken fragment of some complete, earlier myth, but as the sort of building block out of which the later myth was constructed.

The fact that redeemer figures (like Simon Magus) only appear subsequent to Jesus probably indicates that early Christian, not least Pauline christology, was itself another of the building blocks which second-century Gnosticism built into its syncretistic myth.

The Nag Hammadi codices (discovered in 1945) have provided a life-support system for Bultmann’s thesis (particularly The Gospel of Philip 58:17–22; 71:9–17 and The Sophia of Jesus Christ 100–1), but the thesis still depends on the false premise that ‘independent means prior’.

It is hardly to be denied, of course, that Paul shared with his environment language and concepts like ‘knowledge’ (gnosis) and ‘spiritual’ (pneumatikos).

But it is now widely agreed that the quest for a pre-Christian Gnosticism, properly so called, has proved to be a wild goose chase. As with the sacraments, there are far more obvious roots for Paul’s christology, particularly the already well-developed Jewish reflection on Adam and Wisdom.

Kuon

01-27-2010, 06:41 PM

O.K., we have Dunn's educated opinion that pre-Christian Gnosticism did not exist. Could you comment on my summary of your quotes from a previous thread as to a working definition of Gnosticism for the purposes of this discussion, before we go further? Perhaps you could include the excerpts you have taken from scholars you have quoted in the previous thread here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98), as it seems I can't reproduce them myself. Perhaps Logos 4 software has the same sort of copy prevention software as Questia, in that you can't quote the same text a second time.

As here:

To approach such a definition perhaps we can define the characteristics of Gnostic (heretical) thought as opposed to Christian (orthodox)

Yes, I think that's a useful starting point. To substantiate your point:So what you're proposing here, to summarise the information from your quotes in that previous post (I can't put the quoted text here for some reason), is that Gnosticism is:

"A mystical system of thought, of Hellenistic influence, incorporating radical dualist principles of matter and spirit in direct opposition to Christian orthodox thought, and that this was based on esoteric intuitive knowledge, known as Gnosis. This system of thought originated from about the 2nd century onwards."

if you think this is a correct summary of the information you have presented, let me know. Then I can make further comments.

Fortigurn

01-27-2010, 11:36 PM

O.K., we have Dunn's educated opinion that pre-Christian Gnosticism did not exist.

We have Dunn saying that it is 'now widely agreed' that pre-Christian Gnosticism did not exist. Not just Dunn. We also have quotes from Lüdemann, Freedman, and Bromiley saying the same.

Could you comment on my summary of your quotes from a previous thread as to a working definition of Gnosticism for the purposes of this discussion, before we go further?

Yes, that's a reasonable summary.

Perhaps you could include the excerpts you have taken from scholars you have quoted in the previous thread here (http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=187576&postcount=98), as it seems I can't reproduce them myself. Perhaps Logos 4 software has the same sort of copy prevention software as Questia, in that you can't quote the same text a second time.

As here:

I think you'll find that's actually an annoying feature of this forum, like the horrible colours. Here are the quotes again.

I see that the definition of Gnosticism as "...Greek mystic thought which is recognized to have developed from the 2nd century onwards," whilst surely concise and a step toward a consensus for this discussion, is too vague itself. "Greek mysticism" is too broad a term to be suitable as a definition to my mind.

I think it's a usable definition of the topic, it's just not a usable definition of the specific teachings recognized as the body of Gnostic thought. As I said before, not all Greek mysticism was Gnostic, but Gnosticism was a form of Greek mysticism.

To approach such a definition perhaps we can define the characteristics of Gnostic (heretical) thought as opposed to Christian (orthodox), and perhaps such a starting point would be this excerpt from Hans Jonas' "The Gnostic Religion" 9 (p. 307):

Yes, I think that's a useful starting point. To substantiate your point:

Early Christian writers already used the term as a general name for various social groups which were not content with orthodox practices and beliefs otherwise widely accepted.

Radical dualism was a prime factor in the gnostic conceptual framework.

The 2d century is the period of the great gnostic systems and the flourishing of Gnosticism (this term is assigned to this period in particular).

The two essential elements of Gnosticism are (a) cosmological dualism consisting of matter and spirit, the one evil and therefore not created directly by a good spirit, and the other good; and (b) esoteric knowledge, limited to those who are initiated into the gnosis, by which they are able to be “saved,” i.e., freed from evil material existence to enter into pure spiritual life. Both elements have seeming relationships with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Both, however, come into basic conflict with biblical doctrine.

Some modern researchers suggest that several NT and related texts evidence contact with “Gnosticism” in various stages of its development.

Texts that especially stand out are Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude, 2 Peter, and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 115) and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. ca. 165) among others.

But even here the issues discussed are diverse, demonstrating a complex assortment of competing new religious movements, but no evidence of “Gnosticism.”

Further studies of “Jewish Gnosticism” are needed, but nothing will be gained by obscuring the clear distinctions between “Jewish Gnosticism” and the Gnosticism that developed in the Hellenistic world after the 1st cent A.D.

As you can see, I've managed to reinstall Logos 4. You can also see there more references to the fact that 'Gnosticism' as we are discussing it did not precede Christianity. The recent commentary for which I was looking the other day is Lüdemann (2003). He explains how the case for 'pre-Christian Gnosticism' was originally framed by Bultmann, developed by Schmithals, and finally rejected by the scholarly consensus:

Bultmann’s pupil Walter Schmithals took great pains to analyse the penetration of Gnostic teachers into the Pauline churches, thereby putting historical flesh on the bones of his teacher’s general hypothesis of Gnosticism as a rival movement of early Christianity.198

In general, Schmithals’ bold reconstruction, also based on an elaborate partition theory of the Pauline letters,200 has found little assent in scholarship.

To formulate a preliminary conclusion: the thesis of a Gnostic movement that systematically invaded the Pauline communities finds little or no support in the earliest extant letter of Paul, 1 Thessalonians.

Studies of the other Pauline communities (Corinth, Philippi, Galatia) do not yield any different result.203 Scholarship must in all likelihood abandon the hypothesis that a cohesive Gnostic movement204 is reflected in Paul’s letters.

‘The plain truth is that you could not have found anyone in Corinth to direct you to a Gnostic church; the overwhelming probability is that there was no such thing.’205

Indeed, the same negative statement applies to the suggestion that there were Gnostic churches in Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus or in the province of Galatia.

If in all likelihood, with the possible exception of the Simonians, there was no such thing as a rival Gnostic movement within or competing with Pauline Christianity, the question arises whether there ever was a specific Gnostic myth as an entity of its own.

Kuon

01-28-2010, 12:04 AM

O.K. I think we can agree on this definition for the purposes of this discussion. Perhaps the next task may be to look at the various sects from this period and region that can, or cannot, be placed under this definition according to the points laid out in it. And then to look at evidence of the earliest manifestation of these Gnostic sects, in terms of texts and archaeological findings.
I'll return to this tomorrow, it's quite late here now.

Kuon

01-28-2010, 09:49 PM

I think I'll shelve my earlier suggestion and ask whoever is interested to lead off from the following quote:

If you see this as the case, how exactly was the message later distorted by man? I think I perhaps have a general idea when you refer to the various councils but I'd like to get your thoughts on this. What constituted the original form of Christianity to your mind?Simply put? By adding to the original message. Again, we don't have to go any farther than Paul, Peter, Jude (and John now that I think about it) to see evidence of this. The gospels even show Jesus dealing with similar issues among the Jews and the dualistic ideologies that had saturated their religion.

What we see presented in the New Testament. A good starting place is to compare the Apostle's public speeches as told in Acts to show what the original movement believed.Considering what I said here:

To approach such a definition perhaps we can define the characteristics of Gnostic (heretical) thought as opposed to Christian (orthodox), and perhaps such a starting point would be this excerpt from Hans Jonas' "The Gnostic Religion" 9 (p. 307):

'Here is one simple criterion for what is "Christian" (orthodox) or "Gnostic" (heretical): whether the guilt is Adam's or the Archon's, whether human or divine, whether arising in creation or before creation. The difference goes to the heart of the problem.'

Perhaps the next stage would be to attempt to find a definition for orthodoxy which was contemporaneous with the system of Gnosticism that has been outlined here. It would help to test my contention that Gnosticism is the complete inverse counter-cultural system to orthodoxy. Anyone got any thoughts on this, if Texadelphos is correct and the original Christian message was later distorted by man? What was it in the beginning?
I shall be looking over some of the sections of the NT that Texadelphos has mentioned in regard of this and come back to this thread after that.

wittgenstein

01-28-2010, 10:18 PM

"He is defining Gnosticism as a specific myth the precise details of which he describes at length using Bultmann's definition, and which is a rival of early Christian groups."
Fortigurn
Are you saying that there were no early Christian Gnostics? Elaine Pagels would disagree as many other scholars would. Also, why is it just assumed that Jesus ( or the group responsible for the new testament ,if one believes that Jesus did not exist) would have been unfamiliar with Greek thought?

My personal belief ( which of course is open to debate) is that Jesus was influenced by the Greeks and, yes, also Buddhism.* He combined them with Judaism and came up with his own philosophy.
Also linking apocalyptic dogma with Gnosticism is simplistic . Many Christian Gnostic texts were not apocalyptic, the gospel of Thomas being just one example. A literal understanding of poetic metaphor ignores the meaning that was trying to be conveyed.
* It is well known that the area and time that Jesus lived was familiar with Greek and Buddhist thought.

Fortigurn

01-29-2010, 04:31 AM

Fortigurn
Are you saying that there were no early Christian Gnostics?

No, I'm saying that the scholarly consensus is that Gnosticism was not a rival to 1st century Christianity and that the earliest evidence for such Gnostic groups (including Christian Gnostics), dates to the 2nd century.

Elaine Pagels...

I think that's enough.

Also, why is it just assumed that Jesus ( or the group responsible for the new testament ,if one believes that Jesus did not exist) would have been unfamiliar with Greek thought?

No such thing is being assumed.

My personal belief ( which of course is open to debate) is that Jesus was influenced by the Greeks and, yes, also Buddhism.* He combined them with Judaism and came up with his own philosophy.

I'll try not to comment on that.

Also linking apocalyptic dogma with Gnosticism is simplistic.

No one is simplistically linking apocalyptic dogma with Gnosticism.

wittgenstein

01-29-2010, 10:36 AM

The idea of Jesus being influenced ( I am not claiming that Jesus went east, the east came to him in the form of trade routes) by Buddhism seems outrageous. However, it is accepted by many scholars, including Joesph Campbell.
The idea that a knowledgeable person ( Jesus) would be unfamiliar with a doctrine that was well known in his place and time is unlikely. Especially since it involved his favorite subjects, religion and philosophy.

"I think that's enough."
Fortigurn
I'm confused by that statement. Are you impling that Elaine Pagels is not a legitimate scholar?

My contention is that Jesus was familiar with Greek thought and incorporated it into his teachings. In that sense he could be considered the first Christian Gnostic.* I also believe that Christianity is almost the opposite of what Christ taught. See Luke 17;21 . God ( according to Jesus) is to be found inside ( a typical Gnostic teaching) . However, now Jesus is believed to be saying that Satan ( or in general "evil" ) is within us. This was due to its being co-opted by the elites ( Constantine..etc) . They wanted a less sophisticated religion ( that the masses could accept) and one based on a social hierarchy( God-Jesus-King-land owner- common man) .
*Of course in this thread I have noticed a dispute about the definition of Gnostic. I am saying that certain Christian Gnostic ideas ( Demiurge etc) have their origin in Greek thought. And that Jesus being familiar with such ideas may have incorporated them into his teachings.

Perhaps the distaste of many for the idea that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism is based on the misunderstanding that Buddhism is a primitive religion. Technically, Buddhism is not a religion. God, God's, Goddesses etc are not part of the Buddha's teachings. It is like calling quantum mechanics a religion. Of course, over time Buddha's teachings were co-opted by the elites and in many Buddhist sects there are Gods. Buddha's central doctrine was the belief that the self is an illusion. Jesus of course taught that salvation ( or enlightenment) is facilitated by selflessness.

Fortigurn

01-30-2010, 01:21 AM

The idea of Jesus being influenced ( I am not claiming that Jesus went east, the east came to him in the form of trade routes) by Buddhism seems outrageous. However, it is accepted by many scholars, including Joesph Campbell.

Call me when there's a mainstream scholarly consensus.

The idea that a knowledgeable person ( Jesus) would be unfamiliar with a doctrine that was well known in his place and time is unlikely. Especially since it involved his favorite subjects, religion and philosophy.

Do you have any evidence that 1st century Jews sat around discussing Buddhism? Don't you think it's a little more likely that they discussed Judaism?

"I think that's enough."
Fortigurn
I'm confused by that statement. Are you impling that Elaine Pagels is not a legitimate scholar?

I'm saying Pagels is to Gnosticism what Thiering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering) is to the Qumran literature.

Perhaps the distaste of many for the idea that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism is based on the misunderstanding that Buddhism is a primitive religion.

From my point of view it has nothing to do with distaste, and everything to do with simple facts. There's no evidence that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism. There's overwhelming evidence that he started a standard Jewish Messianic sect, founded in the Jewish religious literature.

wittgenstein

01-30-2010, 02:26 AM

"Call me when there's a mainstream scholarly consensus."
Fortigurn
So you are saying that Jesus was informed about Buddhism and Greek thought but chose to ignore it? Or are you making the claim that the area and time that Jesus inhabited did not know about the Greeks and Buddhism?

Fortigurn

01-30-2010, 03:23 AM

"Call me when there's a mainstream scholarly consensus."
Fortigurn
So you are saying that Jesus was informed about Buddhism and Greek thought but chose to ignore it?

Jesus was certainly familiar with Greek thought. The extent to which he was informed about it would be difficult to determine. The average Judean carpenter didn't receive an education in the Greek classics. I am certain he was uninformed with regard to Buddhism. However, his language reflects a typical Jewish theological context.

Paul on the other hand did receive a standard Greek education, and his language reflects it.

Or are you making the claim that the area and time that Jesus inhabited did not know about the Greeks and Buddhism?

Certain people in the area and time of Jesus knew plenty about the Greeks. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone in Judea had any understanding of Buddhism.

wittgenstein

01-30-2010, 07:07 PM

"I have yet to see any evidence that anyone in Judea had any understanding of Buddhism."
Fortigurn
http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/history/hellenistic.htm

As you can see Buddhism was known all over that area and time. ( actually even hundreds of years before that time). It would be absurd to suggest that the Greeks kept their Buddhist knowledge top secret.
People have this idea that the ancients lived in isolated pockets. That is a false belief. There was cultural interaction across vast distances.

"Do you have any evidence that 1st century Jews sat around discussing Buddhism? Don't you think it's a little more likely that they discussed Judaism?"
Fortigurn
I will ignore the attempt at sarcasm. That leaves only an uneducated statement. Of course they talked about Judaism. Whats your point? Do I ever have discussions about the beliefs of other cultures? Of course! As anyone interested in religion and philosophy does.
Also, your idea that only the rich discussed anything of significance is historically inaccurate. Throughout history many great thinkers came from the lower classes.

wittgenstein

01-30-2010, 07:39 PM

Was Jesus a Buddhist?
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/buddhist-christian_studies/v025/25.1hanson.html
Note that the site is produced by Johns Hopkins University and the book is published by the university of Hawaii. In other words we are not talking about new age nonsense. Of course you are free to dispute its claims. What I am saying is that you cannot say that it is an illegitimate source.

Kuon

01-31-2010, 02:52 AM

Also linking apocalyptic dogma with Gnosticism is simplistic . Many Christian Gnostic texts were not apocalyptic, the gospel of Thomas being just one example. A literal understanding of poetic metaphor ignores the meaning that was trying to be conveyed.

I don't think you understood what I meant. I was referring specifically to the possible influence of Judaic apocalyptic literature (exhibiting dualistic features also later associated with Gnosticism in its fully fledged form) on the Book of John from the New Testament, not on Gnostic texts themselves.

The point of contention seems to have been largely that here. The exact definition of Gnosticism. I have been discussing the possible Gnostic-type influences on John, from Jewish apocalyptic literature. The following is an example of my case:

In searching for John's background, the general tendency of recent decades has been to lessen the emphasis on gnosticism and Hellenism and to focus rather on Judaism. The Judaism in question, however, is not simple. Apart from being affected significantly both by Hellenism (Hengel, 1974, 104) and the roots of gnosticism (Fujita, 1986, 193‐ 200), Judaism was in ferment. Qumran was just one symptom of a larger process of searching and rethinking. As Kysar (1985, 2425) concludes: "the Judaism we are seeking to unearth behind the gospel was rooted in the OT and related to the rabbinic movement, but also swayed by 'sectarian' features which might have included apocalyptic, mystical, and Qumranian characteristics." What this in fact suggests is that John has filtered and synthesized virtually the whole spectrum of contemporary Jewish writing and thought. - The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach - Thomas L. Brodie (Oxford University Press, 1993)

This also discussed by Judith L. Kovacs in her paper called: "Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out": Jesus' Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20-36 - http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266937

An excerpt:

We have considered several texts that interpret the life-and especially the death-of Jesus as a crucial juncture in the conflict between God and Satan. I have tried to show that the references to the "casting out" and the "judgment" of the "archon of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30; and 16:11 are part of a more general theme of cosmic conflict, central to Johannine dualism. If this thesis is correct, it suggests a new perspective on the old question of the background and force of the dualistic language in the Gospel of John. Since the time of Bultmann, interpreters of John have tended to look to Gnosticism as the source of such dualistic pairs as light and darkness, above and below, truth and falsehood.26 The parallels in apocalyptic texts, which, unlike Gnostic texts, clearly antedate the Fourth Gospel, have remained largely unexplored.27
There is growing evidence of the continuities between apocalyptic and Gnostic traditions, and it now appears that Jewish apocalyptic played an important role in the development of Gnostic teachings.28 If both the Fourth Gospel and Gnostic texts have been influenced by apocalyptic, we can account for the similarities of the Gospel with Gnosticism without assuming that its author was acquainted with a full-blown Gnostic dualism.29
The remainder of this study will explore parallels between the Fourth Gospel and apocalyptic texts. I shall focus on four themes: cosmic combat, victory and judgment, the Son of Man, and glorification.It seems that there perhaps is a continuity, however, between Judaic apocalytpic literature and Gnositicism. Just not so simplistic maybe.

Also, this discussion is on the origins and definition of Gnosticism, not a speculative thought experiment on possible Buddhist influence on the teachings of a Jewish messiah.

Have you anything to say on the topic proper?

Fortigurn

01-31-2010, 05:54 AM

As you can see Buddhism was known all over that area and time. ( actually even hundreds of years before that time). It would be absurd to suggest that the Greeks kept their Buddhist knowledge top secret.

What you've shown me is that Greeks invading and occupying India were exposed to Buddhism. That's certainly not in dispute. But we're not talking about Greeks in India, we're talking about Jews in Judea.

In terms of real evidence, this is all that's offered:

It is not clear how much these interactions may have been influential, but some authors have commented that some level of syncretism between Hellenist thought and Buddhism may have started in Hellenic lands at that time. They have pointed to the presence of Buddhist communities in the Hellenistic world around that period, in particular in Alexandria (mentioned by Clement of Alexandria), and to the pre-Christian monastic order of the Therapeutae (possibly a deformation of the Pali word "Theravada"), who may have "almost entirely drawn (its) inspiration from the teaching and practices of Buddhist ascetism" (Robert Lissen).

From around 100 BCE, "star within a diadem" symbols, also alternatively described as "eight-spoked wheels" and possibly infuenced by the design of the Buddhist Dharma wheel, appear on the coinage of the Hebrew King Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE).You'll pardon me for pointing out that this hardly substantiates your point. It's also an uninformed commentary. The idea that 'therapeutae' is a deformation of 'Theravada' is totally ridiculous. The word is a totally Greek word, and means 'healing'. We derive our English word 'therapeutic' from it. It's not a 'deformation' of any far eastern word, it's an ordinary Greek word which was in use for a long time before the Greeks went to India. Likewise, there's no evidence whatsoever that the Therapeutae's teaching was drawn from 'Buddhist ascetism', and much evidence to the contrary.

People have this idea that the ancients lived in isolated pockets.I am not one of those people.

I will ignore the attempt at sarcasm.

It wasn't sarcasm. Believe me, when I'm sarcastic you'll know all about it.

Of course they talked about Judaism. Whats your point?My point is that you're not presenting an argument which addresses the evidence economically. The most economical explanation of Jesus is that he was a 1st century itinerant Jewish messianic prophet, drawing from the theological tradition of his ethnic and religious group, just like all the other 1st century itinerant Jewish messianic prophets. There is no reason whatever to import Buddhism into this situation. Your theory piles speculation on speculation, has no historical evidence to support it, and is contradicted by the available proximate sources for Jesus' life.

Do I ever have discussions about the beliefs of other cultures? Of course! As anyone interested in religion and philosophy does.You are projecting your 21st century Western attitudes onto 1st century Jews.

Also, your idea that only the rich discussed anything of significance is historically inaccurate.I didn't say anything of the kind.

Was Jesus a Buddhist?Note that the site is produced by Johns Hopkins University and the book is published by the university of Hawaii. In other words we are not talking about new age nonsense. Of course you are free to dispute its claims. What I am saying is that you cannot say that it is an illegitimate source.

It's a great source. However, I will dispute its claims:

And there is convincing evidence that he was also a Buddhist.Let me know when the scholarly consensus finds this convincing.

The evidence follows two independent lines -- the first is historical, and the second is textual. Historical evidence indicates that Jesus was well acquainted with Buddhism. If Jesus did not go to India, then at least India went to Judea and Jesus. The real historical question is not if he studied Buddhism, but where and how much he studied Buddhism, especially during his so-called "lost years."This is not 'historical evidence'. It's an appeal by a preconceived theory, to legends written centuries after Jesus lived, for which there is no historical evidence whatsoever. Are we really supposed to believe that in the years before he was 30, Jesus the Jewish son of a Jewish carpenter traveled all the way to India for reasons best known to himself, studied Buddhism, and then returned to Judea to preach Judaism?

Historical accounts aside, many textual analyses indicate striking similarities between what was said by Jesus and by Buddha and between the prophetic legend of Jesus and ancient Buddhist texts. The conclusion is that, although not identifying himself as a Buddhist for good reasons, Jesus spoke like a Buddhist. The similarities are so striking that, even if no historical evidence existed, we can suspect that Jesus studied Buddhist teachings and that the prophecy and legend of Jesus was derived from Buddhist stories.This is called parallelomania (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/parallelomania_sandmel.pdf) (see also here (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/dss/abstracts/parallels/)). It's significant that this paragraph ignores completely all the 'striking similarities' between 1st century itinerant Jewish messianic prophets and Jesus, and all the 'similarities' between what Jesus said and the extant Jewish theological writings and commentaries of the 1st century.

wittgenstein

01-31-2010, 12:25 PM

"The most economical explanation of Jesus is that he was a 1st century itinerant Jewish messianic prophet, drawing from the theological tradition of his ethnic and religious group,"
Fortigurn
I do not disagree with the above. However, I am also saying that it would be unusual for a person interested in religion and philosophy ( such as Jesus) to ignore and be uninformed about competing ideologies.

"It's significant that this paragraph ignores completely all the 'striking similarities' between 1st century itinerant Jewish messianic prophets and Jesus, and all the 'similarities' between what Jesus said and the extant Jewish theological writings and commentaries of the 1st century."
Fortigurn
I am totally confused by that statement. The authors of the book never questioned that Jesus was Jewish and the book is not about proving that Jesus was Jewish, why would they want to prove that Jesus was Jewish? The book is part of academia. The book's readers would laugh if the thesis of the paper was that Jesus was Jewish. It would be like a paper proving that the sun is a star. Also, finding similarities in writing style, doctrines etc, is a well respected research technique.* Also, the authors made the point that it is not just similarities that they are giving in the book but also historical facts.

Perhaps you are confused and think that the book is saying that Jesus said that he was Buddhist. The book says the opposite. However, it is making the claim that Jesus incorporated some Buddhist ideas into his doctrine. This is not unusual. Philosophers integrate new ideas from other cultures into their belief system all the time.

* The sites you gave are not saying that finding parallels is strictly forbidden or that it is not a legitimate research technique. They are saying that one must be careful when making the connections.

"This is not 'historical evidence'. It's an appeal by a preconceived theory, to legends written centuries after Jesus lived, for which there is no historical evidence whatsoever. Are we really supposed to believe that in the years before he was 30, Jesus the Jewish son of a Jewish carpenter traveled all the way to India for reasons best known to himself,"
Fortigurn
Perhaps you did not thoroughly read the paragraph you cited. It says explicitly that it is UNNECESSARY to believe that Jesus traveled to India

Fortigurn thank you for this interesting debate. However, Kuon is right, we are straying from the topic of this thread. I will start a new thread titled " Was Jesus influenced by Buddhism?"