Original post: hallucinogen2
Here they are:
1.) Gnosticism was around before Christianity? I believe I heard various groups residing in Egytian and Jewish culture were Gnostics.
2.) Do you have to be Christian to be a Gnostic?
3.) Are there a great diversity in Gnostic groups varying from region to region? I have always known Gnostics to practice extreme forms of austerity such as fasting in order to ween their souls out of matter. Then I heard of Gnostics practicing sex magic which is quit startling to me.
4.) What's the Gnostic view on sex?
5.) Most important question: Gnosticism seems strikingly similar to Jainism. What are the differences? Jains believe in reincarnation- do gnostics? This world was created by a Demiurge- what will happen if a soul does not successfully escape matter in this world when s/he dies? Where do they go? Reborn?
6.) Do Gnostics see matter as evil that needs to be escaped (as the Jains adhere to) or do they believe that, on an ultimate sense, matter is an illusion and therefore does not need to be escaped but one's perception must change to see the energy that consists matter as inherently pure (as the Buddhists adhere to)?
7.) What is heaven?
8.) Was Jesus God, a manifestion of God? I know Christian Gnostics do not believe that he existed in an ethereal body, not one made of matter.
9.) What is God?
Again these are scholarly questions, not personal philosophical questions. So when you answer these questions please provide a consise historical answer. For instance, if you answer the ninth question as "I am searching for what God is" than you are not understanding how I am approaching this subject.
Thanks for the help.
Scholarly type questions
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Hey hallucinogen2 To deal with some of you questions in a purely academic context may give you some answers you didn't expect... perhaps in some cases I will expand outside the formal question a little in order to present a modern aspect that you seem to be asking about as well. You'll see what I mean.
1) There is some debate as to when Gnosticism began. Petrement speculated that Gnosticism didn't exist until the 2nd century c.e., which would mean it doesn't predate Christianity. However, thought this theory does get repeated now and again, we do have record of Gnosticism long before this. The more likely date is within the first 2 centuries b.c.e., as Dr Pearson demonstrates. Understand, there simply is no solid proof for an exact date for when Gnosticism starts, other than the vague era of the "late antiquities". More specifically, we simply take the first known movements, as well as demonstration of related movements in the areas where various texts or sects can be traced, and assume a few dacades to a century of development period (one thing that is very well demonstrated in Gnostic beliefs is that they did take some development, rather than just appearing).
2) There are two ways to use the term "Christian". The modern usage refers to a religion in which Jesus plays a primary role. Not all Gnostic sects believed in Jesus, and not all Gnostic texts mention Jesus. In fact, even some of the ones that do mention Jesus do so only as an after thought, with the name probably being added later.
However, there were many groups in this early era (not only Gnostics and Christians) who used the term "christ" for various meanings. Even Gnostic groups that don't believe in Jesus have a sense of the notion of "Christhood", and a "Logos".... so you could, if you want to be very technical, call them "christian" I suppose.
3) Well, there WERE a large diversity of Gnostic groups. In your second question you ask about being Gnostic in a present tense, and in this question you also state a present tense. Let me point out that if you want the academic answers, then part of that academic answer is that there is no such thing as a "Gnostic" alive today. However, there are many groups and individuals out there that find themselves in agreement with the spiritual and philosophical outlook of ancient Gnosticism.
As far as the practices you ask about, asceticism then sex magick, would be curious to know your sources so I can answer these points a bit more particularly directed at them. Many people attribute extreme ascetic practicies to Gnosticism based on the mistaken view that Manichaeans were Gnostic.... they were not.
On the other hand, there really is no solid evidence of any historical Gnostic group ever practicing sex magick either.
4) the Gnostic view on sex seems varried to some extent, but within a certain context. Heresiological works to accuse some Gnostic groups of being sexually libertine, often while claiming that they pretend to be against sex. In most cases this does not come from personal observation, but from what is supposedly being gleaned from Gnostic texts. The problem is that these heresiologists, like Irenaeus, either seem to have had a poor understanding of what they were reading, or in some cases maybe even knowingly twisted them.
In some of the Nag Hammadi texts there are definate ascetic tendencies, though in most cases the real attackes are intended against procreation rather than sex itself. To really deal with the issue though we would have to talk about it sect by sect... not as a single cohesive "Gnostic" belief.
5) Manichaeans (which are not technically Gnostic) certainly do have some similarities with Jainism. May I ask which specific Gnostic text or sect you found to be similar to what you see in Jainism?
The subject of reincarnation is a long one, I think I better save it for another post. There are some complex variotions on this theme, but reincarnation as it is generally understood is not a belief attested to in Gnostic writings.
The rest of your questions are interesting, but perhaps we should deal with them a few at a time (this post is already long enough).
PMCV
Hey hallucinogen2 To deal with some of you questions in a purely academic context may give you some answers you didn't expect... perhaps in some cases I will expand outside the formal question a little in order to present a modern aspect that you seem to be asking about as well. You'll see what I mean.
1) There is some debate as to when Gnosticism began. Petrement speculated that Gnosticism didn't exist until the 2nd century c.e., which would mean it doesn't predate Christianity. However, thought this theory does get repeated now and again, we do have record of Gnosticism long before this. The more likely date is within the first 2 centuries b.c.e., as Dr Pearson demonstrates. Understand, there simply is no solid proof for an exact date for when Gnosticism starts, other than the vague era of the "late antiquities". More specifically, we simply take the first known movements, as well as demonstration of related movements in the areas where various texts or sects can be traced, and assume a few dacades to a century of development period (one thing that is very well demonstrated in Gnostic beliefs is that they did take some development, rather than just appearing).
2) There are two ways to use the term "Christian". The modern usage refers to a religion in which Jesus plays a primary role. Not all Gnostic sects believed in Jesus, and not all Gnostic texts mention Jesus. In fact, even some of the ones that do mention Jesus do so only as an after thought, with the name probably being added later.
However, there were many groups in this early era (not only Gnostics and Christians) who used the term "christ" for various meanings. Even Gnostic groups that don't believe in Jesus have a sense of the notion of "Christhood", and a "Logos".... so you could, if you want to be very technical, call them "christian" I suppose.
3) Well, there WERE a large diversity of Gnostic groups. In your second question you ask about being Gnostic in a present tense, and in this question you also state a present tense. Let me point out that if you want the academic answers, then part of that academic answer is that there is no such thing as a "Gnostic" alive today. However, there are many groups and individuals out there that find themselves in agreement with the spiritual and philosophical outlook of ancient Gnosticism.
As far as the practices you ask about, asceticism then sex magick, would be curious to know your sources so I can answer these points a bit more particularly directed at them. Many people attribute extreme ascetic practicies to Gnosticism based on the mistaken view that Manichaeans were Gnostic.... they were not.
On the other hand, there really is no solid evidence of any historical Gnostic group ever practicing sex magick either.
4) the Gnostic view on sex seems varried to some extent, but within a certain context. Heresiological works to accuse some Gnostic groups of being sexually libertine, often while claiming that they pretend to be against sex. In most cases this does not come from personal observation, but from what is supposedly being gleaned from Gnostic texts. The problem is that these heresiologists, like Irenaeus, either seem to have had a poor understanding of what they were reading, or in some cases maybe even knowingly twisted them.
In some of the Nag Hammadi texts there are definate ascetic tendencies, though in most cases the real attackes are intended against procreation rather than sex itself. To really deal with the issue though we would have to talk about it sect by sect... not as a single cohesive "Gnostic" belief.
5) Manichaeans (which are not technically Gnostic) certainly do have some similarities with Jainism. May I ask which specific Gnostic text or sect you found to be similar to what you see in Jainism?
The subject of reincarnation is a long one, I think I better save it for another post. There are some complex variotions on this theme, but reincarnation as it is generally understood is not a belief attested to in Gnostic writings.
The rest of your questions are interesting, but perhaps we should deal with them a few at a time (this post is already long enough).
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: hallucinogen2
Thanks for the help PCMV. I know the Manicheans syncretized a lot of religious philosophy into their beliefs (Buddhism, Christianity, and others I cannot remember). So they are the ones who fasted, not the Gnostics? I have heard that Gnostics generally fasted to ween their souls out of matter (which struck me as Jainist). If they didn't fast, what was their main method of practice?
Also, there are a lot of Gospels that are considered Gnostic (ex. Gospel of Thomas). Are these Gnostic gospels because people like Thomas claimed to be Gnostic or because scholars today categorize these gospels as Gnostic based on the philosophy the texts or gospels promote?
Please answer the other questions at your convenience. The latter ones are equally important. I know I posed a lot questions.
Peace
Thanks for the help PCMV. I know the Manicheans syncretized a lot of religious philosophy into their beliefs (Buddhism, Christianity, and others I cannot remember). So they are the ones who fasted, not the Gnostics? I have heard that Gnostics generally fasted to ween their souls out of matter (which struck me as Jainist). If they didn't fast, what was their main method of practice?
Also, there are a lot of Gospels that are considered Gnostic (ex. Gospel of Thomas). Are these Gnostic gospels because people like Thomas claimed to be Gnostic or because scholars today categorize these gospels as Gnostic based on the philosophy the texts or gospels promote?
Please answer the other questions at your convenience. The latter ones are equally important. I know I posed a lot questions.
Peace
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: hallucinogen2
In addition to my last message, the Gnostics believed that the serpant in the story of Adam and Eve was the good guy, and that the god who created the paradise was a false god. These are definitely Christian themes. Is this historically accurate as well?
In addition to my last message, the Gnostics believed that the serpant in the story of Adam and Eve was the good guy, and that the god who created the paradise was a false god. These are definitely Christian themes. Is this historically accurate as well?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Hey hallucinogen2
First let me point out that we have to be careful about calling the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic". The Coptic version certainly contains Gnostic attributes, but some have argued whether they would contain the same elements if we had the complete Greek. The problem with that is that the portions we do have, the Oxyrhynchus fragments, display the same Gnostic elements so there really is nothing to support the argument that the portions we don't have would leave that Gnostic thought behind.
Of course, the reason for postulating the non-Gnostic nature of non-existing portions has largely come from people who are uncomfortable with the fact that Thomas is old enough to compete with the accepted Gospels, with John even possibly having been written as an attack on Thomas (so that Thomas predates John).
So, to get to your question more directly, Thomas is called "Gnostic" because scholars see the person who wrote it as fitting in this philosophical context, not because the author claimed to be Gnostic. In fact, there is no record of any person in ANY Gnostic text using the term "Gnostic" to describe themselves. It seems very few of these groups actually used the term..... just as "Neanderthals" did not call themselves by that name.
Modern groups that call themselves "Gnostic" do so either because of thier own interperatation of the definition of the term, or because they are interested in the category outlined by scholors.
Second, let me point out that it is not true that "Gnostics", in general, believed that the serpent in the garden was good. Some did use this as a literary device, others did not. For instance, we could take a number of sources and point out exactly how they deal with the subject.
Naasense= obviously dealt with a positive slant.
Gospel of Philip= Negative serpent.
Tripartite Tractate= Negative Serpent
Apoc of John= Negative
Origin of the World= Positive
Dr Williams actually gives a longer list that I have used in part here.... the point being that there are some sources that place a negative spin on the serpent, while others place a positive one. It is false to say that "Gnostics said the serpent is good".
Sorry, I meant to get back to your other questions tonight, but I think I will have to do it later in the week.
PMCV
Hey hallucinogen2
First let me point out that we have to be careful about calling the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic". The Coptic version certainly contains Gnostic attributes, but some have argued whether they would contain the same elements if we had the complete Greek. The problem with that is that the portions we do have, the Oxyrhynchus fragments, display the same Gnostic elements so there really is nothing to support the argument that the portions we don't have would leave that Gnostic thought behind.
Of course, the reason for postulating the non-Gnostic nature of non-existing portions has largely come from people who are uncomfortable with the fact that Thomas is old enough to compete with the accepted Gospels, with John even possibly having been written as an attack on Thomas (so that Thomas predates John).
So, to get to your question more directly, Thomas is called "Gnostic" because scholars see the person who wrote it as fitting in this philosophical context, not because the author claimed to be Gnostic. In fact, there is no record of any person in ANY Gnostic text using the term "Gnostic" to describe themselves. It seems very few of these groups actually used the term..... just as "Neanderthals" did not call themselves by that name.
Modern groups that call themselves "Gnostic" do so either because of thier own interperatation of the definition of the term, or because they are interested in the category outlined by scholors.
Second, let me point out that it is not true that "Gnostics", in general, believed that the serpent in the garden was good. Some did use this as a literary device, others did not. For instance, we could take a number of sources and point out exactly how they deal with the subject.
Naasense= obviously dealt with a positive slant.
Gospel of Philip= Negative serpent.
Tripartite Tractate= Negative Serpent
Apoc of John= Negative
Origin of the World= Positive
Dr Williams actually gives a longer list that I have used in part here.... the point being that there are some sources that place a negative spin on the serpent, while others place a positive one. It is false to say that "Gnostics said the serpent is good".
Sorry, I meant to get back to your other questions tonight, but I think I will have to do it later in the week.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: hallucinogen2
Thanks PMCV. Helps clarify a lot of misconceptions I have had. So "gnosticism" did not really exist until modern scholars created the term(?).
Thanks PMCV. Helps clarify a lot of misconceptions I have had. So "gnosticism" did not really exist until modern scholars created the term(?).
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Hallucinogen2, you ask....
Hmmm, well, I would not put it quite that way myself, but yes, that is pretty much right. Horses exist without anyone having to have created a name for them... they exist in thier own right. "Gnosticism" is a modern term that did not exist in the time of the movements the term is talking about. However, the essential concept of the relationship that these movements had was recognized.
Now, you may think I am splitting hairs.....
There is a difference between the term "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" that goes beyond the obvious grammatical one. While most of the groups we call "Gnostic" did not call themselves by that name, a few did. When we call it "Gnosticism" we group them together by certain attributes that makes these groups look like a sort of "movement". It is not completely accurate to lump them together, but it is not completely inaccurate either. Ok, I know I am starting to sound vague, so let me point out that these commonalities are something that was recognized even in the time of the "Gnostics"... so the concept is not something invented by modern scholors... it is only the word that is new. Does that make sense?
For instance, heresiologists, like Irenaeus, used these common beliefs as an attack on the groups in questions... it was his way to lump them together. On the other hand, various Gnostic groups themselves seemed to understand the connections enough that they used each others texts sometimes.
Why is it that I only feel I am making the subject confusing right now *lol*.?.
Let me get to your other questions and we can get back to this one if I did a poor job of outlining it.
PMCV
Hallucinogen2, you ask....
Thanks PMCV. Helps clarify a lot of misconceptions I have had. So "gnosticism" did not really exist until modern scholars created the term(?).
Hmmm, well, I would not put it quite that way myself, but yes, that is pretty much right. Horses exist without anyone having to have created a name for them... they exist in thier own right. "Gnosticism" is a modern term that did not exist in the time of the movements the term is talking about. However, the essential concept of the relationship that these movements had was recognized.
Now, you may think I am splitting hairs.....
There is a difference between the term "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" that goes beyond the obvious grammatical one. While most of the groups we call "Gnostic" did not call themselves by that name, a few did. When we call it "Gnosticism" we group them together by certain attributes that makes these groups look like a sort of "movement". It is not completely accurate to lump them together, but it is not completely inaccurate either. Ok, I know I am starting to sound vague, so let me point out that these commonalities are something that was recognized even in the time of the "Gnostics"... so the concept is not something invented by modern scholors... it is only the word that is new. Does that make sense?
For instance, heresiologists, like Irenaeus, used these common beliefs as an attack on the groups in questions... it was his way to lump them together. On the other hand, various Gnostic groups themselves seemed to understand the connections enough that they used each others texts sometimes.
Why is it that I only feel I am making the subject confusing right now *lol*.?.
Let me get to your other questions and we can get back to this one if I did a poor job of outlining it.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Ok, the rest of the questions.....
The answer is, yes.... and no.
Various Gnostic sects described a greater or lesser degree of "evil" to matter. It is true that all Gnostic sects considered matter to be something less than the spiritual goal, but not all of them outline it as completely "evil". In BOTH cases matter is something that needs to be escaped, and perception is a primary key to that escape. It is not completely accurate to compare this to either Jains or Buddhists, the Gnostic belief system is not simply an expression of one of these other movements. In Gnostic texts, matter is sometimes outlined as a sort of illusion (consider for instance the way it is described in the Tripartite Tractate) because it is transitory as compared to the true absolute source.... but it is also deathly real in that it is a stumbling block for our cognitave process.
No Gnostic source I can think of outlines a "Heaven" in the way that most people understand it. Remember, the Gnostic desire is to leave the perceptual field. There is no good or evil, up or down, dark or light, in the Gnostic notion of "spirit". I know some modern sources state that Gnosticism is "dualist" but in fact that is quite false. Various Gnostic texts go to great lengths to try an explain an absolute non-dualist understanding of the prime spiritual source.... consider both the fragments of Basilides, and once again the Tripartite Tractate's second section. As Thomas says.... the Kingdom is right here, but men don't see it. Heaven, depending on what you are talking about, is either something you better find now, or it is your own non-existance.
Not completely true. What you are talking about is called "Docetism", and it is true that this seems to exist in some Gnostic outlines. However, consider also the Gospel of Philip where there is also an "Adoptionist" view. It is not a specific belief of "Gnostics" that Jesus lacked a physical body. In fact, not all Gnostics even cared about Jesus one way or another. Not all Gnostics were "Christian".
This is a double question. WHen you ask "what is God", do you mean the Demiurge? Or, do you mean the Unknowable source? The Bythos. The term "God" usually implies a deity, so that in the Gnostic perspective "God" is an evil, or at least ignorant, creater that people mistakenly worship. Jews, Moslems, Christians, Wiccans, "Pagans", all would be equally considered to be misled by this false "God" who appeals to those who desire practical results from some kind of interaction with deity.
On the other hand, Gnostics believe in a single apophatic point of origin. It would be false to call this a "God" (Basilides calls it a sort of non-God), but perhaps some would use the term for it all the same.
PMCV
Ok, the rest of the questions.....
6.) Do Gnostics see matter as evil that needs to be escaped (as the Jains adhere to) or do they believe that, on an ultimate sense, matter is an illusion and therefore does not need to be escaped but one's perception must change to see the energy that consists matter as inherently pure (as the Buddhists adhere to)?
The answer is, yes.... and no.
Various Gnostic sects described a greater or lesser degree of "evil" to matter. It is true that all Gnostic sects considered matter to be something less than the spiritual goal, but not all of them outline it as completely "evil". In BOTH cases matter is something that needs to be escaped, and perception is a primary key to that escape. It is not completely accurate to compare this to either Jains or Buddhists, the Gnostic belief system is not simply an expression of one of these other movements. In Gnostic texts, matter is sometimes outlined as a sort of illusion (consider for instance the way it is described in the Tripartite Tractate) because it is transitory as compared to the true absolute source.... but it is also deathly real in that it is a stumbling block for our cognitave process.
7.) What is heaven?
No Gnostic source I can think of outlines a "Heaven" in the way that most people understand it. Remember, the Gnostic desire is to leave the perceptual field. There is no good or evil, up or down, dark or light, in the Gnostic notion of "spirit". I know some modern sources state that Gnosticism is "dualist" but in fact that is quite false. Various Gnostic texts go to great lengths to try an explain an absolute non-dualist understanding of the prime spiritual source.... consider both the fragments of Basilides, and once again the Tripartite Tractate's second section. As Thomas says.... the Kingdom is right here, but men don't see it. Heaven, depending on what you are talking about, is either something you better find now, or it is your own non-existance.
8.) Was Jesus God, a manifestion of God? I know Christian Gnostics do not believe that he existed in an ethereal body, not one made of matter.
Not completely true. What you are talking about is called "Docetism", and it is true that this seems to exist in some Gnostic outlines. However, consider also the Gospel of Philip where there is also an "Adoptionist" view. It is not a specific belief of "Gnostics" that Jesus lacked a physical body. In fact, not all Gnostics even cared about Jesus one way or another. Not all Gnostics were "Christian".
9.) What is God?
This is a double question. WHen you ask "what is God", do you mean the Demiurge? Or, do you mean the Unknowable source? The Bythos. The term "God" usually implies a deity, so that in the Gnostic perspective "God" is an evil, or at least ignorant, creater that people mistakenly worship. Jews, Moslems, Christians, Wiccans, "Pagans", all would be equally considered to be misled by this false "God" who appeals to those who desire practical results from some kind of interaction with deity.
On the other hand, Gnostics believe in a single apophatic point of origin. It would be false to call this a "God" (Basilides calls it a sort of non-God), but perhaps some would use the term for it all the same.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: hallucinogen2
Okay so it was the group/philosophy of Docetism that reported Jesus in an ethereal body.
the term 'gnosticism' refers to the movement of a certain philosophy, and is a term given to a plethora of groups we call 'gnostic', some of whom had more in common with other groups than not.
the term 'gnostic' was recognized by some groups that existed "back then" but some groups did not label themselves anything (although modern scholars label them gnostics). Am I getting this down now?
Concerning God, gnostics (using a very general label here) generally believe that all gods worshipped in any religion is a false god. Thus, not only the god of the old and new testament, and the god of the Quran would be false, but also the Hindu gods, Buddhist pantheon, Daoist pantheon, and different pagan groups would also be considered false gods because they place a false sense of hierarchy that truly does not exist in the cosmos...right? It is not that the Gnostics were a group of people who placed the traditional metaphysical view upside down, they just simply claim that all gods and goddesses are inherently false and provide obstacles (in the ultimate sense) for the individual to gain freedom from matter and dissolve back to the source.
Again, the gnostic groups (in general, not all) do not adhere to the notion that matter is fundamentally evil (although some sects did, and we can possibly draw some parallels between Jainism and these sects). Some posit that it is simply an obstacle, others believe that it is simply an illusion and is therefore neither good nor evil, and simply "is" and we have to recognize it for what we are truly existing in....a dream.
Please clarify any misconceptions. I got to sit down and soak all this up. I also need to pick up a book concerning Gnosticism. Do you recommend any good beginners books that deals with "gnosticism" in a scholarly fashion? What about any popular holy books that certain gnostic groups maintained?
Thanks a million for your patience and answers.
Okay so it was the group/philosophy of Docetism that reported Jesus in an ethereal body.
the term 'gnosticism' refers to the movement of a certain philosophy, and is a term given to a plethora of groups we call 'gnostic', some of whom had more in common with other groups than not.
the term 'gnostic' was recognized by some groups that existed "back then" but some groups did not label themselves anything (although modern scholars label them gnostics). Am I getting this down now?
Concerning God, gnostics (using a very general label here) generally believe that all gods worshipped in any religion is a false god. Thus, not only the god of the old and new testament, and the god of the Quran would be false, but also the Hindu gods, Buddhist pantheon, Daoist pantheon, and different pagan groups would also be considered false gods because they place a false sense of hierarchy that truly does not exist in the cosmos...right? It is not that the Gnostics were a group of people who placed the traditional metaphysical view upside down, they just simply claim that all gods and goddesses are inherently false and provide obstacles (in the ultimate sense) for the individual to gain freedom from matter and dissolve back to the source.
Again, the gnostic groups (in general, not all) do not adhere to the notion that matter is fundamentally evil (although some sects did, and we can possibly draw some parallels between Jainism and these sects). Some posit that it is simply an obstacle, others believe that it is simply an illusion and is therefore neither good nor evil, and simply "is" and we have to recognize it for what we are truly existing in....a dream.
Please clarify any misconceptions. I got to sit down and soak all this up. I also need to pick up a book concerning Gnosticism. Do you recommend any good beginners books that deals with "gnosticism" in a scholarly fashion? What about any popular holy books that certain gnostic groups maintained?
Thanks a million for your patience and answers.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Ok, hallucinogen2, let me point out that while your post is short.... some of the points would take a very long time to deal with completely. Please don't take my answers as full answers, they are simply quick treatments of the subject.
Yes, and some Gnostics seem to have been Docetists, there also seem to be adoptionist (Jesus is human, adopted at his baptism) elements... and sometimes in the same texts. This may sound very strange, but there is an explination for it.
Hmm, yeah... if I understand you then yes. But would than not apply to any religious outline?
Yes, of the many groups back then that we call "Gnostic" it seems only a few (three, four, five... that range out of perhaps hundreds that existed) do we actually have evidence of them calling themselves Gnostic
Well, sort of. The Christian Gnostics, like Valentinians, tended to say that the "God" of Jesus was not the God of the Old Testement. Remember, the "New Testement" did not actually exist yet. The point here is about worship and physical gain vs recognition of an absolute infinity. I don't want to create the idea that Gnostics were atheists (though they were called such), because that is not true exactly. There IS a spiritual realm in Gnostic thought.
Yes. The only thing that I think I would be careful about there is the notion of existance bing a "dream". To some extent all Gnostic sects saw the world as an illusion (or perhaps more accurately a lie), but never did this equate with some kind of solipsism.
If you want actual "Gnostic" scripture, your best bet is (of course) the Nag Hammadi library. However, let me point out that only some of these texts are actually "Gnostic". It is, though, THE basic collection of texts written by early Gnostics. Also, if you look up at the top of this forum you will find a thread dealing with books to read.... most of the ones I list are academic. Also, you will find a lexicon that I wrote, perhaps it will be of some help.
PMCV
Ok, hallucinogen2, let me point out that while your post is short.... some of the points would take a very long time to deal with completely. Please don't take my answers as full answers, they are simply quick treatments of the subject.
Okay so it was the group/philosophy of Docetism that reported Jesus in an ethereal body.
Yes, and some Gnostics seem to have been Docetists, there also seem to be adoptionist (Jesus is human, adopted at his baptism) elements... and sometimes in the same texts. This may sound very strange, but there is an explination for it.
the term 'gnosticism' refers to the movement of a certain philosophy, and is a term given to a plethora of groups we call 'gnostic', some of whom had more in common with other groups than not.
Hmm, yeah... if I understand you then yes. But would than not apply to any religious outline?
the term 'gnostic' was recognized by some groups that existed "back then" but some groups did not label themselves anything (although modern scholars label them gnostics). Am I getting this down now?
Yes, of the many groups back then that we call "Gnostic" it seems only a few (three, four, five... that range out of perhaps hundreds that existed) do we actually have evidence of them calling themselves Gnostic
Concerning God, gnostics (using a very general label here) generally believe that all gods worshipped in any religion is a false god. Thus, not only the god of the old and new testament, and the god of the Quran would be false, but also the Hindu gods, Buddhist pantheon, Daoist pantheon, and different pagan groups would also be considered false gods because they place a false sense of hierarchy that truly does not exist in the cosmos...right? It is not that the Gnostics were a group of people who placed the traditional metaphysical view upside down, they just simply claim that all gods and goddesses are inherently false and provide obstacles (in the ultimate sense) for the individual to gain freedom from matter and dissolve back to the source.
Well, sort of. The Christian Gnostics, like Valentinians, tended to say that the "God" of Jesus was not the God of the Old Testement. Remember, the "New Testement" did not actually exist yet. The point here is about worship and physical gain vs recognition of an absolute infinity. I don't want to create the idea that Gnostics were atheists (though they were called such), because that is not true exactly. There IS a spiritual realm in Gnostic thought.
Again, the gnostic groups (in general, not all) do not adhere to the notion that matter is fundamentally evil (although some sects did, and we can possibly draw some parallels between Jainism and these sects). Some posit that it is simply an obstacle, others believe that it is simply an illusion and is therefore neither good nor evil, and simply "is" and we have to recognize it for what we are truly existing in....a dream.
Yes. The only thing that I think I would be careful about there is the notion of existance bing a "dream". To some extent all Gnostic sects saw the world as an illusion (or perhaps more accurately a lie), but never did this equate with some kind of solipsism.
Please clarify any misconceptions. I got to sit down and soak all this up. I also need to pick up a book concerning Gnosticism. Do you recommend any good beginners books that deals with "gnosticism" in a scholarly fashion? What about any popular holy books that certain gnostic groups maintained?
If you want actual "Gnostic" scripture, your best bet is (of course) the Nag Hammadi library. However, let me point out that only some of these texts are actually "Gnostic". It is, though, THE basic collection of texts written by early Gnostics. Also, if you look up at the top of this forum you will find a thread dealing with books to read.... most of the ones I list are academic. Also, you will find a lexicon that I wrote, perhaps it will be of some help.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: visceral/spagyrical
[QUOTE="pmcv"]Hmmm, well, I would not put it quite that way myself, but yes, that is pretty much right. Horses exist without anyone having to have created a name for them... they exist in thier own right. "Gnosticism" is a modern term that did not exist in the time of the movements the term is talking about. However, the essential concept of the relationship that these movements had was recognized.[/QUOTE] Two questions:
1). Do we know what they called themselves, if anything?
2). If we do know, then why do we call them Gnostics, instead?
Thanks.
v/s
[QUOTE="pmcv"]Hmmm, well, I would not put it quite that way myself, but yes, that is pretty much right. Horses exist without anyone having to have created a name for them... they exist in thier own right. "Gnosticism" is a modern term that did not exist in the time of the movements the term is talking about. However, the essential concept of the relationship that these movements had was recognized.[/QUOTE] Two questions:
1). Do we know what they called themselves, if anything?
2). If we do know, then why do we call them Gnostics, instead?
Thanks.
v/s
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Hey V/S
Good questions
1) yes, in many cases we do know what they called themselves, in many cases we don't. Many simply called themselves "Christians" etc., not destinguishing themselves from the larger group. Many, on the other hand had secterian names for themselves like, Naasenes.
2) The reason we use the term "Gnostics" to talk about them is because they have specific relationships to each other and we don't have any other name to describe that relationship
*lol*. One of the main aspects of that relationship is the fact that salvation is found in Gnosis, and voila... we call them "Gnostic", because of the similar belief in Gnosis.
Some scholors have proposed other names such as "Biblical Demiurgy", with uses the cosmology instead of the Soteriology to define them. In either case the groups are linked by an over all system, not just one attribute.
PMCV
Hey V/S
Two questions:
1). Do we know what they called themselves, if anything?
2). If we do know, then why do we call them Gnostics, instead?
Good questions
1) yes, in many cases we do know what they called themselves, in many cases we don't. Many simply called themselves "Christians" etc., not destinguishing themselves from the larger group. Many, on the other hand had secterian names for themselves like, Naasenes.
2) The reason we use the term "Gnostics" to talk about them is because they have specific relationships to each other and we don't have any other name to describe that relationship
*lol*. One of the main aspects of that relationship is the fact that salvation is found in Gnosis, and voila... we call them "Gnostic", because of the similar belief in Gnosis.Some scholors have proposed other names such as "Biblical Demiurgy", with uses the cosmology instead of the Soteriology to define them. In either case the groups are linked by an over all system, not just one attribute.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: visceral/spagyrical
Thanks, pmcv.
v/s
Thanks, pmcv.
v/s
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: Eric
You have a fascinating way of articulating your knowledge, pmcv. Excellent thread.
You have a fascinating way of articulating your knowledge, pmcv. Excellent thread.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: visceral/spagyrical
[QUOTE=pmcv]Hey V/S
Good questions
1) yes, in many cases we do know what they called themselves, in many cases we don't. Many simply called themselves "Christians" etc., not destinguishing themselves from the larger group. Many, on the other hand had secterian names for themselves like, Naasenes.
2) The reason we use the term "Gnostics" to talk about them is because they have specific relationships to each other and we don't have any other name to describe that relationship *lol*. One of the main aspects of that relationship is the fact that salvation is found in Gnosis, and voila... we call them "Gnostic", because of the similar belief in Gnosis.
Some scholors have proposed other names such as "Biblical Demiurgy", with uses the cosmology instead of the Soteriology to define them. In either case the groups are linked by an over all system, not just one attribute.
PMCV[/QUOTE]But wouldn't renaming them with respect to cosmology redefine the boundaries?
If "Gnostic" derives from their Soteriology, then to rename them with respect to their cosmology would, in effect, exclude some and include others that previously were and were not included under the name "Gnostic." As a result, a conversation about "Biblical Demiurgists" would not be the same as a conversation about "Gnostics."
So my question is this: Do these scholars' have a particular reasoning behind such proposals? If so, what is that reasoning?
v/s
[QUOTE=pmcv]Hey V/S
Good questions
1) yes, in many cases we do know what they called themselves, in many cases we don't. Many simply called themselves "Christians" etc., not destinguishing themselves from the larger group. Many, on the other hand had secterian names for themselves like, Naasenes.
2) The reason we use the term "Gnostics" to talk about them is because they have specific relationships to each other and we don't have any other name to describe that relationship
*lol*. One of the main aspects of that relationship is the fact that salvation is found in Gnosis, and voila... we call them "Gnostic", because of the similar belief in Gnosis.Some scholors have proposed other names such as "Biblical Demiurgy", with uses the cosmology instead of the Soteriology to define them. In either case the groups are linked by an over all system, not just one attribute.
PMCV[/QUOTE]But wouldn't renaming them with respect to cosmology redefine the boundaries?
If "Gnostic" derives from their Soteriology, then to rename them with respect to their cosmology would, in effect, exclude some and include others that previously were and were not included under the name "Gnostic." As a result, a conversation about "Biblical Demiurgists" would not be the same as a conversation about "Gnostics."
So my question is this: Do these scholars' have a particular reasoning behind such proposals? If so, what is that reasoning?
v/s
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Hey all, sorry it took me so long to get back..... been a bit busy.
Eric
Of course.... "fascinating" could be a clinician's way of humoring a persons odd means of communication :shock: *lol* Seriously though, thanks :oops: It's always nice to hear peoples encouragement for the direction the forum is taking.
Visceral/Spagyrical
You have a tallent for cutting right to the center of an issue. In fact, the question you ask....
.... is debated in academic circles on exactly this issue. I am one who is very much sympathetic with people like Dr Williams who have proven some problems with the term "Gnostic", but I do disagree with changing the term. Instead, I would like to add the new term, as a destinct category that sometimes (but not always) is related to the "Gnostic" groups.
In fact, I am a bit afraid we may be getting more technical here than I wish in this forum but I would like to demonstrate exactly the point you make. If this is making others here yawn, please just pass this thread and realize we do want to make this forum interesting to all readers. So, directly to your observations, Visceral/Spagyrical.....
..... EXACTLY, you hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. For instance, in the late 1800s the term "Gnosticism" was invented to deal with how the newly discovered "Pistis Sophia" fit into a genre of liturature that was known to have existed (though there were not really any other surviving examples). Included in that category was essentially every heresy that had any level of similitude with the outline of that text. Manichaeans, Marcionites, all of these were called "Gnostics". Of course, this was not an era known for critical observation devoid of romanticism.
One of the reasons that some academicians wish to change the term is because of the baggage the term "Gnosticism" has picked up in common usage. The fact that so many people use the term completely ignorant of it's original meaning is not, in my view, a good reason to assume the invalidity of the term itself (and sometimes it really does boil down to nothing more than embarassment.... Scholors should not let Sylvia Browne dictate terminology.)
It really was not very long before academicians noticed that some of the "Gnostics" did not even believe in "Gnosis", pretty big problem there. So, the definition was outlined a bit more strictly, several times. Nowdays it is pretty much generally understood that Manichaeans are not technically "Gnostic", nor are the Marcionites (though people reading older books are not always aware of the destinction). However, while these two groups do not have soteriologies that place thier emphasis on Gnosis, they do both have demiurgic cosmogenies. Changing the term from "Gnosticism" to "Biblical Demiurgy" would move back to the time when these groups were included based only on the cosmological outline, and then it would remove texts that don't explicitly outline this cosmology in spite of the fact that they were written by well known "Gnostics".... such as the "Gospel of Truth" which may have been written by Valentinus himself.
So, you are exactly right, changing the term would change all the rules. Not only that, I think it makes a mistake in that it assumes that changing the term will present a more accurate historical picture.... it wont. If we really want to get to the heart of these movements, we would have to look at thier cosmogeny, cosmology, soteriology, etc., for thier individual origins... which means we can't make a single category to replace another and think it will be any less arbitrary.
This arguement goes way outside my ability to outline in a forum, I think. I mean, we would have to start talking about origins of specific segments of the so called "Gnostic" movement.... is the Syrian and the Egyptian school closely related, what specific origins can we track down for the particular sects.... it really is not something I think we need worry about overly much (Unless people really are interested in these technical questions) I really do think that our greatest concern here should be enumerated this way....
1) soteriology
2) cosmology/cosmogeny
3) ritual process/ cultural backdrop
I think all of these concerns must be present to make something "Gnostic", but I think the order of attributes is also important because of the particular systems I want to highlight for this forum (and I would not change that in an academic forum). This is, after all, "Occult forums"... and I think that this particular view of Gnosticism deals with the specific groups that have influenced occult orginazations to this day. Not only that, I think that this presents a more genuinely accurate tradition of the point of "Gnosticism"..... and I hope that does not sound overly pretentious.
PMCV
Hey all, sorry it took me so long to get back..... been a bit busy.
Eric
You have a fascinating way of articulating your knowledge, pmcv.
Of course.... "fascinating" could be a clinician's way of humoring a persons odd means of communication :shock: *lol* Seriously though, thanks :oops: It's always nice to hear peoples encouragement for the direction the forum is taking.
Visceral/Spagyrical
You have a tallent for cutting right to the center of an issue. In fact, the question you ask....
But wouldn't renaming them with respect to cosmology redefine the boundaries?
.... is debated in academic circles on exactly this issue. I am one who is very much sympathetic with people like Dr Williams who have proven some problems with the term "Gnostic", but I do disagree with changing the term. Instead, I would like to add the new term, as a destinct category that sometimes (but not always) is related to the "Gnostic" groups.
In fact, I am a bit afraid we may be getting more technical here than I wish in this forum but I would like to demonstrate exactly the point you make. If this is making others here yawn, please just pass this thread and realize we do want to make this forum interesting to all readers. So, directly to your observations, Visceral/Spagyrical.....
If "Gnostic" derives from their Soteriology, then to rename them with respect to their cosmology would, in effect, exclude some and include others that previously were and were not included under the name "Gnostic." As a result, a conversation about "Biblical Demiurgists" would not be the same as a conversation about "Gnostics."
..... EXACTLY, you hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. For instance, in the late 1800s the term "Gnosticism" was invented to deal with how the newly discovered "Pistis Sophia" fit into a genre of liturature that was known to have existed (though there were not really any other surviving examples). Included in that category was essentially every heresy that had any level of similitude with the outline of that text. Manichaeans, Marcionites, all of these were called "Gnostics". Of course, this was not an era known for critical observation devoid of romanticism.
One of the reasons that some academicians wish to change the term is because of the baggage the term "Gnosticism" has picked up in common usage. The fact that so many people use the term completely ignorant of it's original meaning is not, in my view, a good reason to assume the invalidity of the term itself (and sometimes it really does boil down to nothing more than embarassment.... Scholors should not let Sylvia Browne dictate terminology.)
It really was not very long before academicians noticed that some of the "Gnostics" did not even believe in "Gnosis", pretty big problem there. So, the definition was outlined a bit more strictly, several times. Nowdays it is pretty much generally understood that Manichaeans are not technically "Gnostic", nor are the Marcionites (though people reading older books are not always aware of the destinction). However, while these two groups do not have soteriologies that place thier emphasis on Gnosis, they do both have demiurgic cosmogenies. Changing the term from "Gnosticism" to "Biblical Demiurgy" would move back to the time when these groups were included based only on the cosmological outline, and then it would remove texts that don't explicitly outline this cosmology in spite of the fact that they were written by well known "Gnostics".... such as the "Gospel of Truth" which may have been written by Valentinus himself.
So, you are exactly right, changing the term would change all the rules. Not only that, I think it makes a mistake in that it assumes that changing the term will present a more accurate historical picture.... it wont. If we really want to get to the heart of these movements, we would have to look at thier cosmogeny, cosmology, soteriology, etc., for thier individual origins... which means we can't make a single category to replace another and think it will be any less arbitrary.
This arguement goes way outside my ability to outline in a forum, I think. I mean, we would have to start talking about origins of specific segments of the so called "Gnostic" movement.... is the Syrian and the Egyptian school closely related, what specific origins can we track down for the particular sects.... it really is not something I think we need worry about overly much (Unless people really are interested in these technical questions) I really do think that our greatest concern here should be enumerated this way....
1) soteriology
2) cosmology/cosmogeny
3) ritual process/ cultural backdrop
I think all of these concerns must be present to make something "Gnostic", but I think the order of attributes is also important because of the particular systems I want to highlight for this forum (and I would not change that in an academic forum). This is, after all, "Occult forums"... and I think that this particular view of Gnosticism deals with the specific groups that have influenced occult orginazations to this day. Not only that, I think that this presents a more genuinely accurate tradition of the point of "Gnosticism"..... and I hope that does not sound overly pretentious.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: visceral/spagyrical
Thanks again, pmcv. I follow you perfectly fine. In fact, I'm quite fascinated.
Do you mind if we keep going?
I would like to tackle the three concerns. However, I would like to tackle them in the following order:
1) soteriology
2) ritual
3) cosmology
One major problem I see in defining "Gnostics" with respect to soteriology is discrepancies in the nature of divine agency. For example, sects which interpreted the Logos as "Word," rather than "the Son of God." That, in my opinion, is a HUGE difference and does not in any way justify the labelling of such sects as "Christian." But, you are probably already aware of this argument, so, rather than cause you to rehash a long and drawn out debate, I will simply ask a few more questions (the order of which directly corresponds to my re-ordering of the three concerns).
1) Would you agree that generalizing "Gnostics" with respect to soteriology (for the purpose of simplifying discussion) clouds our understanding of the nature of the Logos (or any divine agency) even further than it already has been?
2) If so, would you also agree that such clouding hinders an historian's capacity to "get at" the underlying principles governing the ritualistic practices (and goals) of individual sects? (In other words, is an historian's understanding of "Gnosis" as a form of spiritual attainment hindered by the generalization of divine agencies?)
3) If so, would you then agree that an historian's incapacity to "get at" the underlying principles hinders his or her capacity to better understand the cosmology of individual sects?
Thus, my fourth and final question is this:
4) What are your thoughts regarding the methodological boundaries governing the scholarly discipline of the history of "Gnosticism" today? Considering certain methodologies discussed in this thread, would it be fair to conclude that we honestly have no idea what "Gnosis" is about? Lastly, would a shift in methodology reveal what is hidden by the current methodology?
Thanks.
v/s
Thanks again, pmcv. I follow you perfectly fine. In fact, I'm quite fascinated.
Do you mind if we keep going?
I would like to tackle the three concerns. However, I would like to tackle them in the following order:
1) soteriology
2) ritual
3) cosmology
One major problem I see in defining "Gnostics" with respect to soteriology is discrepancies in the nature of divine agency. For example, sects which interpreted the Logos as "Word," rather than "the Son of God." That, in my opinion, is a HUGE difference and does not in any way justify the labelling of such sects as "Christian." But, you are probably already aware of this argument, so, rather than cause you to rehash a long and drawn out debate, I will simply ask a few more questions (the order of which directly corresponds to my re-ordering of the three concerns).
1) Would you agree that generalizing "Gnostics" with respect to soteriology (for the purpose of simplifying discussion) clouds our understanding of the nature of the Logos (or any divine agency) even further than it already has been?
2) If so, would you also agree that such clouding hinders an historian's capacity to "get at" the underlying principles governing the ritualistic practices (and goals) of individual sects? (In other words, is an historian's understanding of "Gnosis" as a form of spiritual attainment hindered by the generalization of divine agencies?)
3) If so, would you then agree that an historian's incapacity to "get at" the underlying principles hinders his or her capacity to better understand the cosmology of individual sects?
Thus, my fourth and final question is this:
4) What are your thoughts regarding the methodological boundaries governing the scholarly discipline of the history of "Gnosticism" today? Considering certain methodologies discussed in this thread, would it be fair to conclude that we honestly have no idea what "Gnosis" is about? Lastly, would a shift in methodology reveal what is hidden by the current methodology?
Thanks.
v/s
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Scholarly type questions
Original post: pmcv
Now it is getting meaty.... even a bit difficult.
In fact, this is the very reason that I had the title of this forum changed to include the word "traditinal". If we generalize based on nothing but soteriology, then anything and everything starts to be called "Gnosticism". In fact, we even start to see a pretty fuzzy usage of the soteriology itself because without the other attributes there is no context to give it clarity.
I don't know if you popped over into this forum much before we cracked down on the definitions a bit, but if you did you might remember just how wide a range of topics people were talking about. There are so many modern groups emically defined as "Gnostic" based on thier own understanding of the soteriology. They do this in spite of having virtually nothing at all in common with "Gnosticism" as it is technically defined. Sylvia Browne, Samael Aun Woer, and many others. For many, Kabbalah, Thelema, New Age, and pretty much anything with any esoteric structure, starts to be called "Gnostic".
Even though I number the attributes in order of importance, I don't think we can remove any of the attributes and still be talking about the same thing.
There is a deeper aspect to your question that I suspect is more your intent here though. The Logos (or soter) cannot be seperated from the soteriology in Gnostic thought. The function of the Soter is to empart Gnosis, and without that Gnosis the Soter is worthless anyway. At different junctions the emphasis may switch between the Logos and the Sophia, but the prime focus is always the hermaneutic context for the pneumatic. What I mean is, in Gnostic writings the purpose of divine agency is to give flesh to the words to help them be interperated within the Gnostic context.
Or, perhaps the most basic way to say that is that one cannot know what the word "Gnosis" even means if we don't give attention as well to the form and function of the Logos and the Sophia.... and the Bythos and Barbelo, etc.
Honestly, I don't think many historians have actually really dealt much with Gnostic ritual practice. When it does come up, it is often followed by bitter debate. Of course, it is not the historians job to empathize with the belief system or to attack it, but we all know that this is where some of the debate centers. I guess part of my answer would be that a true historian can never fully understand the subject they are studying, since it is supposed to be the historians job to be objective.
As I am writing this I am reminded of Dr Morton Smith and the theories he had concerning the Carpocratian usage of Secret Mark. Much of his theory was based around early ritual practice in the Christian community, and how there may have been more libertine elements that were removed by those who held a more stoic world view. The debate on his theories almost never dealt with the evidence, or lack of, for this kind of ritual practice.... it instead became Christian "historians" lampooning secular historians on personal levels, and then retaliation. In the midst of all this I can't remember ANYONE ever dealing with what the ritual practice would mean in the context of the sect involved.
HOWEVER, I don't think it follows that critical historical understanding excludes one from being able to understand the deeper ritual cosmological, or soteriological function of a religion.... most especially ones own religion (something I think many religious sects today could pay a little more attention to).
Hmm. I think I would need to ask you for some example here. At first your question seems very direct, but when I re-read it I am not sure I understood it. Are you asking if I personally think that most academicians are qualified to deal with the Gnostic hermaneutic? Do they understand the meaning behind the cosmology? Or, are you asking if I think that perhaps these same academicians are making the mistake of lumping sects together that may not be as closely related as they first appear, because the historians are only looking at the structure of the cosmology and not some other attribute?
I think perhaps what I may not be clear on is which aspects of the cosmologies you mean to focus on to be understood. Sophia is always Sophia, so that part I think an historian can understand pretty well. Of course, Gnostic cosmology can get quite complex, and it seems that even the early scribes who preserved the Gnostic texts got lost and confused.
Well, my personal belief is that while history is not a true science, an historian should apply scientific method to thier study as much as possible. This should be no different for one who wishes to persue a critical historical understanding of Gnosticism. But I think we need to be clear here, the study of history is not the same as the study of theology, or philosophy. To understand Gnosticism we have to see it from more than one perspective. To understand "Gnosis" we can't stick to an historical perspective alone.
I don't think it is accurate to say that we have no idea what "Gnosis" is about. The concept of Gnosis existed before the "Gnostics" and continues to this day.... long after "Gnosticism" has died. Even people who have never heard of the "Gnostics" may be familiar with Plato, and his talks about that special kind of understanding that is related to spiritual and philosophical progress. The leap to the Gnostic usage is not large (especially considering this is where the Gnostics got the term from in the first place)
Of course, while I personally feel I have some grasp of what "Gnosis" is, I suppose one could debate that with no more complex an arguement than "I don't hink you know what Gnosis means, PMCV".
PMCV
Now it is getting meaty.... even a bit difficult.
1) Would you agree that generalizing "Gnostics" with respect to soteriology (for the purpose of simplifying discussion) clouds our understanding of the nature of the Logos (or any divine agency) even further than it already has been?
In fact, this is the very reason that I had the title of this forum changed to include the word "traditinal". If we generalize based on nothing but soteriology, then anything and everything starts to be called "Gnosticism". In fact, we even start to see a pretty fuzzy usage of the soteriology itself because without the other attributes there is no context to give it clarity.
I don't know if you popped over into this forum much before we cracked down on the definitions a bit, but if you did you might remember just how wide a range of topics people were talking about. There are so many modern groups emically defined as "Gnostic" based on thier own understanding of the soteriology. They do this in spite of having virtually nothing at all in common with "Gnosticism" as it is technically defined. Sylvia Browne, Samael Aun Woer, and many others. For many, Kabbalah, Thelema, New Age, and pretty much anything with any esoteric structure, starts to be called "Gnostic".
Even though I number the attributes in order of importance, I don't think we can remove any of the attributes and still be talking about the same thing.
There is a deeper aspect to your question that I suspect is more your intent here though. The Logos (or soter) cannot be seperated from the soteriology in Gnostic thought. The function of the Soter is to empart Gnosis, and without that Gnosis the Soter is worthless anyway. At different junctions the emphasis may switch between the Logos and the Sophia, but the prime focus is always the hermaneutic context for the pneumatic. What I mean is, in Gnostic writings the purpose of divine agency is to give flesh to the words to help them be interperated within the Gnostic context.
Or, perhaps the most basic way to say that is that one cannot know what the word "Gnosis" even means if we don't give attention as well to the form and function of the Logos and the Sophia.... and the Bythos and Barbelo, etc.
2) If so, would you also agree that such clouding hinders an historian's capacity to "get at" the underlying principles governing the ritualistic practices (and goals) of individual sects? (In other words, is an historian's understanding of "Gnosis" as a form of spiritual attainment hindered by the generalization of divine agencies?)
Honestly, I don't think many historians have actually really dealt much with Gnostic ritual practice. When it does come up, it is often followed by bitter debate. Of course, it is not the historians job to empathize with the belief system or to attack it, but we all know that this is where some of the debate centers. I guess part of my answer would be that a true historian can never fully understand the subject they are studying, since it is supposed to be the historians job to be objective.
As I am writing this I am reminded of Dr Morton Smith and the theories he had concerning the Carpocratian usage of Secret Mark. Much of his theory was based around early ritual practice in the Christian community, and how there may have been more libertine elements that were removed by those who held a more stoic world view. The debate on his theories almost never dealt with the evidence, or lack of, for this kind of ritual practice.... it instead became Christian "historians" lampooning secular historians on personal levels, and then retaliation. In the midst of all this I can't remember ANYONE ever dealing with what the ritual practice would mean in the context of the sect involved.
HOWEVER, I don't think it follows that critical historical understanding excludes one from being able to understand the deeper ritual cosmological, or soteriological function of a religion.... most especially ones own religion (something I think many religious sects today could pay a little more attention to).
3) If so, would you then agree that an historian's incapacity to "get at" the underlying principles hinders his or her capacity to better understand the cosmology of individual sects?
Hmm. I think I would need to ask you for some example here. At first your question seems very direct, but when I re-read it I am not sure I understood it. Are you asking if I personally think that most academicians are qualified to deal with the Gnostic hermaneutic? Do they understand the meaning behind the cosmology? Or, are you asking if I think that perhaps these same academicians are making the mistake of lumping sects together that may not be as closely related as they first appear, because the historians are only looking at the structure of the cosmology and not some other attribute?
I think perhaps what I may not be clear on is which aspects of the cosmologies you mean to focus on to be understood. Sophia is always Sophia, so that part I think an historian can understand pretty well. Of course, Gnostic cosmology can get quite complex, and it seems that even the early scribes who preserved the Gnostic texts got lost and confused.
4) What are your thoughts regarding the methodological boundaries governing the scholarly discipline of the history of "Gnosticism" today? Considering certain methodologies discussed in this thread, would it be fair to conclude that we honestly have no idea what "Gnosis" is about? Lastly, would a shift in methodology reveal what is hidden by the current methodology?
Well, my personal belief is that while history is not a true science, an historian should apply scientific method to thier study as much as possible. This should be no different for one who wishes to persue a critical historical understanding of Gnosticism. But I think we need to be clear here, the study of history is not the same as the study of theology, or philosophy. To understand Gnosticism we have to see it from more than one perspective. To understand "Gnosis" we can't stick to an historical perspective alone.
I don't think it is accurate to say that we have no idea what "Gnosis" is about. The concept of Gnosis existed before the "Gnostics" and continues to this day.... long after "Gnosticism" has died. Even people who have never heard of the "Gnostics" may be familiar with Plato, and his talks about that special kind of understanding that is related to spiritual and philosophical progress. The leap to the Gnostic usage is not large (especially considering this is where the Gnostics got the term from in the first place)
Of course, while I personally feel I have some grasp of what "Gnosis" is, I suppose one could debate that with no more complex an arguement than "I don't hink you know what Gnosis means, PMCV".
PMCV