is any language sacred

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: uraeusheap

Are / is there any specificly sacred language in Gnosticism? The Montanists placed importance on female prophets speaking in tongues, and the Testament of Job talks about women speaking in the dialects of the Archons, Seraphim, and Cherubim. Was Greek seen as superior to other languages?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Uraeusheap, welcome to the forum.

Let me boil this down a bit. You ask.....

is there any specificly sacred language in Gnosticism?

I think you need to understand that traditional Gnosticism does not place too much trust on anthing temporal.... and language itself is temporal.

Was Greek seen as superior to other languages?

No, Greek is not special. The language that is at this time the most important to Gnostic studies is Coptic... BUT... this is really incedental.

The Montanists placed importance on female prophets speaking in tongues, and the Testament of Job talks about women speaking in the dialects of the Archons, Seraphim, and Cherubim.

The Montanists are not actually technically "Gnostic" as thier modern counterparts the "Pentecostals" are not. Below the Archons, the seperation of Seraphim and Cherubim is unimportant in Gnostic belief. Your outline mixes a few sistems together. I believe you may have a view of Gnostic understanding that is effected by other systems. However, if you want to provide additional explinations then perhaps I am misundrestanding your point.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: uraeusheap

So you're saying the Arkhons and Aions were completely above and beyond language -- clear enough, does the same apply to angels?

What I was also driving at is, assuming most Gnostic works were originally Greek although we mostly have Coptic translations still available, how do those translations deal with isopsephia? Did the Coptic-speakers develop a parallel system or was there some special status reserved for Greek words.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Uraeusheap, you state....

So you're saying the Arkhons and Aions were completely above and beyond language -- clear enough, does the same apply to angels?

This could depend on which specific Gnostic system you are tlaking about. However, generally speaking the Aeons and the Archons are two very opposed things. The Aeons would be above generaly psychic outlines (including language) while the Archons may not be so.

What most people would call "Angels" would be Archons... followers of the Demiurge. However, from a more Gnostic perspective one might equate them with the Aeons instead. Your question is not so clear as you may think it is. It depends on how you are relating the term "Angel" within the Gnostic system. I get the impression that you may in fact be trying to mix a couple of systems together, but I am not sure. If you make your question more clear from the traditional Gnostic outline, then perhaps we can deal with the subject in a more clear way.

What I was also driving at is, assuming most Gnostic works were originally Greek although we mostly have Coptic translations still available, how do those translations deal with isopsephia? Did the Coptic-speakers develop a parallel system or was there some special status reserved for Greek words.

Sure.... many Gnostic works were either Greek, or were at least dependant on Greek philosophy. However, in Gnostic thought the ideas have always been more important than the language (or to put that another way, the metaphorical language is more important than the literal language). For instance, the Coptic version of Thomas (if we assume Thomas is Gnostic... which is open to debate) does not try to preserve linguistic specifics of the Greek version so much as it tries to preserve the allegorical meanings. In other words, isospehia is a pretty unimportant concern of the translators.... as it is also a pretty unimportant point in the originals. The methodology of isospehia is not completely alien to Gnosticism (for instance we see a mild version in the term "Abrasax"), but it is not generally a Gnostic methodology.

To place overly much importance on language itself would be to misunderstand the Gnostic system. We should not confuse Kabbalah with Gnosticism here.... the conventions that seem so romantic in Kabbalah, including the exchange between numaric systems and words, have a minimal effect in Gnosticism. I am not saying they are absent since they do exist, but one would do better to try to understand the terms of Gnosticism (Saklas, Aeon, Bythos, Barbelo, etc.) on levels that are closer to their original intent rather than trying to apply later notions of isospehia.

Coptic is as much an original language to "Gnosticism" as Greek is... and there is no base language that everything needs to revolve around.

BTW, there is a difference between "Aion" and "Aeons". I noticed your spelling there, and thought I should point it out.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: uraeusheap

BTW, there is a difference between "Aion" and "Aeons". I noticed your spelling there, and thought I should point it out.

Eh? I would have thought aeon was just the Latin spelling, same pronunciation.

The Baptismal Ceremony of the Gospel of the Egyptians has chanting of Greek vowels. Did they have any magical significance?

The Paraphrase of Shem has a passage that might suggest a language (not Greek) is spoken in the "cloud of silence":

At my wish, nothing mortal appeared to him, but they were all immortal things that the spirit granted to him. And he said in the mind of the light, 'AI EIS AI OU PHAR DOU IA EI OU, I have come in great rest in order that he may give rest to my light in his root, and may bring it out of harmful nature'.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Uraeusheap, concerning my point about Aeons and Aion, you state...

Eh? I would have thought aeon was just the Latin spelling, same pronunciation.

It is tempting to see it that way of course (though Aion is the term that is primarily in the system of Latin origins), however the traditional usages are quit different. Historically the word "Aion" is most recognizable as the lion headed deity in the Mithraic mysteries, he has a serpent around his legs and he is a sort of gate keeper who holds keys into the higher realms. He has more in common with the Gnostic Demiurge. Aeons, on the other hand, is a term we find more familiar in Gnostic context as the higher spiritual realms and thier personages.

Of course, you can definately interchange them if you wish, as transliterations, but you are likely to confuse a lot of people this way.... including scholors who specialize in the subject.... simply because the terms have very different historical contexts.

The Baptismal Ceremony of the Gospel of the Egyptians has chanting of Greek vowels. Did they have any magical significance?

The Paraphrase of Shem has a passage that might suggest a language (not Greek) is spoken in the "cloud of silence":

Yes and yes. I have to admit that I am a little leary of the term "magical" simply because of the connotations it has for most modern readers, but essentially the term itself is accurate. Of course, these are not the only Gnostic texts that use these kind of glossolalia chantings, and there are even non-Gnostic texts that do so as well (as I guess you already know), such as the "Mithras Liturgy" as well as Classical hermetic texts like Discourse on the 8th and 9th.

However, before we try to draw too many connections between these texts, let me point out the difference between a methodological technique and a "language". This is certainly a thing that exists in Mystery religions, but it is not meant to be intellectualized into a direct term per meaning usage.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: No-Self

[QUOTE=uraeusheap]Are / is there any specificly sacred language in Gnosticism? The Montanists placed importance on female prophets speaking in tongues, and the Testament of Job talks about women speaking in the dialects of the Archons, Seraphim, and Cherubim. Was Greek seen as superior to other languages?[/QUOTE]
I have heard that Hebrew is a 'special' language. Tarot, Kabbalah, etc...

So much so that many scientists of old have studied Hebrew (Including such greats as Newton).

Anyone has any comments?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Zorba

Sanskrit is a holy language.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Zorba, and No-self.

Well, sure it is true that Sanskrit is "holy" to some, ane Hebrew is a must for Kaballah, Greek is important for some, and there are even made up alphabets that have no wider linguistic usage (Such as the "Enochian" invented by Dee and Kelley).

Of course, to the Hindu there is no value in Hebrew, and Kabbalists in the 12th century could have cared less about Sanskrit.

The question here would be.... is there any language that is "holy" to Gnosticism? The only language that serves any sacred function in the Gnostic context would be the specific allegorical lingo of the Gnostic mythology, rather than any specific cultural language. Neither Hebrew or Sanskrit has any "holy" value in the Gnostic system.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: No-Self

[QUOTE=pmcv]Hey Zorba, and No-self.

Well, sure it is true that Sanskrit is "holy" to some, ane Hebrew is a must for Kaballah, Greek is important for some, and there are even made up alphabets that have no wider linguistic usage (Such as the "Enochian" invented by Dee and Kelley).

Of course, to the Hindu there is no value in Hebrew, and Kabbalists in the 12th century could have cared less about Sanskrit.

The question here would be.... is there any language that is "holy" to Gnosticism? The only language that serves any sacred function in the Gnostic context would be the specific allegorical lingo of the Gnostic mythology, rather than any specific cultural language. Neither Hebrew or Sanskrit has any "holy" value in the Gnostic system.

PMCV[/QUOTE]
I have heard that Hebrew language is not a language, but a code. Hebrew was actually forbiden to talk in for MANY centuries. It is only now that it became wide spoken. Usually it was ONLY used in Holy Texts such as Torah, the Bible and The Kabbalah (isn't it the Gnostic text?) while Jews were only allowed to speak Ashkenazi/German/Arabic etc.

I have heard that Hebrew language was invented by the first kabbalists (Abraham, or maybe even Adam). Sefer Yetzirah is the Holy Kabbalistic text (Gnostic?) and it was written in Hebrew. Hebrew was designed to talk about spiritual realm and not the mundane. It's "letters" are symbols of higher reality rather than merely sounds as in all the other alphabets....

Gnostic means as knowledge of God, right? If so, Kabbalah would be considered Gnostic - right?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey No-self

I have heard that Hebrew language is not a language, but a code. Hebrew was actually forbiden to talk in for MANY centuries. It is only now that it became wide spoken. Usually it was ONLY used in Holy Texts such as Torah, the Bible and The Kabbalah (isn't it the Gnostic text?) while Jews were only allowed to speak Ashkenazi/German/Arabic etc.

Well, it is true that some places have forbidden Jews to speak Hebrew, but that was an external rule. Hebrew essentially died by the time of Jesus, not because it was forbidden but just because it wasn't popular. It made a brief and small comback with the masorites, and then died off again only to be reawakened in modern times. None of this was because it was considered too holy to be spoken.

I have heard that Hebrew language was invented by the first kabbalists (Abraham, or maybe even Adam). Sefer Yetzirah is the Holy Kabbalistic text (Gnostic?) and it was written in Hebrew. Hebrew was designed to talk about spiritual realm and not the mundane. It's "letters" are symbols of higher reality rather than merely sounds as in all the other alphabets....

Well, that is the story anyway. Historically speaking Hebrew grew out of a few languages sort of like the way English did. It is largely related to Ugaritic, Egyptian and Babylonian, all of which predate it.

The origins of the Kabbalah and Sefer Yetzirah are also the ones some Kabbalists believe, but the historian would give you a different picture. To start with, the S.Y. would actually me a Merkabah work rather than Kabbalah, with the Kabbalah being an invention of the Middle Ages (the Bahir being the first publication in 1178). But of course, anyone is welcome to take the historic or the religious version as they see fit.

The real point is the one you ask next....

Gnostic means as knowledge of God, right? If so, Kabbalah would be considered Gnostic - right?

Well, no, not actually. First, the word "Gnostic" doesn't mean "knowledge of God", and is not a category for mystical groups, but like Kabbalah it is a specific set of traditions (though a bit more varried than Kabbalah, and less tied to one culture)

Up at the top of this forum you will see some threads dealing with what the word "Gnostic" means.

However, I would point out that Kabbalah is perhaps a close cousin of Gnosticism, and some scholors believe that it was influenced by Gnosticism pretty heavily. Both of them use the Platonist cosmological model, and some of the terms in Gnosticism appear in Kabbalah as well.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: uraeusheap

I came across this in the Gospel of Truth. It seems to be referring to some kind of sacred alphabet.

He has turned many from error. He went before them to their own places, from which they departed when they erred because of the depth of him who surrounds every place, whereas there is nothing that surrounds him. It was a great wonder that they were in the father without knowing him and that they were able to leave on their own, since they were not able to contain him and know him in whom they were, for indeed his will had not come forth from him. For he revealed it as a knowledge with which all its emanations agree, namely, the knowledge of the living book that he revealed to the eternal beings at last as his letters, displaying to them that these are not merely vowels or consonants, so that one may read them and think of something void of meaning. On the contrary, they are letters that convey the truth. They are pronounced only when they are known. Each letter is a perfect truth like a perfect book, for they are letters written by the hand of the unity, since the father wrote them for the eternal beings, so that they by means of his letters might come to know the father.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Uraeusheap, that is a good example. However, in the Gnostic context I think you may be taking this a bit more literally that it is intended. I understand that it is tempting to see the more practical usages that later Kabbalah has made of the Sefer Yetzirah retroactively used in this passage, but let me point out that the Gnostic method of interpretation is a little different.

What this is actually talking about is the allegorical language of the Gnostic perspective itself. That is to say, the letters are the written within our spiritual existance (which our physical existance is partly a copy of) for us to read and understand if we know the language. This is why Valentinus says in your example... "displaying to them that these are not merely vowels or consonants, so that one may read them and think of something void of meaning." In other words, it is not a literal language of abcdefg.......... (or Hebrew or any other alphabet).

In fact, in the Gnostic context the very "beings" being talked about here are considered to simply be ways of describing something that can't be described, and in another Valentinian work (Valentinian exposition) you see the author saying things like "well, I describe it this way"... which is to say he is knowingly simply trying to outline something contained within his words rather than telling us exactly how things literally are. Philip also talks about the imperfection of describing these things, as does the Tripartite Tractate, etc..

The point being, the language is the underlying allegorical meaning of these texts, not some literal means by which literal beings floating in the sky communicate. This is why Thomas says "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death"..... it is the interprative method that is the function of "Gnosis", the language of the "Father".

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: No-Self

[QUOTE=pmcv]Uraeusheap, that is a good example. However, in the Gnostic context I think you may be taking this a bit more literally that it is intended. I understand that it is tempting to see the more practical usages that later Kabbalah has made of the Sefer Yetzirah retroactively used in this passage, but let me point out that the Gnostic method of interpretation is a little different.

What this is actually talking about is the allegorical language of the Gnostic perspective itself. That is to say, the letters are the written within our spiritual existance (which our physical existance is partly a copy of) for us to read and understand if we know the language. This is why Valentinus says in your example... "displaying to them that these are not merely vowels or consonants, so that one may read them and think of something void of meaning." In other words, it is not a literal language of abcdefg.......... (or Hebrew or any other alphabet).

In fact, in the Gnostic context the very "beings" being talked about here are considered to simply be ways of describing something that can't be described, and in another Valentinian work (Valentinian exposition) you see the author saying things like "well, I describe it this way"... which is to say he is knowingly simply trying to outline something contained within his words rather than telling us exactly how things literally are. Philip also talks about the imperfection of describing these things, as does the Tripartite Tractate, etc..

The point being, the language is the underlying allegorical meaning of these texts, not some literal means by which literal beings floating in the sky communicate. This is why Thomas says "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death"..... it is the interprative method that is the function of "Gnosis", the language of the "Father".

PMCV[/QUOTE]
PMCV,
I have read that hebrew letters are not letters but symbols to describe the upper world.
For example: I have heard that the direction in which the line of a hebrew letter goes (vertical or horizontal) has a kabbalistic meaning in terms of describing spirituality or G-d.

For example 4 stages of light correlate to symbolics of letters Yud Hey Vav Hey (YHVH).
There is also a reason why hebrew is written from right to left and not like we type in English and in most languages (from left to right).
Furthermore since there are no vowels in Hebrew alephbet, words often have double meanings and double ways of pronounciation. That means that any word found in Hebrew Bible has an alternative meaning behind it. Which means that a person who knows Hebrew well, can read the hidden side behind the Bible. Something that cannot be translated into english.

I have heard/read that Hebrew was invented because there was no other language that could describe the spiritual word (an anti-world to this). Hebrew was developed by a man, NOT some angel or God. (Kabbalah does not beleive in literal beings, just forces energies and vectors).

Sincerely,
no-self.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

No-self

I do understand that you have read this, and it is a common belief in certain groups. In fact, it is a belief that many languages claim in legends that the culture of that language perpetrates.

However, Gnostics don't believe in that YHVH "God" of the OT as a true god, nor in the greatness of Abraham or Adam. So, my point is that a person is welcome to believe in these things but it is not the intent of the Gnostic usage that we were talking about previously.

Is Hebrew holy? Is Sanskrit holy? Perhaps. But the subtext of this subject matter in this forum is whether any of these languages are holy in the Gnostic view.

So, now, understanding that you have read that some people believe Hebrew is holy, have you read any Gnostic works claiming that Hebrew is holy? That would be the question.

PMCV