Hi Tim

Just out of curiousity, in another post you opined that the gnostic way of thinking was "literalist" and that you saw "no evidence" that the ancient gnostics "thought in" or interpreted their texts in the allegorical, symbolic and esoteric way evinced in (for example) the Kaulajnananirnaya Tantra.

Since the gnostic texts are (in your view) meant to be interpreted literally, their "intricate detail" stands (in your view) as evidence of nothing more than "obscure, spiritualistic... mumbo-jumbo" admired only by the "illiterate, stupid, and intellectually dishonest."

So hey, I like to think of myself as an intellectually honest guy, and I really am eager to get your reaction here.

I posted a rather lengthy excerpt from Hippolyutus in which that ancient author explains Simon Magus' hermeneutic in great detail - apparently Simon Magus taught that Eden was the Womb, that the four rivers which flow from Eden may be understood as the senses of the fetus in gestation (excepting sight), that various books from the OT are allegorical accounts of the development of these senses, etc.

Intricate details of "the air-ducts, which we said were channels for breath, embracing the bladder on either side in the region of the pelvis, are united at the great duct which is called the dorsal aorta" figure in Simon Magus' interpretation of Genesis, for example.

I also posted a rather lenghty description of some of the interpretive schemes advanced by a gnostic sect called the Peretae, who discuss in some detail the anatomy of the brain, identifying the "Father" with the cerbellum, the pineal gland with the "Son," etc.

So, from my POV, discussions of the spinal marrow, cerebellum, pineal gland, stages of gestation, etc, are not really "mumbo-jumbo" - they actually betray a sophisticated understanding of human anatomy, at least for that time, two millenia ago.

It also seems to me that if an author provides a key to interpreting a certain text as an allegory for certain physiological and/or neurological processes, then that author's understanding of these texts is not actually "literalist", despite the claims of uninformed modern readers.

So, while I don't expect to change your taste in literature, I do wonder if I couldn't persuade you to admit that allegories aren't meant to be read literally, but instead contain culture-bound symbol sets which require an interpretive key of some sort.

Whaddya say?

Hiya "Rev Max",

Whaddya say? First I'd say: "Sorry for being absent lately!" -- I've had company in town over the weekend, so I wasn't able to blog during my normal weekly time for it.

Next, in response to various things you have written...

Just out of curiousity, in another post you opined that the gnostic way of thinking was "literalist"...

Hi intellectually honest Tim,

Mea Culpa! You did not actually characterize the gnostic text as "literalist” instead you spoke of their “literalism.” But I still thinking we have an interesting POV difference here which is worth flushing out.

So, here’s what happened (http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/001204.html):

1. I compared the NH scriptures to the tantras, texts which “employ a type of language which can be taken on many levels....” and “have meanings which can be taken at face value but do not always have this meaning, thus making them difficult to understand to the literally-minded."

2. You responded thusly: “I'm aware that's certainly how modern gnostics wish for us to think about the original ones… But I see no evidence that the original gnostics actually thought that way."

You admit that the "tantric Hindus and Buddhists sometimes didn't write down their actual ceremonies…" but claim that you "see no evidence that this was the case for ancient Gnostics. Rather, the precise, intricate detail and literalism (totally missing from the aforementioned tantric texts) seems to argue against it in most cases."

Anyway, FWIW, thats why I posted the lengthy allegorical accounts of neurological and physiological processes and anamtomy from Marcion, the Peretae at all - I wanted to provide you with "evidence that the original gnostics actually thought that way."

So, we return to the question at hand. You assert that the "precise, intricate detail and literalism" of the Gnostic texts argues against the notion the passage from G of J discussing the 12 luminaries and 72 heavens “Actually means something else”

Now, if you hold the view that this could not possibly be an allegory, and “see no evidence that the original gnostics actually thought that way” (i.e., allegorically and/or symbolically) then of course the “intricate detail” would seem bizarre. This was my original point.

Could it be that you might not have the right interpretive key to make sense of this passage though?

I don’t give a fig for the zodiac myself but if I assume that :

a.the “math” in the G of J was there for some reason, i.e., not just numbers for the sake of nonsense

b. the G of J fits within the general gnostic pattern of enthusiasm for Babylonian and Chaldean astrological concepts

…then with the aid of google I can find a plausible interpretation for this passage in about 10 seconds:

“The zodiac was not only used to track the 365-day year, but also the 25,920-year 'Great' or 'Platonic' Year, known as the Precession of the Equinoxes. The Great Year, like the Earth year, was divided into 12 'months' - twelve 2160-year astrological ages. (2160 is the diameter of the moon in miles). The astrological "age" is also refered to as an 'aeon'.”

“Some of the mechanics of the zodiac are describe fairly well on Wikipedia: 'The ecliptic is the apparent path of the Sun traced out along the sky in the course of the year. More accurately, it is the intersection of the celestial sphere with the ecliptic plane, which is the geometric plane containing the mean orbit of the Earth around the Sun. ...there are 12 zodiacal constellations, all taking an equal share of the ecliptic. The entire ecliptic is measured as a 360 degree circle or 360 degrees of celestial longitude.[4] Each sign, therefore is comprised of 30 degrees of celestial longitude. Each degrees of the precession is equal to 72 Earth years, and each year is equal to 50 seconds of degrees of arc of celestial longitude'. One must remember that in the 24 hours of the Earth's day, the Earth travels or rotates the entire 360 degrees of the ecliptic, passing through all 12 signs. These numbers figure prominently into Jesus's message in quite a few places in the Gospel of Judas.”

“Heaven… becomes equated with the circle's number '360'. In that 'code' 6 heavens would be 6 x 360 = 2160. So when Jesus writes that there are '6 heavens for each aeon', one can see by a quick multiplication of 6 x 360 = 2160, and his reference to 'the twelve Aeons' that he is PROBABLY referring to the twelve 2160-year Astrological Ages which comprise the Precession of the Equinox.”

“Given that each degree of the Precession is 72 years and each year is one 360 degree cycle or 'heaven' (360 degrees x 72 years = 25,920 years), we can see that '72 heavens for the 72 luminaries' can also be interpreted as a description of the mechanics of the precessional movement.”

“The reference to the '5 firmaments' of each of the '72 heavens' (360 degree cycles) is a bit less enigmatic when one remembers that 360 divided by 5 is 72.”

Now is this important info to you or to me?

Perhaps not - I'm no great enthusiast for astrology either.

However, we aren't talking about what we believe but about the possibility that certain concepts might be encoded in this text.

That said, it seems MUCH more likely to me that "72," "12" "6" "5" etc were discussed in the context of the "heavens" and the "firmament" and in this precise relation to each other, in the G of J, BECAUSE this part of the text functions as a symbolic acct of the motion of the stars and the passage of time, than simply to imagine that these exact numbers were used for no reason at all, as deliberately absurd nonsense, and just happened to be identical with the math employed by ancient astronomists.

Hiya Max!

Mea Culpa! You did not actually characterize the gnostic text as "literalist” instead you spoke of their “literalism.”

Yes, I did use that word, once. I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but I post on many different threads in any given week (and sometimes over multiple weeks, as in this case), and I don't always remember exactly what word I've used where, or where you may have gotten an impression. Thanks for clearing that up!

Yes, I did indeed assert that many Gnostic texts appear to contain "precise, intricate detail and literalism." I stand by that characterization.

To quote the old example again:

He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit. The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit, that their number should be five for each...

Again, if this is confusing, I'm not here saying no analogies can possibly exist, anywhere, ever. Indeed, you just quoted me as saying I felt this was true in "most cases" -- certainly not all.

I'm simply saying that where an author starts numbering luminaries and firmaments, and doing math, he's probably saying something more than: "Love is good."

Anyway, FWIW, thats why I posted the lengthy allegorical accounts of neurological and physiological processes and anamtomy from Marcion, the Peretae at all - I wanted to provide you with "evidence that the original gnostics actually thought that way."

I can now see, given just that sentence, where you might have gotten that impression. So I owe you an apology for being unclear there.

I should have been more precise, since I was referring to the quoted passages (which I believed Jordan had been, also), not saying there was a completely absence of analogy present in all gnostic texts.

Indeed, in the next paragraph I had written:

I can believe, for example, that a reference to a "vase" in a Kalachakra Tantric ceremony might indeed represent "vulva." Of course. But on that basis, I see no reason to believe, for example, that this...

"The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries..."

Actually means something else...

As a clarifying example.

So I hoped it was clear I was simply referring to the thought process which produced these particular types of statements (which is what Jordan seemed to be responding to), not making a blanket statement, as my careless sentence, read on its own, apparently led you to believe.

Again, apologies for any confusion.

Now, if you hold the view that this could not possibly be an allegory...

Again, I haven't said "this could not possibly be an allegory." As you keep quoting (and ignoring?) I simply asked you to produce some sort of evidence for the position that this must have been allegorical, or was best understood that way.

So, in response, you quote a lengthy explanation which culminates in this summary:

“Given that each degree of the Precession is 72 years and each year is one 360 degree cycle or 'heaven' (360 degrees x 72 years = 25,920 years), we can see that '72 heavens for the 72 luminaries' can also be interpreted as a description of the mechanics of the precessional movement.”

Umm, Max? You're making my case for me here. (Rather nicely.) If this is truly "a description of the mechanics of processional movement" then you are arguing it is a very precise, literal description of a real thing. Not a metaphor, not a similie, not a type, and not an analogy.

If the explanation you have supplied is true (and note the terms supplied are all the normal mundane meanings, not types), this is no more a metaphor than if I said: "There are 365 days in a year." Or even if I wrote it more obscurely: "365 terrestrial cyclations transpire in each incorruptable orbital annuum."

Hi Tim

Elsewhere you wrote

"I can believe, for example, that a reference to a "vase" in a Kalachakra Tantric ceremony might indeed represent "vulva." Of course. But on that basis, I see no reason to believe, for example, that this...

The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries...

Actually means something else."

That comment, plus this one:

"Guess the biblical Jesus didn't feel a need for is followers to know exactly how many valhallas were assigned to each ascendant spirit, in square cubits per good deed. How could they get along in his absense, lacking such crucial details?"

Made me think that you might be looking at this text in the wrong terms.

Obviously the idea of 72 heavens doesn't make sense if we think of a heaven as a mythological afterlife like Valhalla or the Happy Hunting Grounds. Why would there need to be 72 (or 365, or 12, or 7) of those? Especially if they're all identical.

But if we assume there is some reason for that math, then we have a different way to look at it. And in this case, encoded information about astrology really does seem a better fit.

Greetings again, Max!

[Various comments] Made me think that you might be looking at this text in the wrong terms.

Ah. I see. We have a miscommunication, it seems.

You seem to have thought that I had a definite meaning for the text in mind already. No: not at all. But I felt quite certain it wasn't meant as a metaphor.

The reason is simple: Metaphors typically use familliar terms to represent hidden or more complex concepts. Present me a passage about grain and the harvest or flowers in a vase, tell me there's a hidden meaning and I might buy that.

But this kind of stuff? Many Gnostic "gospels" go on and on about already-obscure, religio-technical sounding terms. A person doing that is no more making an analogy than a businessman who revels in buzzwords: "My strategem for generating cross-functional, horizontally-dyamic synergy involves deploying human capital in a forward-looking organizational paradigm across all strategic business sectors."

You don't have to have a definite understanding of what he means by each phrase to understand he's not making an analogy.

Obviously the idea of 72 heavens doesn't make sense if we think of a heaven as a mythological afterlife like Valhalla or the Happy Hunting Grounds.

(1) I chose those terms simply because Jesus (who I chose for contrast) often spoke of heaven and good deeds, and thus I needed to make a contrast by explaining how he might have spoken about those topics (for example) in more precise detail.

Not, as you seem to have inferred (my bad!) because I was sure the author of GoJ was referring to an afterlife and good deeds -- but simply to make my contrast, I had to choose a topic Jesus actually did speak about, and point out he didn't put it in more technical, detailed terms. (He communicated the main point in a rather simple fashion. Hence my comments about comparative obscuritanism.)

(2) I don't at all think its absurd to believe there are many heavens, given some cultural background. For ages, many people -- many of who were probably no less intelligent than you or I -- believed there were different kinds or levels of heaven. Not just in Western traditions, but also in the East.

These ideas weren't separate from astrology as you might think. "Firmament" referred to the hard shell surrounding the world, and many people (probably including Gnostics) believed that stars were related to or were spirits or Gods of some sort. So there's no dichotomy of the sort you seem to be implying: astrology and religion were one and the same in many cases.

But if we assume there is some reason for that math, then we have a different way to look at it. And in this case, encoded information about astrology really does seem a better fit.

Hi Tim,

"Many Gnostic "gospels" go on and on about already-obscure, religio-technical sounding terms. A person doing that is no more making an analogy than a businessman who revels in buzzwords: "My strategem for generating cross-functional, horizontally-dyamic synergy involves deploying human capital in a forward-looking organizational paradigm across all strategic business sectors."

Although I do not typically think of my fellow human as a type of "capital" and have never know organizational paradigms to "look" anywhere (let alone "forward") your point about buzzwords is well-put and taken.

Yes, I am aware that the gnostics identified the archons with the visible planets, their orbits with planes of reality or shells, etc., however I thought that to introduce these ideas would complicate something that was already getting a bit too complicated as it was.

The main thing I wanted to sort out here was that the gnostic texts do often discuss quantifiable phenomena is mythological terms. Heavens as vs. heavens in this instance - Valhallah vs. astrology/astronomy.

I guess we can quibble about whether the language was symbolic or not - it seems tyo me that terms such as Aeon are as much mythological as technical, really, especially when they are personified - but if you don't agree then thats fine too, at least we are talking about the same thing now.

best

Max

So, well executed and bravo!

Hey Tim

Just to flush some of the ideas we've been tossing around here a bit more:

If (as you claim) there's "there's nothing metaphorical about this text," and if we can both agree that the math which describes the motion of the stars is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial (12 months in a year, 360 degrees in a circle, etc)...

Then it seems to me that people who dismiss these texts as "absurd" on the basis of passages like the ones we've been discussing do so not because they have understood the text and found it wanting but because they have not understood and processed the technical concepts embedded in these texts (what you call "buzzwords") and so find them unitelligible.

But that says more about the reader than the text itself, I think.

In similar fashgion I could pick up a science magazine and read about the 46 chromosomes in the human genetic structure or the triune structure of the primate brain and if I were not familiar with highschool level biology these things would sound utterly insane and arbitrary to me - perhaps even "ridiculous. Clownish. Laughable," etc.

Max