Gnosticism: Not Christian
History
| May 6, 2007
| Tim
Previously
I was first introduced to Gnosticism, believe it or not, by Bertrand Russell, back in the mid-1980s. In his polemic essay against Christianity, he commented that he found the core idea appealing. Over the years, I've also read a good number of "gnostic gospels", so I'm familliar with the topic, but hardly an expert.
Recently, a number of voices started insisting that early Gnosticism was, in fact, a kind of "Christianity" -- and insisting that early Gnostics should be considered "Christians". Some insisted Gnosticism was, in fact, the original form of Christianity. (Subsequently, the narrative goes, the most intolerant groups of Christians, variously called "orthodox" or "Literalists", rose up and suppressed their Gnostic bretheren by force.)
This seemed incorrect to me, for several reasons. For one, the "Gnostic gospels" struck me as absurd (and frequently badly-written) attempts to capitalize on and repurpose Christian social and religious themes. The writers clearly wanted to use biblical figures, but seemed confused about their broader context, and unsure about how wield them convincingly.
For another, even before I knew the "demiurge" was originally a Greek concept, I could easily see that the theology/philosophy in said "gospels" was based on remarkably different underpinnings than Jewish-Christian theology. So I just couldn't envision the two sets of writings appealing to the same group, or even two groups having a common or similar character -- one was esoteric (secretive), the other exoteric (open to all).
A third problem was that the so-designated "Gnostic gospels" seemed to contradict each other. It's hard to envision a popular religious movement which could agree on that little.
And a fourth problem was the dating: the "Gnostic gospels" were often produced centuries after the New Testament. It's hard to argue a movement was "original" when its documents seem to follow, not preceed, the alleged rip-offs.
A fifth and final strong reason to think the idea was wrong, in retrospect, was that the "Jesus Seminar" seemed thrilled about it. When Elaine Pagels, Karen King, Bart Erhman and crew get behind an idea, I'm learning, you might as well pronounce it dead. Not unpopular, mind you (quite the opposite, actually) -- just ultimately intellectually untenable.
Indeed, as best as I can see, the evidence seemed to boil down to the fact that "Gnostic" documents referred to Jesus and other well-known biblical characters. Period. But if merely referring or appealing to "Jesus" or other Christian notions, in some conception, makes you a "Christian" then we'd also have to classify Unitarians, New Agers, and even Satanists as "Christians" as well. (And reclassify fez-wearing Masons as a branch of Islam!)
In response to this popular trend, I wrote a few articles on the subject [1, 2, 3, 4] (read, probably, by at least eight people!) and, I should also note, Ryan invited a number of contemporary Gnostics to debate me -- an experience about which I'll comment in the future.
Presently
One of the most useful contributions of Rodney Stark's Cities of God (which I have just finished reading) is his attempt to apply numbers, and a bit of methodological rigor, to the study of history.
By applying historical statistics and regression analysis to the spread of Christianity, Stark shows numerically that Christianity tended to spread first to urban centers with ports (unsurprisingly confirming it was spread by trade and missionizing) and was strongly correlated with Hellenic influence and diasporan Jews (implying Christianity was actually fairly popular among non-Palestinian Jews). Another interesting finding was that cities which had embraced Cybil or Isis worship also tended to be receptive to Christianity.
Following Michael Allen Williams' lead, Stark rejects the current designation of "Gnosticism" (which encompasses a mismash of unconnected and even theologically conflicting beliefs) and focuses on the "biblical demiurgical" subset of these groups. Doing so, and applying the same statistical methods, Stark finds that, unlike with Christianity, these movements were not particularly found in port cities, were not at all correlated with the Jewish diaspora nor Hellenic influence, but were, instead, positively correlated with enduring paganism.
In short, this indicates that Gnosticism was neither a Christian nor Jewish movement, but was, instead primarily a pagan attempt to appropriate and repurpose Christianity.
Stark also points to another key difference between these ancient "Gnostics" and Christians:
... there is a final, truly compelling for linking Demiurgism with paganism. As Kurt Randoph noted, the "Gnostic sects" enjoyed "complete immunity" from the Roman persecution of Christians. Clearly, the Romans did not regard them as Christians even though their teachings included some Christian elements. The crucial aspect was that, like Basilides and his disciples, they were willing to eat meat that had been sacrificed to pagan gods, and "consented to take part in pagan religious ceremonies on demand." They were not Christians with pagan leanings; they were pagans attempting to incorporate Christianity.
Stark continues:
These connections make a mockery of revisionist claims that Gnosticism was the true Christianity, long suppressed by despotic bishops. In truth, both paganism, with it's stress on sacred mysteries for the initiated, and Demiurgism failed, not primarily because they were suppressed, but for a lack of general appeal...
If it doesn't look like a duck, walk like duck, or quack like a duck, it probably isn't a duck.
Color me unsurprised.
Other Notes
There are many things I enjoy about Stark's work, besides his intellectual rigor. His writing is succinct and pithy, and he expresses ire for ahistorical revisionism and insipid arguments.
For example, in response to Elaine Pagels' argument that the Gnostics were not heretical simply because they "did not regard themselves as 'heretics'" [1], Stark responds:
Of course not. But the issue of heresy is hardly a matter of self-designation... Within the confines of faith, the charge of heresy can be resolved objectively only on the basis of which side more accurately transmitted the original teachings of Jesus. (p. 152)
Duh. Well, okay -- that's apparently not obvious to Pagels, nor her many sycophants.
And regarding Pagels' treatise on the Gnostic "Secret Thomas" "gospel":
Since the entire work can be be printed on a few pages, it seems remarkable that Elaine Pagels would have written a book-length celebration of the liberating ideas she finds this "secret gospel" without providing her readers with all 114 sayings, even if only in a brief appendix. In fact, she seldom quoted from Thomas...
Regarding the substantial differences between "Gnostic" writings and Christian orthodoxy:
Purely as a matter of faith, one is free to prefer Gnostic interpretations ... as several popular authors recently have done. But one is not free to claim that the early church fathers rejected these writings for nefarious reasons. The conflicts between many of these manuscripts and the New Testament are so monumental that no thinking person could embrace both. Consider that some Gnostic 'scriptures' equate the Jewish God with Satan! Should those who defended conventional Christian teachings stand condemed of bigotry for not siding with such views?
(Calling someone a devil-worshipper is not bigotry, but defending against the same charge is the height of intolerance!)
And Stark's conclusion, "Why Historians Ought to Count" -- an extended rebuke to historians who proudly reject quantitative methods and tools -- is equally precious, although much too long to quote here.
Being an historian (Ancient History degree), I found this posting good reading, though I wish you had included a link to Rodney Stark's Cities of God. Though I can find it, it would have made it easier and other links show you are not opposed to giving hyperlinks.
We can thank Mr. Brown for the recent upsurge in gnostic rehabilitation, though I found "The Divinci Code" a major disappointment.
It seems most alternative frameworks lack any real depth or cohesiveness and fall apart under their own inconsistencies, much like the thud that the ended the TV series Alias. They have a big build up, only to fail to deliver anything of substance, primarily because alternative cosmologies/anthropologies are always built on sand, not the rock of reality.
William,
Greetings!
I've added the link, as you suggested. I'm not at all opposed to hyperlinks, but I'm trying to avoid the current de-facto practicing of driving customers onto Amazon.
Your "built on sand" remark, for no reason I can adequately pinpoint, reminds me of the following passage:
The four gospels abound in correct historical and geographical details, and nearly everything takes place on this earth and involves people who very probably existed. ... "... For Gnostics, by contrast, Christ was not so much a historical personage as a reality within the believer."
(Hmmm... reminds me of contemporary "liberal" strains of Christianity.)
Hence the typical Gnostic work, like The Secret Book of John, gives its origins as the author's visions and mystical revelations, which are set in another reality and include almost no historical or geographical content. As Pheme Perkins explained, "Gnostics reject gods and religious traditions that are tied to this cosmos in any way at all! Thus Gnostic mythology often seems devoid of ties to place or time." (pp 152-3)
That's the problem with non-disprovable material. Nobody can call your bluff on it, but it's also unlikely to be very useful to anyone in any practical sense.
In contrast:
Over the years, Acts has been a central focus, and the Higher Criticism soon resembled a competition to determine who could discredit the most passages -- a race won by Hans Conzelmann with his absurd claim that, from beginning to end, Acts is a made-up story... For example, in dismissing the Acts accounts of Paul's shipwreck, Conzelmann and others 'proved' that the story must be a fantasy by demonstrating that it has the boat following 'implausible' routes and otherwise goes against common sense.
Fortunately for their critics, these historians knew even less about sailing than they did about science. To them the Mediterranean is like an indoor swimming pool and one would, naturally, head directly to one's destination, giving no heed to currents or the fact that it is impossible to sail directly into the wind. When it subsequently was shown that the Acts account is fully in accord with meteorological and nautical condition and principles, the response was grudgingly accept the account in Acts as accurate, but to claim that it didn't happen to Paul -- rather, that the account in Acts must have been lifted from another unknown, but nonbiblical source! (p. 16)
Well, at least Conzelmann and crew were dispassionate and neutral in their analysis, and clearly had no preconceived agenda whatsoever. ;-)
In a black/white world what is "true" Christianity can be debated ad nausea. What really happen back then will always be speculation. We take a collection of writtings and label them "Gnostic". For those in the orthodox camp creating labels brings security. For the gnostic camp Irenaeus says it best ; "every one of them generations something new every day, according to his ability; for no one is considered initiated among them unless he develops some enormous fictions!" and that I believe is the appeal of gnosticism. Is it Christian? Depends who you ask.
Mark: Welcome!
In a black/white world what is "true" Christianity can be debated ad nausea...
Actually, in a "black/white" world, the discussion could be blissfully short: one would dare to have criteria by which such questions could be meaningfully answered either way.
And even in a morally relavistic world the discussion chould still be blissfuly short, since "words mean whatever want them to mean." You call it Christianity, I call it an angry ferret, and we're done: there's nothing more to say once we voiced our various opinions. There can be no objective reality or standards to which to appeal.
Only when there is a complete dearth of evidence (this is not such a case) or where people desparately want one thing, but are increasingly denied a plausable basis for it that such discussions drag on and on.
For those in the orthodox camp creating labels brings security...
Actually, one of main proponents of that particular grouping and lumping is Elaine Pagels and her associates in the Jesus seminar -- who are hardly orthodox. And one of the main opponents is Michael Williams, who seems to be strongly embraced by the orthodox.
Label aren't created to "create security". (Though they're often redefined to do so, I've noticed.) Labels are created to identify things. And without coherant identifiers, you can't have coherant discussions.
The term "Christian", for example, was not created by "the orthodox" but pagans who noticed a common worldview and set of behaviors.
For the gnostic camp Irenaeus says it best ; "every one of them generations something new every day, according to his ability; for no one is considered initiated among them unless he develops some enormous fictions!" and that I believe is the appeal of gnosticism.
I agree with you entirely. It's much more comforting to live a world of our imagination than whatever objective reality surrounds us, whether we like it or not.
Is it Christian?
I think already clearly stated that it was an Angry Ferret. Mmmmkay? And nobody can say otherwise. Leave me alone with my Angry Ferret and stop trying to bring up the classicly-accepted defintion of "ferret" as a warm furry animal. I find it very uncharitable of you.
So it will always be an Angry Ferret if you ask me. Because that's what I need it to be.
You are right "labels" in themselves are necessary or how would we talk about anything. What I meant to say is believing that labels are inert - remaining unchanging - brings security. Christian is a Christian. There ARE no other kinds. Helps people who can't deal with the fluxuations of existence.
If someone believes heaven is in the sky and hell is under the ground, who am I to tell them otherwise. "We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear." It's the poor suckers who don't realize this.
“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
What I meant to say is believing that labels are inert - remaining unchanging - brings security.
Are you aware that Caroll meant the quote above against those who liked to redefine words as needed? Read the context: Humpty Dumpty's a scatter-brained idiot who can't carry on an intelligible conversation. So he hides his weakness by acting superior and redefining words.
«I don't know what you mean by “glory,”» Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. «Of course you don't— till I tell you. I meant “there's a nice knock-down argument for you!”»
«But “glory” doesn't mean “a nice knock-down argument,”» Alice objected.
«When I use a word,» Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, «it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.»
(Humpty also can't tell upside-down from rightside-up when looking at a mathematical operation -- and pronouncing it correct. And insists it's almost impossible to think he could fall off his wall.)
I almost quoted that in my last response, but passed it up as too unkind a comparison. But here you have gone and done it anyway. How ironic. (As Juvenal wrote: Difficile est saturam non scribere -- it is hard not to write satire.)
It's true that it can be disconcerting to have a word redefined. One puts in time learning a set of definitions and nuances, and someone else is busy trying to tell everyone it means something else. And quite frequently the new definition tends to make things somehow less clear, and more muddy.
Simply from a viewpoint of wanting to have intelligible discussions, such redefinitions have decreased utility.
But it's also true people redefine words because they're somehow threatened or bothered by them: they think if they can make the troubling definition go away, they can make the thing it denotes go away too.
It is not for nothing that Orwell associated the redefinition of words -- to their opposite, usually -- with totalitarianism.
So we have two perfectly nice antonyms: "Pagan" and "Christian". But now some people want "Pagan" to still mean "Pagan", and "Christian" to mean -- well, "Pagan" also. What are they afraid of?
I dunno: Why did Big Brother also rename words to their opposites? To make the original concept unthinkable, of course. Probably the same reason you offer a straw-man description of Christianity...
If someone believes heaven is in the sky and hell is under the ground, who am I to tell them otherwise.
... which no-one's ascribed to for a thousand years. And which everyone, including (and especially) pagans, believed before that time. Apparently, it's a bit too troublesome to confront the actual definition being offered -- so we place a simpler caricature in our opponent's mouth, and thus in our own mind.
Perhaps I'm wrong. But that's certainly how it looks.
Understand context - miss nuance.
Humpty Dumpty creates feelings of security through his definitions.
straw-man description - emphasis. Clarity through simplistic generalities.
Pagan and Christian? If there was no light there would be no shadows.
Or one of my favorites:Behind every cross hides a devil.
Inescapable syzygy of black/white.
Now now don't start vomiting!
Humpty Dumpty creates feelings of security through his definitions.
Actually, he creates them through his redefintions, where he can say anything, and be right no matter what. He is a "redefiner", not one who attempts to keep his concepts matched up with the same words from one minute to the next.
Clarity through simplistic generalities.
"Simplistic generalities" don't bring clarity. Precise explanations and consistent use of language (coupled with sound reasoning) do.
Simplistic generalities generally obscure, but comfort, by presenting the user with an a flawed and easier-to-manage mental construct.
And yes, your characterization was indeed simplistic. Not simple, but simplistic.
Well, I guess we're done here. I can see no benefit in continuing this conversation further: feel free to comfort yourself by applying whatever stereotype you'd like to me. Closed-minded, threated by other views, etc.
For my part, I'll explain why: You don't seem capable of acknowledging even the simplest of points.
For example, you alleged it was the people who were afraid of redefinitions who sought security. Then you quoted Humpty-Dumpty! Yet Humpty himself is the penultimate redefiner -- and clearly did so out of fear.
Seemingly unable to acknowledge this (and learn something about yourself from your mistake) you apparently seek to rework the evidence before you: Suddenly, Humpty isn't a "redefiner" (which you had advocated), but a "definer" -- one who wishes to create security from his "definitions".
Of course Humpty Dumpty doesn't give a damn about definitions and the piece makes that utterly clear:
«The question is,» said Alice, «whether you can make words mean so many different things.»
«The question is,» said Humpty Dumpty, «which is to be master — that's all.»
Humpty will not be "mastered" by consistent definitions of words. A word which can mean anything, of course, means nothing.
This is pretty obvious, I would think.
But it can't mean that, so, um, so suddenly "redefinition" (on demand, as needed) is the equivalent of "definition" (shared and fixed, at least within a limited scope), so that I, who like to use clear defintions (even just ones you explain at the time, however different from last week's) can appear to be more like Humpty Dumpty.
Well, okay then. There are no rules, you redefine things as you need -- and a fixed definition is the same thing as an infinitely malleable one. All very good. I won't deny you this, but there's no reason *I* need to participate in such idiocy.
And you also seem to be resorting to ambiguous sentence fragments -- again, seemingly afraid of any kind of clarity.
(It's a simple trick: speak vaguely, and be impressed at how the dense around you can't read your mind. It's easy to obscure, and hard to clarify, so it makes the clarifier do more work, and thus appear less intelligent. Noam Chomsky relies upon the same dodge. "Oh, my critics just misunderstood me." Yeah, right. But the sheep buy it.)
If you can't bother to be clear, then I can't bother to waste my time trying to figure you out. If you can't agree Humpty fears the clarity of fixed definitions, then I really doubt we could share any other observation either.
So I don't think you're a bad person: I just suspect that continuing this attempt at dialog -- in this mode anyway -- will be a waste of my time. And yours as well.
I sincerely wish you well.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
principles of parsimony
What I meant to say is believing that labels are inert - remaining unchanging - brings security. Christian is a Christian. There ARE no other kinds. Helps people who can't deal with the fluxuations of existence.
Mark - You seem to be arguing Tim's case for him again. Rather than labels being for people who "can't deal with the fluxuations of existence" labels allow people to make comparisons between such groups, despite changes within and between languages.
Parsimony would dictate having as few groups as possible and keeping them as consistant as possible to facilitate thought, correct? Isn't that what Tim is doing here? Do the meanings of words change? Sure. Is that change conducive to clarity or helpful to thought? No, not in the least. So people who want to extract any useful information from their data try to minimize the number of groups they refer to and keep them as consistently defined as possible. The imperfect (yet very useful) science of taxonomy is an excellent example of these principles applied to the natural world, so let me take taxonomy as an analogy of how things should be done. It's possible, of course, to refer to lateral transfer of genetic material from one species to another, especially among microbes, and use this to try and undermine the whole taxonomic tree. But that new, muddled system of taxonomy would be far less valuable compared to our present system.
It's far better to be able to say that dolphins are a type of cetacean and cetaceans are a type of vertebrate. Consistent definitions, while typically imperfect, are crucial for thinking and producing information from data, not to mention collecting the data in the first place.
If you'd like to argue for a set of labels which are better than what Tim put forward, consistent, yet still parsimonious, I'm all ears to what you have to say. But it seems like you want no firm labels whatsoever. Which makes it impossible to think about things. And that does nobody any good.
Use labels with a grain of salt.
dolphins are "dolphins" only because we have all agreed that is what we will label them as. We need to remember the things we call "dolphins" are much more than how we define the label.
Buddhist saying, "Don't confuse a pointing finger for the moon."
A)Granted the concept of "dolphin" is pretty concrete on the continuum of substantiality, but "Christian"? Do you think a 3rd century "Christian" and a 20th century "Christian" are the same thing?
B) Getting back to the main point Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy - orthodoxy tells you the meanings. Heterodoxy you tell them the meanings.
Orthodoxy sees heterodoxy as outside the definition.Gnostic is not Christian.
Heterodoxy sees Orthodoxy as variation in the definition. There are Gnostic Christains and Orthodox Christians.
Then there is orthodoxy and dogma.
Yes, we shouldn't confuse signifiers with the signified. That is basic and noone here is making that mistake. Please try to address the actual argument using historical citations instead of just spouting philosophical generalities.
I reiterate, it's impossible to think without some kind of catagorization, however flawed. The ultimate standard is predictive value. Prove that you can at least account for the historical phenomenon Tim claims to have accounted for. Make some falsifiable, positive assertions instead of empty generalities. Demonstrate that you actually know some factual details about the subject matter. Cite historical sources. Why were 'orthodox' Christians persecuted while Gnostics were not? Can you refute that statement outright using actual evidence and citations? Can you explain it? Let go of the philosophical generalities for a second and try actually thinking about the argument being presented!
Predict or even account for behaviors that Tim can't, based on some established criterion. Then you have a case.
There are a lot of things I don't know or differences I can't accurately discern, but at least I have the courage to say that I don't know them and not simply claim that noone can ever figure them out.
We call dolphins "dolphins" because the label is a useful catagorization and it would be foolish to throw it out unless we could think of something more useful to replace it with. Same goes here. You've demonstrated no detailed knowledge of Gnosticism or Christianity. Just vauge, useless aphoristic sayings. You can do better. You can't possibly do worse.
Do you think a 3rd century "Christian" and a 20th century "Christian" are the same thing?
In some ways, yes. In some ways, no. But we can at least compare and contrast the two rather than throw up our hands and claim that we're too dumb to see similarities or differences between them.
The alternative is to claim that history is useless and we can learn absolutely nothing from it. Do you actually believe that?
Differences include differing access to scientific discoveries, different political circumstances (Fewer American Christians are probably likely to believe that you have to die for your faith to be a true Christian, for instance) and post-enlightenment ideas to name just a few.
Similarities include shared stories, often with shared or similar interpretations. They include monotheism, a belief that creation is 'good,' that law is good, the nature of faith and so on. Tim could probably give a more exhaustive list.
But Tim has already presented an argument. You're avoiding it, rather than addressing any of his points using evidence or providing any historically based counterarguments whatsoever.
Mark - Lets start at the beginning; Do you believe that there are no discernable differences between the gospels labeled 'Gnostic' and the gospels labeled 'Christian' nor any discernable similarities among the two groups (for the gnostics, there'd probably be a number of types, in the same way that there are many different types of 'heretic')
If so, why not ask what the differences were between people who prefered one type of text and another?
Yes I do believe there is a difference between the Gnostic gospels and the Canonical gospels.
No - I believe the orthodox Christians and the heterodoxy Christian have similiarities.
Yes - History is valuable, but as Napoleon said,"The winners right the history."
And though I am fimiliar with the history of the early church, I do not concider myself an authority on subject throughfore would avoid arguing from that perspective but nor do I feel I need to. It has been 2000 years and still the orthodoxy has been unable to put the matter to rest.
The questions about what are the differences between what text people prefer has already been address. You have experienced the difference.
Do I not sound preposterous to you?
It has been 2000 years and still the orthodoxy has been unable to put the matter to rest.
The question really isn't whether or not one side can 'put the matter to rest.' Heck, there's plenty of evidence for evolution, but people still can't "put the matter to rest" as there are plenty of folks who don't belive their evidence. But their case is still quite good. History is a little murkier, but I believe that our understanding has at least improved with time. And that's all I can really ask for.
I'm not an authority either. That's why I'm here to learn. But fair enough. You aren't familiar with the subject matter and don't have information to add to the debate. Best of luck to you.
Your comment on evolution stems from the same point I have been trying to make along. You create your reality, so if evolution doesn't play a role in your world nothing on the rational level is going to change that.
We may say we follow logic but anyone familiar with the writings of Dostoevsky for example knows otherwise.
And you right I not really sure how I ended up writing you folks. LOL best of luck to you as well.
The pope earlier this week decreed or I should say reiterated what was decided in 325 AD at the Nicean Counsel that the only TRUE Christain churches come from apostolic succession, though some gnostic groups did have the that claim Valentinus for one. According to the pope if your not Catholic your NOT Christian. There's some history for you. Mull over that.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« HRC, the Bible, and Homosexuality |
Front Page |
Page Two
| An Anglican Assassination? »
|
Being an historian (Ancient History degree), I found this posting good reading, though I wish you had included a link to Rodney Stark's Cities of God. Though I can find it, it would have made it easier and other links show you are not opposed to giving hyperlinks.
We can thank Mr. Brown for the recent upsurge in gnostic rehabilitation, though I found "The Divinci Code" a major disappointment.
It seems most alternative frameworks lack any real depth or cohesiveness and fall apart under their own inconsistencies, much like the thud that the ended the TV series Alias. They have a big build up, only to fail to deliver anything of substance, primarily because alternative cosmologies/anthropologies are always built on sand, not the rock of reality.
Posted by: William Meisheid on May 9, 2007 09:17 AM