I've changed my mind about Gnosticism (Jesus, Creator, gospel, Kingdom)

[angellous_evangellous]

I read the Nag Hammadi Library - which I understand to be practically all of the Gnostic texts - about six years ago. At that time, I understood the development of Gnosticism to be well after the creation and circulation of the New Testament documents. I thought that the Gnostics simply were interpreters of the New Testament documents rather than co-writers.

I knew, of course, that Gnosticism existed in an embryonic form before Christianity, and assumed that these Gnostics were scattered in different Christian communities and simply read the New Testament from this perspective. I thought that the dating of the fragments in Nag Hammadi Library was in the fourth century, and therefore full-blown Gnosticism emerged sometime in the middle of the second century, safely outside of the apostolic era.

After another reading of the so-called Gnostic documents, I have dramatically changed my mind. I think that - pending further investigation - that Gnosticism developed just as fast, and if not faster than the New Testament documents and [proto-] orthodoxy. It almost makes sense that one of Jesus’ followers - if not one received by several Christian communities as an apostle - was a Gnostic.

I have come to these conclusion due to the Gospel of Thomas. I figured that the Gospel of Thomas cannot represent full-blown Gnosticism because it does not share the complex cosmology of later Gnostic writings such as the apocalypses, creation stories, and other Gnostic Gospels. For example, there are no Archons, Aeons, other Gods, exaltation of Eve, the teaching that matter or the body is evil, or even the teaching that the Creator is evil in the Gospel of Thomas. However, there are several verses in Thomas that make sense only when interpreted in light of the cosmology that is explicit in other Gnostic literature. Therefore, I must conclude that the complex cosmology that characterizes full-blown Gnosticism was already present at the time that Thomas was written - otherwise, it would be nonsense. What supports this conclusion, I believe, is the explicit expansion of some of these sayings in Thomas in other Gnostic Gospels which incorporate the needed cosmology present in the apocalypses and creation stories. The absence of the complex Gnostic cosmology in Thomas is more easily explained as a simple coincidence of style (or something else - perhaps the needs of the community) rather than non-existence.

I only need to list one example to make my case: the unity of male and female in Thomas is best explained by the complex cosmology present in the creation stories. This cosmology is explicit in the Gospel of Philip, which highlights what is “missing” in Thomas.

From Thomas:

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."

In Gnostic cosmology, made clear by the creation stories, Adam is created by an evil creator and Eve is a shadow of a good goddess Eve. The goddess knows that the creator has it out for her and she creates a shell form of herself that is raped and given to Adam. As they unite, they resume the form that they should have. (This may sound like nonsense, but the Gnostics explain it better then me...) Basically, the ideal person begins androgynous, and the separation is evil, and being reunited sexually in marriage is a return to the androgynous state of sinless humanity -- explicitly explained in the Gospel of Philip:

“If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber that she united with him.”

[love]

I didn't know any of that stuff about gnostis. Hadn't thought about it much to tell you the truth.That research must have taken many hours. I have invested too many hours in this forum, but I find it interesting and thought stimulating. I just don't want to get too deep into details about somethings because it is distracting.

[James the Persian]

A_E,

Gnosticism wasn't just embryonic prior to the Incarnation, it was full blown, just lacking the Christian mythology. There were, though, especially in Egypt, Jewish influenced Gnostic groups, so what is the surprise that Gnosticism existed early? It's older than Christianity. Christian Gnosticism, on the other, hand is late - later than orthodox Christinaity without a shadow of a doubt. Your initial reaction was about right (though to suggest a fourth century origin was extremely late - it should be more like second). Your reevaluation seems to be down to your forgetting, or perhaps never having really been aware of, the antiquity of Gnostic cults in that corner of the world.

James

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

A_E,

Gnosticism wasn't just embryonic prior to the Incarnation, it was full blown, just lacking the Christian mythology. There were, though, especially in Egypt, Jewish influenced Gnostic groups, so what is the surprise that Gnosticism existed early? It's older than Christianity. Christian Gnosticism, on the other, hand is late - later than orthodox Christinaity without a shadow of a doubt. Your initial reaction was about right (though to suggest a fourth century origin was extremely late - it should be more like second). Your reevaluation seems to be down to your forgetting, or perhaps never having really been aware of, the antiquity of Gnostic cults in that corner of the world.

James

Since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, the existence of full-blown Gnosticism before Christianity is highly disputed, if not convincingly argued to the contrary. Full-blown Gnosticism - as far as I'm aware - is treated as a Christian phenomenon, and identifying pre-Christian Gnosticism is dependent on finding pre-existing typologies of Gnosticism as represented by the Christian apologists rather than Gnostic texts themselves.

A wrench in the machine is that the Gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi don't match the description of Gnosticism presented by the Christian apologists - which means that we don't have the Gnosticism that they described or that they misrepresented it either purposefully or accidentally. I'm of the opinion that we don't have the Gnosticism which they described, and the argument of the pre-existence of full-blown Gnosticism(s) as represented by the "Gnostic" Nag Hammadi texts has not been convincingly argued.

One reason for this is that full-blown Gnosticism is highly syncretic, and the elements that scholars can identify as pre-existing actually change into something else entirely when combined and re-interpreted by the writers of the Nag Hammadi texts or the teachers that they represent.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

A_E,

Gnosticism wasn't just embryonic prior to the Incarnation, it was full blown, just lacking the Christian mythology. There were, though, especially in Egypt, Jewish influenced Gnostic groups, so what is the surprise that Gnosticism existed early? It's older than Christianity. Christian Gnosticism, on the other, hand is late - later than orthodox Christinaity without a shadow of a doubt. Your initial reaction was about right (though to suggest a fourth century origin was extremely late - it should be more like second). Your reevaluation seems to be down to your forgetting, or perhaps never having really been aware of, the antiquity of Gnostic cults in that corner of the world.

James

That's what I think the Gospel of Thomas disproves.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That's what I think the Gospel of Thomas disproves.

And there we must disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by Gniosticism, though. You seem to be suggesting that if it doesn't have some of the accidentals such as a full-blown cosmology like that of Valentinus (which is overwhelmingly pre-Christian Greek) that it isn't Gnosticism. Thing is that the Gnostic cults, as well as being syncretic, were also often radically different from one another. The common denominator is an elitest mystery cult with secret knowledge as the basis for salvation. Such certainly pre-exists Christianity, there is no question.

James

[Scuba Pete]

So, has this changed you pragmatically, or is it purely intellectual in nature?