Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site phs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!phs!lisa From: lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Gnostic Christianity Message-ID: <974@phs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 21:27:58 EST Article-I.D.: phs.974 Posted: Thu Nov 29 21:27:58 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 19:21:17 EST Organization: Duke Physiology Lines: 101 <> Jeff Snover has asked about Gnostic Christianity. Byron Howes' answer is a very fine summary of gnostic beliefs, especially those that were rejected by the "catholic" church (not "Roman Catholic", but a term used to distinguish those that were ultimately deemed "orthodox" from all the "heretics"). It sounds as if Byron has relied heavily on Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels" - an excellent and interesting synopsis of gnostic thought (even if Pagels is more than a little uncritical in her use of the texts). Rather than repeat Byron or Pagels, let me recommend both as a starting point, and proceed to throw my own ideas into the hopper. After a half-semester looking at primary gnostic texts, I must admit that I am just as confused about what constitutes gnosticism as I was when I started. The heresiologists (early Christians that wrote against "heresy") said that gnosticsm was Greek philosophy run amuk. Hippolytus (middle 3rd Century) specifically tied gnosticism to Pythagorean and extreme Platonic schools. The major beliefs criticized by "orthodox" catholic writers related to gnostic cosmology (model of the universe) and allegorical interpretations of Genesis 1-2, used to support their "pleroma" of "aeons" - a hierarchy of divine beings; gnostic belief that Jesus only appeared as a man; and gnostic emphasis on knowledge (Greek "gnosis" - hence "gnostic") by which a person's mind/soul was saved without the body/material or physical activity (ie ethical behavior). No doubt the doctrine of some gnostics went to excess, but how accurately the heresiologists represented their ideas is an open question. Valentinus, writing his Gospel of Truth around 150 in Rome, was apparently accepted by many as orthodox - even Irenaeus criticizes Valentinus' students more than he does Valentinus. Their mythological universe was probably no more fanciful than that of Origen (who wrote in Alexandria around 200-220, and was considered orthodox at least until 390), and it I question whether the author of a tractate like "On the Origin of the World" (in the Nag Hamaddi Library) interpreted his story any more literally than contemporary pagans interpreted Greek mythology. True, some gnostics felt that "Yahweh" and "Adonai" were demons created by the Demiurge (the evil creator of the material world), but I have found as many gnostics who seem to take Genesis 1-2 in its more traditional ("orthodox") sense. Regarding salvation, historic gnosticism is a strange paradox. Although salvation was a matter of "mind" over "matter," gnostics tended to become very ascetic, and the Nag Hamaddi contains a great deal of material that favors enthusiastic/ecstatic experiences. Still, their ideas were common enough among middle Platonists of the day - Origen believed that God created Adam and Eve as "nous" (mind), and that at the Fall they were confined to physical bodies. And Clement of Alexandria (an "orthodox" writer) called himself a "true" gnostic - one whose understanding was better than the heretical gnostics. Jesus was a greater problem for gnostics. Traditional scholarship has defined gnosticism in terms of two myths - one of the origin of the world, and the other of redemption. In the redemption myth Christ, the heavenly embodiment of gnosis, comes down to earth to explain to gnostics their real nature as heavenly souls ("gnosis" is a substance - some people have it, some people don't). Christ, who is not a man, tricks the rulers of the material universe, and then returns to heaven whence he came. Thus for most gnostics Christ was not a real man, he either was a "phantom" (in which case his captors were tricked into crucifying Simon of Cyrene), or he temporarily took over the human body of Jesus (in which case he left the body at the cross). In either case, the gnostics were wrestling with the problem of how an impassible God (i.e. God who cannot suffer) could be crucified, and what the significance of the event was. Again, their answer was not entirely far-fetched when compared to "orthodox" ransom-to-Satan theories. In addition to doctrinal criticisms, the heresiologists raise questions about church order. Apparently some of them were burned by the fact that gnostics weren't deferential enough to the bishop. They tended to consider themselves more "spiritual" than the church officials. They often allowed the laity in general (and women in particular) to take an active role in the church, and they were not so much interested in ecclesiastical structure as in the gifts and working of the Spirit. In fact one faculty member at Duke University (who translated a portion of the Nag Hamaddi Library into English) has suggested to me that some gnostics may have been no more than lay leaders in their churches interested in living better Christian lives through the leading of the Spirit (as they understood that). There are, of course, many other theories regarding various aspects of gnosticism. German scholars as Hans Jonas and Rudolph Bultmann have viewed gnostics as 2nd Century existentialists, and interpreted their writings in such a way as to make them appear to be the first Lutherans! In short, the current state of scholarship on gnosticism has produced more questions than answers. If someone claims to represent a "gnostic" church (I must admit I have never heard of a church advertise itself that way - the equivalent would be my membership in the "First Church of Christian Heresy" :-), perhaps the best course of action is to ask what types of "gnostics" they follow, and which aspects of gnostic thought they affirm. I must admit that I would question why a church felt it necessary to make its reputation by calling itself after a two millennia old heresy, but I suppose that I wouldn't be a minister in the Presbyterian Church if I didn't have a [moderately] conservative streak in me :-) Jeff Gillette duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University