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