DCHindley

Birger Pearson has directed his attention on the connection between Judaism and a branch of Gnostics known as "Sethian," who drew very heavily from Jewish scripture and Jewish apocalyptic thought in the development of their cosmology (their understanding of the way the world works) and theology (to follow).

His analysis focuses on the influence of the Platonic doctrine of ideal forms (excuse the imprecise terminology, but these concepts existed in a realm of fullness called the "pleroma") on the development of gnostic ideas about how the creator god (who the Sethians understood to be the God of the Jews) is really a grotesquely distorted emanation from an ideal form gone horribly wrong, and because of this his creation is also grotesquely distorted, sometimes referred to as an "abortion." Oh He's just all right, just twisted and ignorant of his own origins.

Is this kind of contrast between an ideal word of ideas versus an imperfect world of material existence what you meant by "dualism?"

Some individuals existing in this distorted material creation can recognize their origins and seek reunion with the fullness. But how?? The Sethian Gnostics resolved the problem by producing a theology that has many common elements with early Christian theology. In their system, the ideal forms developed a "rescue mission" in which one of them descended into the material realm (as Jesus) to effect the release of the individuals who recognized their origins. In this world, he worked within the existing structure of the religion imposed by the creator God on his own chosen people (that is, effected the ultimate irony). The set of social circumstances that caused Jewish sages to reject their ancestral religion was the let-down of Jewish apocalyptic expectations in the aftermath of the Jewish wars of 66-70 and 130-135.

It is parallels such as these that cause me to think that Sethian Gnosticism and proto-Orthodox Christianity, both of which came together in the forms we know them from their literature in the 2nd century CE, are really fraternal sister-brothers, born of the same mother and brought up in the same neighborhood.

DCH

andrewcriddle

One problem with the Platonising Sethian texts (which are a subset of the Sethian texts from Nag Hammadi) is that they involve late middle-Platonic early neo-Platonic ideas, ie they are late 2nd or 3rd century CE texts. (I'm talking about texts like Zostrianos Allogenes and Marsanes.)

They are very problematic as parallels to Christian ideas before 150 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Elijah

The creator god/demiurge concept seems to vary greatly on nature and how evil or corrupt it is. Mainly it’s used at an intermediately between the created/material world and an unknowable god. I think it would be considered insulting someone to say that they worship that god as the absolute creator as in Marcion with the Jews.
Yea, the dualism between the sensible/changing aspect of the world and the constant/eternal aspect.

2 Cor 4:18 “As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.”

I think if it’s a Gnostic school then its salvation solution is going to be along the lines of Plato’s doctrine of recollection. Where at birth you forget everything and you have to relearn all the forms to be saved somehow. I’m not saying they believed that exactly but some philosophy of learning/knowing something about the universe will lead to salvation. Like how GThomas starts out with the reward promise for understanding the sayings.

I’m not sure but I think you may have a little bit of a wonky understanding of forms. Eternal forms have real world particulars, it’s not supernaturally descending from a magical location kind of deal. Like if you considered “confidence” to have a form you could say Obama personifies it and is a real world particular/example of it. Not that the ideal form of “confidence” or anything else comes down and becomes something materially.

The same is applied to Jesus and him personifying whatever spiritual element you think most likely based on your particular cosmology. It can be things like Logos/reason/wisdom, or like a holy spirit/tao type mysticism connection. Or it can be personifying God itself if you have a pantheistic understanding of the universe. And then there is “Christ” itself that may have a particular cosmic meaning to you.
I would say that Gnosticism and Orthodoxy contradict each other on a base level. The Orthodox Christians are more of a political movement while the Gnostics are more of philosophical/teaching movement. The Ortho’s were/are about spreading the faith/meme in Christ not any particular philosophy/cosmology and see it as counterproductive to spreading the faith.

While I agree that the early Christians may have had a somewhat Gnostic/platonic view of the world, their mission wasn’t to spread their worldview because that wasn’t important. Belief that the Messiah had came and went was, not his or anyone else’s particular cosmology. And while some of the language and concepts should be understood as coming from that worldview the mission is fundamentally different.

Toto

Birger A. Pearson:

GNOSTICISM, JUDAISM, AND EGYPTIAN CHRISTIANITY (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions And Literature (or via: amazon.co.uk)

IamJoseph

But the reverse is what occured: the jews did not reject their ancestral belief, constituting the only nation which challenged Rome's decree - the reason for the war. This is the juncture where the right to freedom of belief is best displayed in all recorded history. Rome is no more - Israel won - there was no surrender till the last man and brick.

DCHindley

Jeez! Another post disappears into the Internet ether in mid composition. I'm beginning to get annoyed with the quirkiness of this interface.

Anyhow ... Are you thinking of chapter 10, Gnosticism as Platonism, in Pearson's Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity? He focused on the interrelated texts The Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos, Marsanes and Allgenes, concentrating on Marsanes especially. He considers these representative of

a comparatively late stage in the evolution of the Gnostic religion, when it appears that a lively discussion is taking place in philosophical schools between Platonist philosophers and Gnostics [we're talking about the 3rd century, solidly neo-Platonic times], to the extent that one can speak of mutual influences.

The developed theology necessary for Gnostics to carry out involved philosophical debates with neo-Platonists would suggest that there were some sort of Platonic ideas in Gnostic development. Marsanes, for instance, shows familiarity with the middle Platonic distinction between the kosmos noEtos (intelligible world) and the kosmos aisthEtos (sense-perceptable world). Pearson states that

The Middle-Platonists used the term kosmos noEtos to designate the immaterial world of Plato's intelligible "ideas." Plato ... had used the term zOon noEton ('intelligible living being') for the immaterial "pattern" (paradeigma) of the of the immaterial world. Middle Platonists used the term kosmos noEtos instead, and included in this designation the totality of Plato's "Ideas."

What I meant to suggest when I called Jewish Gnosticism and early Christianity "brothers" is that if Platonic dualism (as found in Middle-Platonism) can be shown to have given birth to the basic Gnostic myth of a divine redeemer from a higher realm, it may also just as easily have given birth to the Christian redeemer myth.

FWIW, it is the position of Simone Petrement (A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, 1990 English translation of le Dieu separe, 1984) and Edwin Yamauchi (Pre-Christian Gnosticism: a survey of the proposed evidences, 2nd ed 1983 [1973]), that Gnosticism is derivative of Christian doctrine, but I cannot shake the impression that this kind of position is almost reactionary and defensive of Christian tradition which characterizes gnostics as Christian heretics.

My first introduction to Yamauchi was in consequence of a search for his book on Mandean incantation bowls after I had read of them in J T Milik's The Books of Enoch. Even then it struck me he was defending the Christian tradition in which Gnostics are Christian heretics more than really explaining how the evidence for pre-Christian gnosticism proposed by others was misinterpreted. It was after reading Yamauchi (I was not yet aware of Petrement at that time) that I came to the conclusion, which I have also voiced in our exchanges on Morton Smith's discovery of the alleged Letter of Theodore with its Secret Gospel of Mark, that if an investigator wants to find something bad enough, he or she will indeed find it, regardless of the evidence proper.

DCH

DCHindley

I never meant to imply that Gnostics borrowed pure and unadulterated Platonism. In Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity, Pearson notes that modern scholars have called Gnosticism "proletarian Platonism" (Willy Theiler), "romanticized Platonism" (Simone Petrement), "Platonism run wild" (A D Nock), or "the 'underworld' of Platonism" (John M Dillon). He concludes that "[i]t can hardly be doubted that the ingredients of the Gnostic religion in its origins and early history included a substantial dose of popular Platonism." (pg 149)

In a footnote, Pearson cites Kurt Rudolph's willingness to grant

a certain degree similarity between Gnostic and Platonic dualism, and the possible influence of the latter on the former, but stresses the radical anticosmism of Gnosticism over against the "procosmic" nature of Platonic dualism. (Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, English translation 1983)

Pearson feels that Rudolph's position "understates the relationship between Gnosticism and contemporary Gnosticism," but also feels that Rudolph's book above to be the "best full-scale treatment of the Gnostic religion available today."

DCH

DCHindley

Don't forget The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Fortress, 1986, edited by Pearson and James Goehring) for some additional good material on the subject. Pearsons list of publications is at:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/pearson/home.html

DCH

gentleexit

The gnostics were definitely debating and debated the likes of Plotinus. He attacks them in (I think) three of the enneads. I think the main objection was the notion of an evil creator which implies a lack of good in "God". Platonists were big into attributing good whenever possible. Our messy world was more a matter of distance from good than overt evil - I think you can gauge how Platonic a Christian is by his preference for "distance" over "demonic" is his picture of man.

BTW, is John's use of "Logos" with Jesus as the creator god (second level intellectual) something separate from the gnostics, a rawer grafting of philosophy?

andrewcriddle

I'm thinking particularly of John Turner's work. His book is Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk) but he has also published several papers.

Basically Turner links the Platonising Sethian treatises (directly or indirectly) to ideas developed or originated in Numenius, the Chaldaean Oracles and particularly the anonymous commentary on the Parmenides. (Turner following Corrigan regards this commentary as pre-Plotinian.) This analysis links the Platonising Sethian treatises to ideas which first develop in Middle Platonism after 150 CE.

Andrew Criddle