Clivedurdle

Are we agreed these ideas of the demi urge go back to at least Zoroaster and probably came to the West via Plato and neo pythagoreanism?

Eusebius must not be taken at face value! He is attempting to pretend the wisdom ideas are new and his new ideas are ancient! Exactly what Darius did 800 years before Eusebius!

mountainman

Peter Kirby,

I have developed a summary level overview only at the moment
with respect to the authors of antiquity (0-300CE+) at this page:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm

You will see the legend for color-coded categorisation at the top:

P Neo-pythagorean and/or neo-platonic philosophers (green)
C Christian writers, authors, apologists (via Eusebian theory) (white)
CB Christian Bishop (via Eusebian theory of history) (RED)
H Historian, philosopher, writer (considered "neutral") (yellow)
RE Roman Emperor (elevated to the purple)

Those who are considered to be the gnostics are listed by Eusebius
and are considered to be a certain subset of the red and white
christian authors listed for the period relevant to "the emergence of
gnosticism" (c.100-250?).

The list is not complete, further gnostic authors need to be added.
Perhaps the gnostics need to have their own color coding for the
exercise at hand, but the principle is to identify the entire suite of
gnostic authors at a summary level. Sufficient entries exist to make
the sample set representative for general argument.

At the detailed level exists all the writings of these specified authors
of antiquity (or writings purported to have been written by these authors).
Additionally there will need to be a misc category for extant writings
that do not have a uniquely specifiable author.

Thus on the one hand explication of these categories is by category
of author and category of written literature.

On the other hand definition of the terms "gnostic", "neoplatonist" and
"neopythagorean" are satisfactorily outlined by elemental characteristics
in the following of each of these terms on the net.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
(This looks reasonably comprehensive for a starting place)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopythagoreanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

Additionally I have some Guthrie stuff from a decade back here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/pythagor.html

Gnosticism (as found in the writings of the gnostics of antiquity) appears
nothing more than the extant neopythagoraean and neoplatonist
philosophical terms and ideas slightly rearranged and
tainted with primitive christian theologies.

I understand clearly that this is a broad and general statement.
I am interested in receiving opinions on whether this statement
is inconsistent with anyone else's assessment of this issue.

Further research is obviously required, to substantiate the finding
which I have generalised in the above statement. But I have now
researched things for some time, and since the very purpose of any
discussion forum is to offer advice in the development of emergent
ideas, perhaps there is someone who can tell me why this statement
is correct or incorrect, in their opinion, and so direct my research.



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

Clivedurdle

Basically agreed but I would trace np ideas back to zoroaster - and probably earlier - it is a way to interpret issues of why there is good and evil - a two god solution is a logical possibility. I am influenced by Jungian thinking - we are talking about basic psychological - archetypal - issues - so may go back to pre history and when we started telling stories about how the world is.

Eusebian Christianity seems to be an attempt to turn myth and story into fixed doctrines about how things are - for political reasons - in contrast to Pauline gnostic "glass darkly".

(May I reccomend Gilliam's Brothers Grimm DVD as an excellent source!)

Magdlyn

Several comments:

Why is the word "heathen" in the translation of Eusebius and later claimed by the OP to have been invented by him? Heathen is a northern European word. Pagan (country person) and barbarian (bearded one) were Greek words which began to carry negative connotations to the orthodox Christians in this time period. Heathen (person of the heath) would not have been in their lexicon. So I have issue with the above translation and have to wonder what else they got wrong.

Why the use of the word "tribe?" Would not school (in re philosophy) or sect (in re theology) be more precise?

It seems to me, Eusebius was not calling the school of Basilides and others "Gnostics" with a capital G, but implying in a mocking way the founders of schools he was attempting to calumnify claimed knowledge of God which was incorrect, and his own knowledge as superior. Ie: they had "gnosis falsely so-called." He was the True Gnostic TM, you see.

But the groups we call Gnostics today were not known as Gnostics back then. They were known as Mandeans, Carpocrations, Valenitnians, etc. And as far as the "orthodox" believers, were they not knows as Paulinists, Johannists, Ebionites (school of James), etc? Paul himself comments on this nomenclature.

It does seem to me tho, that Eusebius was attempting to scrape many diverse groups inelegantly into two opposing armies, in classic dualistic fashion!

BTW, no "Gnostic" school that I know of claimed that Satan created the cosmos. They called the creator the Demiurge or Ialdabaoth. He wasn't one half of a yin yang circle in oppostion to the Ineffable God. Just a wee "abortion" (or handicapped child with scrambled DNA we might say) drunk on power, but presently being taken down with little effort, and even with laughter at his antics, by his mother Sophia and her helper, Christ.

mountainman

The Greeks subsumed (for themselves, and thus the Romans) Zoroaster
IMO into their own pantheon. Pythagoras and after him Plato brought
any earlier and multi-cultural ideas into a greek art of philosophy.

It was this rich and indigenous philosophical environment, and not some
other "outlandish" system of thought, into which Constantine was born.
I do not consider christianity to have existed in antiquity.

Apollonius of Tyana represented the new Hermes, recently incarnated,
and his neo-pythagorean followers, aka neo-platonists, revived the
interest in the sources of his wisdom (ie: Pythagoras, whose theorem
is still employed in the theory of relativity).

But the philosophy embraced by the then followers of Apollonius and
the neo-pythagoreans could not be geographically fixed and taxed by
the rule of the Roman imperialists, whom Apollonius had attacked.

Consequently Constantine sought to conquer his newly acquired empire
a second time, not by might, but by imperial collegiate literature which
he formally introduced at the council of Nicaea. Eusebius was no doubt
sponsored by Constantine as an editor-in-chief of this massive literary
exercise in fiction.

Eusebius creates a set of authors in antiquity in whose writings were
to be evidenced the gradual evolution of the "tribe of christians".
Many of this writing is the inter-office memos of alleged christian bishops,
with scattered christian 'apologists', interspersed with a good dose of
interpolation into pre-existent patristic literature, such as Origen down
to Josephus, in whom we find the classic Eusebian Tell "tribe of christians",
which just happened to have survived "down to this day".

To do this, Eusebius needed a database of sorts to collate the testimonies
of these authors, and the issues tracked therein (eg: herecy, martryship).
We all know that the old Excel spreadsheet is the first primitive database,
and so did Origen. Eusebius was clever in the multiple column technology.

Eusebius edited Paul, if he did not write it himself. Anyone reading the
theological fantasy which is now known as the Eusebian Ecclesiastical
History, and his other works, including his "Life of the Blessed Emperor
Constantine" and "Against Hierocles against Jesus against Apollonius"
should immediately perceive that the author of the history could quite
easily have also written the gospels, the acts and the entire NT.

Eusebius first binds the (Origen sourced) OT to the NT at Nicaea
for "his THRICE BLESSED EMPEROR", and additionally hands over his
very useful Eusebian canon tables. These canon tables would be
the classic by-product of taking 4 similar stories and constructing
them so as to be slightly different, because Constantine would have
required four eye-witness accounts to his new god, which although
agreed in basics, differed in 20 % of the details.

A database in this instance may not be the best way to go. The
modern relational databases require a certain level of integrity. Say
for example dates of birth and death of authors, dates of the writings,
etc. In many cases, we are dealing with UNKNOWN BISHOPS and
UNKNOWN MONKS without dates of birth, or death. Writings exist
for which authors may be several or unknown.

Therefore, after asking a similar question, I have opted to go for
a database approach which for the moment represents various lists.

1) List of the authors
2) List of the writings
3) Text of the writings

My first list, is a list of the authors in antiquity who, via Eusebius of
otherwise, our knowledge of that period of time is enhanced.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm
Color-coding by category of author gives dimension to the flat list.

I have yet to assemble this list 2, so if anyone has a source
I'd be interested in such a list.

Like Julian, I am convinced that the fabrication of the galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Before the database, is the list 1 and the list 2.
Best wishes,



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

mountainman

I have not properly placed this issue in perspective.
The three terms "heathen", "pagan" and "gentile"
seem to imply a Roman imperial world-view.
See this thread for further questions:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=164208

If Eusebius can put it into the mouth of Josephus then
I can also use the term without further explanation. ;-)


Quite!

How can you be sure it is Paul and not just another Eusebian profile?
Eusebius weaves a web of literature under imperial sponsorship circa
324 CE out of which mankind has yet to unravel itself.


Imperial Roman army modus operandi: divide and conquer.


It is just as consistent to argue that:
1) there were no christians prior to Constantine.
2) the gnostic literature is a perversion of neopythagoraean works.

We have no evidence contrary to hypothesis 1 above, apart from
that handed down by tradition within the department of paleographic
analysis, and a few archeological sites with a possible relic. All else
christian was through the great and munificent donation of Constantine.

No churches, no crosses, no creeds, no literature.
Nothing pre-Nicaean.

Christianity is a Constantinian phenomenom.
Despite 200 years of scholarship.
Carbon dating results will tell.




Pete Brown

Magdlyn

That short thread tells me nothing about the roots of the word heathen. It is an old English word and I'm guessing it is a mistranslation of pagan.

I am not here to debate your "Eusebian authorship of the NT" theory.

This does not address my assertion of lack of evidence that the gnostics called the Creator: Satan.

mountainman

That's a pity, I'll miss your wit.
Would any others like to offer an historical
reason why Eusebius could not have written the NT?

HE Book 1,Chapter IV. (circa 324 CE)
The Religion Proclaimed by Him to All Nations
Was Neither New Nor Strange.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mountainman

I have been looking for a good well researched summary that outlines
the range of issues associated with Pythagoreanism and Neo-Pythagoreanism
and now agree with you concerning the "varying conclusions" which have
been documented over the centuries.

The best references found to date are these:
On Pythagoras:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
On Pythagoreanism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoreanism/

These are extensive resources and I am slowly working through them.
The index for the treatment of Pythagoreanism lists 4 terms:

(1) Pythagoreanism is the philosophy of the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras (ca. 570-ca. 490 BC), which prescribed a highly structured way of life and espoused the doctrine of metempsychosis (transmigration of the soul after death into a new body, human or animal).

(2) Pythagoreanism is the philosophy of a group of philosophers active in the fifth and the first half of the fourth century BC, whom Aristotle refers to as “the so-called Pythagoreans” and to whom Plato also refers. Aristotle's expression, “so-called Pythagoreans,” suggests both that at his time this group of thinkers was commonly called Pythagoreans and, at the same time, calls into question the actual connection between these thinkers and Pythagoras himself. Aristotle ascribes no specific names to these Pythagoreans, but the philosophy which he assigns to them is very similar to what is found in the fragments of Philolaus of Croton (ca. 470-ca. 390 BC). Thus, Philolaus and his successor Eurytus are likely to have been the most prominent of these Pythagoreans. Philolaus posits limiters and unlimiteds as first principles and emphasizes the role of number in understanding the cosmos. Aristotle also identifies a distinct group of these so-called Pythagoreans who formulated a set of basic principles known as the table of opposites. Plato's sole reference to Pythagoreans cites their search for the numerical structure of contemporary music and is probably an allusion to Archytas (ca. 420-ca. 350 BC), who is the first great mathematician in the Pythagorean tradition. Starting from the system of Philolaus he developed his own sophisticated account of the world in terms of mathematical proportion.

(3) Many other fifth- and fourth-century thinkers are labeled Pythagoreans in the Greek tradition after the fourth century BC. By the late fourth century AD many of the most prominent Greek philosophers including Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle come to be called Pythagoreans, with no historical justification. There are nonetheless a number of thinkers of the fifth and fourth century BC, who can legitimately be called Pythagoreans, although often little is known about them except their names. The most important of these figures is Hippasus.

(4) The last manifestation of Pythagoreanism, Neopythagoreanism, has been the most influential. Neopythagoreanism is not a unified school of thought but rather a tendency, stretching over many centuries, to view Pythagoras, with no historical justification, as the central and original figure in the whole Greek philosophical tradition. This Pythagoras is often thought to have received his philosophy as a divine revelation, which had been given even earlier to wise men of the ancient Near East such as the Persian Magi, the Hebrews (Moses in particular), and the Egyptian priests. All Greek philosophy after Pythagoras, insofar as it may be true, is seen as derived from this revelation. Thus, Plato's and Aristotle's ideas are viewed as derived from Pythagoras (with the mediation of other early Pythagoreans). Many pseudepigrapha are produced in later times in order to provide the Pythagorean “originals” on which Plato and Aristotle drew. Some strands of the Neopythagorean tradition emphasize Pythagoras as master metaphysician, who supposedly originated what are, in fact, the principles of Plato's later metaphysics, the one and the indefinite dyad. Other Neopythagoreans celebrate Pythagoras as the founder of the quadrivium of mathematical sciences (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music), while still others portray him as a magician or as a religious expert and sage, upon whom we should model our lives. Neopythagoreanism began already in the second half of the fourth century BC among Plato's first successors in the Academy, but particularly flourished from the first century BC until the end of antiquity. Neopythagoreanism has close connections to Middle and Neoplatonism and from the time of Iamblichus (4th c. AD) is largely absorbed into Neoplatonism. It was the Neopythagorean version of Pythagoreanism that dominated in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

This treatment at face value indicates that we must first define the
Pythagoreanism to be discussed in this thread, as you have maintained.

It also highlights the need to examine in the same fashion the term
platonism and neo-platonism, as outlined in the final paragraph above,
and especially the reasons and mechanisms by which "Neopythagoreanism
... from the time of Iamblichus is largely absorbed into Neoplatonism."


Perhaps I will be ready to ask the question again, stated at the
commencement of this thread sometime in 2007? Any early answers
to the original question however, will be welcomed in the interim.


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mountainman

I must have missed this comment.
It deserves its own thread.

But concerning the subject matter of this thread,
there is now a WIKI page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_I...and_Gnosticism

The First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism at the University of Oklahoma in 1984 explored the relationship between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. The conference also led to a book named Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.

And another related subject from Neoplatonism_and_Gnosticism

Platonic Origins of the Term "Gnostikoi"

Gnosis is a Greek word, originally used in specifically Platonic philosophical contexts. Plato, for example, uses the terms gnostikoi’ and gnostike episteme in the text called Politikos in Greek and Politicus in Latin (258e-267a) the modern name being the Statesman. The word means the knowledge to influence and control. Gnostike episteme also was used to indicate one's aptitude. The terms does not appear to indicate any esoteric or hidden meaning within the works of Plato but instead expressed a sort of higher intelligence and ability akin to talent.

Within the text of Politikos, the Stranger (the main speaker in the dialog) indicates that the best political leaders are those that have this "knowledge" that would indicate the ruler's competency. Gnostikoi’ would be a quality or characteristic of someone ideal to attend the academy of Plato's. Since a high aptitude would be a necessary qualification to understand and grasp the teachings of the academy.

Although the Greek stem gno- was in common use, "like many of the new words formed with -(t)ikos, gnostikos was never very widely used and never entered ordinary Greek; it remained the more or less exclusive property of Plato's subsequent admirers, such as Aristotle, Philo Judaeus, Plutarch, Albinus, Iamblichus and Ioannes Philoponus. Most important of all in its normative philosophical usage gnostikos was never applied to the person as a whole, but only to mental endevours, facilities, or components of personality."[4]. Thus, if it really is so that some Christians "called themselves" gnostikos, or "professed to be" gnostikos, as Porphyry (a pagan who wrote against christianity), Celsus (a pagan who wrote against christianity), Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus claim, then this would be a novel innovation, and a very distinctive claim, rather than a continuation of the traditional usage, and may well mark a self-designating proper name, rather than merely a self-description. Indeed, it would have sounded like technical philosophical jargon at the time. In contrast, merely claiming to have or supply gnosis would have been a very normal and non-distinctive claim in the 2nd century CE, in many Christian and Hellenistic circles.

Note that the claim that this innovation is Eusebian
is also consistent and possible. All we know of the
gnostics is 100% Eusebian. Buyer beware.