Amos

It would be wise to make a distinction between the gnostic mind and the -ism that is built upon it. Let me clarify that the gnostic mind is a gift from God (our mandate in the bible is to obtain the mind of God) wherefore we are called to be sons of God who must mature to become learned in (not just about) the reign of God.

The problem with building an -ism upon this mind is our inability to mix data from outside this reign of God with the knowledge obtained from within this reign of God. As an alchemist we can do this but it is impossible to teach our children the art of alchemy (or God would have grandchildren) and so gnosticism cannot be conceived to exist as an -ism.

Mageth

Amos, I'm curious (as always): do you read much Jung (the mention of alchemy hints at Jung) and/or Joseph Campbell?

mike_decock

From the Introduction in Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels"

If Gnosticism had become a enough of a "problem" to inspire five volumes calling for it's destruction by c. 180, I think it's hard to imagine that it was a relatively new phenomenon.

-Mike...

Amos

No I don't read Jung at all. I actually put him down after reading a couple of pages and I never heard of Joseph Cambell.

I just know that alchemists could purify base metal into gold and suspect that this was a metaphor for refining their own thoughts into eternal truths.

Mageth

Well, you sure sound like one or the other of them at times.

(But, then, I suppose I do too).

Amos

You make exellent points that are also true.

cyclone

Originally posted by mike_decock


I don't find that hard to imagine. In the late 19th century, shortly after Mormonism came onto the scene, many Christians already expressed concern over the teachings of Joseph Smith, and spoke out against his new movement.

As for your quotation from Pagels on the alleged destruction of Gnostic texts, it misses the point of what I'm asking for in the first place. It is from the reading of Pagels that previous posts have claimed that early Orthodox leaders destroyed such texts. My question was whether Pagels (or anyone else) provides any evidence that this actually took place. To simply refer back to Pagels is a circular argument, since at least in the quotation you provided, she merely asserts that this happened.

cyclone

Originally posted by Mageth
I wonder the same thing, but the fact remains that the dating of these scrolls is around the mid-fourth century, if not later. So whatever the motive for placing them there, it couldn't be a result of first-century Orthodox leaders attempting to destroy them, precisely because they wouldn't be written for a couple hundred years. So this cannot possibly serve as evidence of an early, systematic destruction of Gnostic texts.

cyclone

Originally posted by Mageth



My original assumption was that the philosophy of Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity, whereas the Christian expression of Gnosticism came onto the scene after Orthodox Christianity. After reading Yamauchi, however, I'm finding that the first assumption is not really accepted by all scholars, and that arguments have been made that even philosophical Gnosticism came after Orthodox Christianity.



I had a feeling someone would be unable to resist that analogy, but I think it's a false one. The quote from Yamauchi is referring to the syncretic tendencies of Gnosticism (which actually has its origins in Oriental Philosophy) to borrow from other systems in the development of its own system. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, with the former merely claiming to be the fulfillment of the latter.

[/B]

I understand your concern here. But the sub-title of his book is: "A Survey of the Proposed Evidence," and so he is merely chronicling the opinions of various scholars on this subject (both conservative and liberal). Having read the book, I can say there are very few times when he actually asserts his own opinion. In fact, in one chapter there are over four-hundred footnotes of references. So I don't think there should be any doubt as to whether he is taking an objective approach to the topic.



As just mentioned, I think his book is a great resource for this, as he quotes from many resources that would disagree with the party-line conservative perspective.



I agree. But I'm not questioning the truthfulness of Gnostic beliefs; rather, I'm questioning whether they represent a legitimate expression of Christian faith. That was one of the first questions that started this dialogue, and it's a very different question from whether Gnosticism is true. And I think the origin of philosophical Gnosticism is relevant for the discussion, because if it is primarily a "parasitic" system, then this raises questions as to whether it did in fact pre-date Orthodox Christianity.

Mageth

Well, I personally haven't claimed that there was a systematic destruction of Gnostic texts in the First Century, or even the Second, and I don't think Pagels or anyone else does either. So you're asking us for evidence of something we're not claiming.

But there is plenty of evidence, including Biblical evidence, some of which you've been given, that indicates the "orthodox" side was strongly opposed to the Gnostic (and other "heretical") interpretation very early on (in the First Century).

Here's what you asked for:

Another issue is the late dating of those Gnostic resources that have been found. I know the response is that the earlier writings were destroyed by Catholic leaders, but I'm curious to know if there is any evidence for this accusation. And what I need, specifically, is evidence of a systematic attempt to destroy such writings, because this seems to be the claim of Pagels and others

Here you did not include the early modifier, so you seem to be shifting the goalposts.

I think the systematic destruction came later (e.g. 3rd, 4th Century and beyond). This effort definitely could have destroyed many if not most earlier copies of the "heretical" texts that had survived to that point. Add to that the fact that many of the earlier texts were no doubt lost due to other "natural" processes, perhaps even being destroyed after copying if they were in poor condition.

And note that early copies of the canonical texts are very rare (or nonexistent) as well.