Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 07-02-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

To preface my impending response, I can say that the Christian movement developed out of Judaism in a manner similar to the way Birgar Pearson sees Jewish Gnosticism developing from Judaism. I think Marcion was in touch with Gnostic speculation which saw a true god in the realm of the "pleroma" (based on middle platonic speculations) mirrored by an imperfect creator god in the physical realm (the Jewish god). He ended up falling in love with the works of the good god, which he equated with the Christology of the Pauline epistles and Luke-Acts, and couldn't stand the works of the creator God, including Judaism

When you say "Gnosticism out of Judaism" theory, is that the same as Ehrman mentions in his "Lost Christianities", where he outlines a path from Apocalypticism to Gnosticism?

gurugeorge · 07-02-2007, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Here is what is to my mind an absolutely gorgeous, moving, and apparently proto-Gnostic passage (roughly 4:1) from a reconstruction of Marcion's version of Paul's letter to the Galatians

I agree that the author of that reconstruction, has taken the right approach. Marcion's Jesus was not the Jesus of the Gospels. Since Marcion is the first Paulanist of record, and probably the central force behind promoting Paul's ideas, it stands to reason that, that which is authentically Pauline, would be in line with Marcion's ideas, else he would not have been such a promoter of Paul!

All of Paul's letters need to be passed through the Marcion filter to exclude that which is likely a later addition. I believe this would include the incongruent creedal aspects of 1 Corinthians (chapter 15 primarily, but a few bits and pieces elsewhere). If we apply this idea consistently, it seems Doherty's mystical Christ emerges from Paul.

I agree, even before looking into the matter in a more detailed way as I've been doing in recent years, I'd always felt that there was something visionary/mystical about Paul; it sort of glints and glitters off the letters, even though the bulk of his letters seem to be full of confusing and contradictory theological babble (and you can see why if you look at the very clear proto-orthodox interpolation DCH has outlined - whether you follow that or Marcion, it's clear that somebody or several somebodies have tampered with the original Paul).

It might be that the mystical Paul is also a later addition; but as I said above it's hard to see why that mystical element would have been left in by the proto-orthodox unless it was so authentically Paul (something that stood out that most early Christians remembered) that there would have been outrage had it been removed.

What it's looks like to me at the moment is that Marcion did indeed trim away a fair bit of an earlier layer of proto-orthodox bumf, but also added his own bumf that exaggerated congenial elements in Paul, while cutting across and misundersting some uncongenial elements in Paul (probably the elements that show Paul's Jewishness, as shown by DCH's analysis).

And then I think there's a further later layer of orthodox additions (probably to go along with the Acts/Luke shennanigans), to make up the Paul we have.

DCHindley · 07-02-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

To preface my impending response, I can say that the Christian movement developed out of Judaism in a manner similar to the way Birgar Pearson sees Jewish Gnosticism developing from Judaism. I think Marcion was in touch with Gnostic speculation which saw a true god in the realm of the "pleroma" (based on middle platonic speculations) mirrored by an imperfect creator god in the physical realm (the Jewish god). He ended up falling in love with the works of the good god, which he equated with the Christology of the Pauline epistles and Luke-Acts, and couldn't stand the works of the creator God, including Judaism

When you say "Gnosticism out of Judaism" theory, is that the same as Ehrman mentions in his "Lost Christianities", where he outlines a path from Apocalypticism to Gnosticism?

I'm not sure. I do not have a copy of Ehrman's Lost Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk). Could you provide a brief summary?

DCH

DCHindley · 07-02-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

When you say "Gnosticism out of Judaism" theory, is that the same as Ehrman mentions in his "Lost Christianities", where he outlines a path from Apocalypticism to Gnosticism?

OK, I found this 2004 review of Ehrman's book by Michael Kaler:

Quote:

Furthermore, the hypothesis that Gnosticism arose from a failed Jewish apocalypticism, which Ehrman presents, is by no means certain. The two literary genres certainly have a great deal in common, (3) and as far as we know apocalypticism does predate Gnosticism, and gnostic works (particularly Sethian) use a great many apocalyptic motifs. However, is this a case of Gnosticism being created by frustrated apocalypticists to explain why the eschaton did not come as planned or a case of literary borrowings between two groups with similar concerns? The latter idea is at least as possible as the former. There is at present no convincing consensus on the origins of Gnosticism: the apocalyptic derivation is one possibility among many and should have been signaled as such.

However, Ehrman is to be commended for his inclusion (119-20) of a discussion of the possible influence of Middle Platonism on Gnosticism. The debts that gnostic thought owe to Platonic philosophy have been investigated and acknowledged more and more often by scholars in the last generation (the work of John Turner being perhaps the preeminent example), and with good reason. Indeed, the majority of what one finds in gnostic texts can be compared to either Middle Platonism or apocalypticism: the difficulty lies in determining what these similarities mean and how they arose.

3) For a good summation of the similarities, and also for a critique of the well-known theory of R. M. Grant that Gnosticism developed out of frustrated apocalyptic hopes in the aftermath of the first Jewish Revolt, see Keller, _Das Problem des Bösen in Apokalyptik und Gnostik_, in Gnosis and Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, September 8-13, 1975) (ed. M. Krause; NHS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 70-90.

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3978_4231.pdf

So it does look like Ehrman is speaking about the same kind of process described by Pearson. Pearson, on the other hand, ascribes the first appearance of it to Moritz Friedlander. Off the top of my head, Pearson did not feel Grant's development of the idea was correct, but did not give specifics.

Some while ago I summarized my thought on the matter thusly:

Quote:

The thesis that Gnosticism developed out of disappointed apocalyptic hopes after the destruction of Jerusalem was advanced, and later abandoned, by R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Columbuia Univ. Press, 1959, and Harper & Row, 1966, respectively). He originally proposed that this event itself was decisive in the development of Gnosticism in general, and this is the form of the thesis that was ultimately abandoned. The war would have had little impact on "Pagan" Gnostic development. That it played some role in *Jewish* Gnostic development is what Pearson thinks was the case.
Jewish Gnosticism also could not have occurred without the influence of middle Platonic concepts and related salvation myths. The controversy, IMHO, has to do with the *degree* to which Jewish Gnostic movements represented Gnosticism in general.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...22/001860.html

Quote:

Those, who like me, are inclined to separate out levels of redaction in Paul's letters might also find interesting Ch 8 "Jewish Elements in Gnosticism and the Development of Gnostic Self Definition" (pp. 124-135), since I think there is a parallel with Gentile-Christian self definition which was emerging at about the same time as that of the Gnostics.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...12/001166.html

Quote:

I am perplexed by the Gospels, which show a simultaneous semi-familiarity with, and contempt for, Judaism, and I think that this is best explained by them being written by Gentiles who were at one time proselytes or full converts to Judaism. Obviously, if they were converts, they no longer considered themselves Jews, as they saw the Christ as a vehicle for salvation that superceded the sacrificial and legal system of Jews. The only event close to the traditional period of Jesus' life that could account for such a radical reversal of thinking is the war with Rome, 66-74 CE.

Birger Pearson has proposed origins for "Jewish (Sethian) Gnosticism" that provides the closest analogy to what I see as having occurred to the Jesus movement (outlined in Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), Fortress, 1990, pp. 10ff, 124ff). The major difference is that the "Jewish" Gnostics were Jews intimately familiar with their ancestral literature, in Hebrew, and apocalyptic literature in Aramaic.

Since the authors of the Gospels had relatively inaccurate knowledge of Judaism and its practices, and relied on the LXX for their understanding of the Jewish scriptures, I am inclined to think that this reformed Jesus movement primarily consisted of Gentiles who had once been close to messianic Judaism (i.e., the Jesus movement, which was likely one of many messianic groups) as converts.

I'd look to the more disaffected classes in society as the kind of individuals who comprised the (former) Gentile element of this movement. These were probably influenced by the kind of propaganda that the Sibylline oracles represent: A new age is prophesied, and you can get on board with those who will carry it out (the Jews) or be crushed by it. These either welcomed this change in world order (and the accompanying economic/social circumstances) eagerly, or feared it so much that they felt safer associated with the Jews who they expected to carry it out.

But the war and its aftermath, the destruction of the sacrificial system and dashing of any hope of a new world empire toppling the Romans any time soon, disaffected many of these Gentile converts and proselytes. This may have been exacerbated by resentment towards some Jews (not necessarily part of the Jewish core of the Jesus movement, if they survived the war in any numbers) who may have then tried to keep them at arms length as troublemakers who helped bring this disaster down on them.

Those of these who were part of the Jesus movement ended up redefining themselves in a manner similar to that undertaken by the Jewish Gnostics, incorporating similar but not identical middle Platonic savior myths, and the Christ theology was born. Approximate date, probably within 10 years of the war's end (ca. 80-85 CE).

Part of the redefinition process for these members of a revised Jesus movement would appear to be disassociation from their messianic (and hence, in Roman eyes, seditious) roots. In time. the gospels are published to present Jesus as a misunderstood wisdom teacher, and Acts is written to try to place Christian "origins" firmly in a "historical" framework, likely due to any lack of mention of it in Josephus' War or Antiquities.

In this process, it is natural to want to attract a more sophisticated element to itself, and the urbanites that would have been attracted to Paul's message seemed like good targets. These likely also had to deal with a certain amount of rejection by some natural born Jews, and may have felt like rudderless boats with the destruction of the sacrificial system.

80-85 CE is some 20 years after Paul's time, and Paul is at this point likely a fond memory. If his epistles circulated, it wasn't extensively. Someone managed to get their hands on a collection, perhaps in one of those trunks like the one Paul left a Troas, or perhaps available on the book market, and revised them to make Paul a "Christian". This was made available as recruitment propaganda (term used in its neutral sense).

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...02/001775.html

DCH

gurugeorge · 07-02-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

When you say "Gnosticism out of Judaism" theory, is that the same as Ehrman mentions in his "Lost Christianities", where he outlines a path from Apocalypticism to Gnosticism?

I'm not sure. I do not have a copy of Ehrman's _Lost Christianities_. Could you provide a brief summary?

DCH

What would happen to an apocalyptic worldview, if, contrary to expectation, the end did not come "soon"? Or, worse, if it never came at all? What would people firmly committed to an apocalyptic view of the world do then? How would their thinking change?

Some such people might well experience another radical modification in their thinking, at least as radical as that from the prophetic view (God is causing suffering) to the apocalyptic (God's enemy, the Devil, is causing suffering). Both of these earlier views presuppose that the world was created by God, who is the good and all-powerful divine force behind it. But if these views are called into question by the ongoing realities of suffering in the world, what then? Maybe in fact the entire assumption is wrong. Maybe this world is not the creation of the one true God. Maybe the suffering in this world is not happening as a punishment from this good God or despite his goodness. Maybe the God of this world is not good. Maybe he is causing suffering not because he is good and wants people to share in his goodness but because he is evil, or ignorant, or inferior and he wants people to suffer or doesn't care if they do, or maybe he can't do anything about it. But if that's true, then the God of this world is not the one true God. There must be a greater God above this world, one who did not create this world. In this understanding, the material world itself - material existence in all its forms - is inferior at best or evil at worst, and so is the God, then, who created it. There must a nonmaterial God unconnected with this world, above the creator God of the Old Testament, a God who neither created this world nor brought suffering to it, who wants to relieve his people from their suffering - not by redeeming this world but by delivering them from it, liberating them from their entrapment in this material existence [...]

It would be a mistake, however, to see Gnosticism as failed apocalypticism, pure and simple, for there are other factors that appear to have affected the complicated "mix" that we find in the Gnostic religions. Here I will mention just one other. One of the most striking features of Gnosticism is its radical dualism, in which the material world is evil and the world of spirit is good. Where did this idea come from? Some readers are immediately struck by the parallels to certain kinds of eastern religion, and there may be something to that connection. But scholars of antiquity are usually struck even more by the similarities to other philosophical notions known from the period, especially among thinkers who stood within the Platonic tradition. Plato, too, had emphasized a kind of dualism of shadow and reality, matter and spirit. And there were a number of philosophers from the first and second centuries of the common era who expanded Plato's view and developed entire cosmologies - explanations for our world - that were dependent on him. These thinkers are usually called "Middle Platonists" [....]

Like the Gnostics, Middle Platonists thought that there was an ultimate reality far removed from anything we could think or imagine, completely ineffable (i.e. words cannot describe this God - even the loftiest words we can muster), absolutely perfect, totally removed from this world and its categories. [...]

Maybe Gnostics stood in that intellectual line, deriving their understanding of the world from Middle Platonism, in light of a transformation of a traditional view of Judaism, driven by the failure of apocalyptic hopes to materialize. The Christian form of Gnosticism, then, would have been influenced by the Christian claims about Christ, as the one through whom salvation comes, the one who reveals the truth, the one who comes from God above to us below.

dog-on · 07-03-2007, 01:04 AM

Taking the above into account. Isn't it funny to hear some current Christian sects make the claim that Satan is the lord of this world?

I can almost hear the scribbling of "Paul's", long erased, pencil...

DCHindley · 07-04-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Bit out of interest, given your point of view, how do you react to the Couchoud article I linked above?

[http://www.hermann-detering.de/couch_engl.htm]

Well, I had an opportunity to look it over. IMHO, the author (Paul-Louis Couchard) treated a lot of assumptions of the earlier Dutch radical critics as "gospel". I have a problem with the Dutch radical approach, in that they have latched onto inconsistencies in the results of German research in the late 19th century, and reduced them to the point of absurdity.

In the process, there has risen a cadre of "true believers" in the super radical interpretation (e.g., "everything is fabrication to fill the agendas of the authors of NT books"). Absurdity and "true believers" go together like toast and jam. I had a Jesuite trained history teacher in college who used to misquote Tertullian, making him say "I believe, because it is absurd." <g>

Unfortunately, I do not think I have ever seen English translations of the rough 1891 reconstruction of the Apostolicon by Theodore Zahn or the more detailed 1924 reconstruction of Adolf von Harnack. I have only seen the reconstructions of Galatians, probably because it is the most complete of the lot.

DCH

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2007, 01:04 AM	#66
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Taking the above into account. Isn't it funny to hear some current Christian sects make the claim that Satan is the lord of this world? I can almost hear the scribbling of "Paul's", long erased, pencil...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.