Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

That sounds like classic 1970's Marxism to me!

Originally Posted by DaBuster

Clivedurdle, "market" was a typo in DCHindley's original post -- Pearson actually said "marked". I noticed the typo when he originally quoted Pearson (based on the context, it seemed clear that Pearson probably wrote "marked tendency"), but at the time I didn't think it was worth mentioning. However, if you're going to use it as a basis for calling Pearson a Marxist, well, I guess we'd best set the record straight. It seems that you just can't find good scribes these days....

Originally Posted by mountainman

Retired or not, the problems inherent in establishing such historical conditions are formidable. I will list a few:

1) Josephus flatly states the Essenes were "Pythagoreans".
2) According to Eusebius, the "gnostics" wrote in greek.
3) Gnostic "archaeological finds" are writings in Coptic, Syriac (Nag Ham)
4) Where is is reference to the historical "therapeutae"?
5) Philo discusses both Essenes and Therapeutae.
6) Both these groups are "pythagorean-like", not "Judaism like".
7) The Essenes hung out in Palestine -- they were Hellenised Jews.
8) The Therapeutae were ubiquitous, but gathered in Egypt.
9) The gnostics were "Hellenic" (or Egypto-Graeco) ascetics.
10) One fourth century variety were the Pachomian monastery.
11) See Robert Lane Fox's summary of the Nag Hammadi Library.

That the gnostics had Jewish sources is totally conjectural. It flies in the face of the temple structures of Asclepius at which ascetic priests had assumed custodial roles since 500 BCE, for the purposes of healing. This is well established.

Well, I think he has the job ahead of him to find evidence for this assertion, which is unjustifiably shared by many researchers in their attempts in trying to find the true source of "Early Christianity" and its relationship with the Gnostics.

My opinion is that the Gnostics were simply Hellenic. And that the "Early Christians" were neither Judaic, nor indeed, as insisted by Eusebius, Gnostic. The process of "christianisation of literature" is evident at Nag Hammadi. Christians appeared 312 CE, and they were militaristic.

There is no historical basis for gnosticism evolving from Juda, or for christianity evolving from Judaism, except the assertions of Eusebius. Look at the evidence. Cite the evidence.

The evidence indicates a huge empire wide network of the temples of Asclepius (the most popular of a huge pantheon of temples) associated with the ascetic path, and Healing, right through to the Pachomian monastery
(which I believe was not christian before 325 CE).

What evidence does your author provide for these assertions, which of course are frequently made by all researchers who sit down to trace the Gnostic and Judaic origins of the nation of "christians".

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Pete,

I honestly don't know what to say in response to this.

DCH

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I was also forced to develop a tentative reconstruction of the development of the Jesus movement that, aside from no input from Paul, is not too far removed from that suggested by Birger A. Peason and M. Friedlander, that Christianity as we know it in the NT was the result of social stresses (such as the War of 66-74 CE and laybe the revolts in Egypt and Judea in the early half of the 2nd century), and influences (middle Platonism as per Pearson, and private associations that practiced mystery religions as described by Kloppenborg and others in Voluntary Associations (or via: amazon.co.uk) * ).

Originally Posted by mountainman

What sources outside of Eusebius does your author cite
for the subject matter related to the "christian gnostics"?
Does your author mention Ammonius Saccas became or
was "a christian" --- the mentor of Origen.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Good stuff DCH. Tell, me, do these recent studies on Gnosticism really dig into the Sethian material in the Nag Hammadi literature? I'm guessing they must do. I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Sethian stuff has been dated pretty early (not the papyrii obviously but the original works), possibly contemporaneous with or even slightly earlier than early Christianity. It looks like what you're saying about these latest theories about Gnosticism are saying something similar.

The fact that the Nag Hammadi collection includes Sethian and Christian Gnosticism, as well as Hermeticism and Platonism, suggests either that it's just a miscellany or that these texts were seen as in some way related, or even congruent, by the people who hid them. (Certainly it's pretty obvious from a mystical or Jungian point of view that they're congruent.) Admittedly that's 300 years after the time we're talking about, but that could have been a long-standing tradition of interpretation (or at least one tradition of interpretation).

I wonder if you've read any Margaret Barker? Price's review of her The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God makes her ideas sound very interesting, and some of them would seem to fit in with this idea of Judaism being much more varied and interesting pre-70 CE than one might assume if one knew Judaism of that time only through the gospel lens.

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Pearson translated several of the Nag Hammadi books for the Nag Hammadi Library edition. Chances are damn good that he'd know what he is talking about. FWIW, in the index to _Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity_, under "Patristic Testimonies," he cites Eusebius 4 times out of several hundred citations from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, irenaeus, Justiin, origen, Augustine, Epiphanius, Filastrius, pseudo-Tertullian, Tertullian, Theodoret, Hegemonius, Plotinus, Porphyry, pseudo-Clementines.