Roger Pearse

I believe that he is the first heretic identified as 'gnostic' in the catalogues of heresies. I know that it is possible to assert that Simon Magus was a gnostic, and the difficulty of defining gnosticism means that such a claim will have plausibility. But did he call himself that, and do the heresiologists call him this? (In view of the uselessness of most definitions, I rather favour sticking with whatever the ancient usage is). I don't think so, myself, but of course I am willing to learn otherwise.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I sincerely hope you are roundly wrong about that. But you are probably correct in the case of at least some.

There may, however, be another historical Jesus or two lurking within the gospel texts. Reading a text against itself is not a brand new enterprise in historical studies.

There is also Paul; he stands outside, and apparently earlier than, the gospel texts. And Josephus and Tacitus are always worth closer study.

Paleography (a form of external criticism) is not the only issue at stake. There may be internal indications, too.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

In Eusebius and Gnosticism, the first article (pages 291-310) in the Orthodoxy and Heresy section of Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk), Birger A. Pearson makes a case for limiting what we would call true gnostics in Eusebius to those he designates by the phrase knowledge falsely called. The problem with using the actual term gnostic is that the Greek word is applied to orthodox and heretical alike. But knowledge falsely called is applied only to the heretical, and almost exclusively (in Eusebius) to those whom we would identify as gnostics, to wit, the following list of people or groups (from page 304):

Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinians, Cerdo and Marcionites, and Manichaeans.

It is worth a read, at any rate, since I too am interested in using the terms as the ancients would have used them (though I am quite willing to desert their nomenclature and invent my own when the ancients are unclear or contradictory on the matter), for the sake of accuracy and clarity.

Ben.

Vivisector

Is using paleography as the sole dating criterion something you would do for other texts such as, for example, the gospels?

V.

andrewcriddle

We have reasonably good evidence that Valentinus was active through much of the reign of Antoninus Pius.

This would seem to put him slightly later than the conventional dates for Basilides.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

But was Zarathustra gnostic?!?

Chris Weimer

Isn't the answer obvious?

Roger Pearse

I share the concerns about the integrity of NT studies. This is why I spend my time on patristics!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Agree in part, but it's more complicated than that. The system is set up in such a way that the conclusions are skewed, not that all the researchers are dishonest (although the system inevitably pre-selectes for agreement).

Indeed.

Ah, there is a confusion here. We do not date *texts* by paleography, but *manuscripts containing the text*. Obviously a manuscript copy may be up to 20 centuries later than an ancient text that it contains.

I have seen people write as if the gospels must have been composed shortly before the first extant manuscript fragment or first quotation in other now extant literature. This, of course, is nonsense, but it bears repetition because I notice that you've been caught too! A similar argument would date most classical literature to the middle ages.

All our Christian and heretical papyri start in the second century. There probably were insufficient Christians around for much to survive, statistically, before then. Of course that is the period of the rise (and start of the decline?) of gnosticism, and, since gnosticism didn't involve being abused by the authorities on a regular basis, there were probably at least as many people who might be classified as gnostics in some sense in Egypt in that period as Christians.

Dating heretical texts as early as possible and the NT as late as possible is a game that has been played by people of genuine scholarly ability for at least a century. It is one reason why I treat everything coming out of the discipline with suspicion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

No it is not! That is why I asked it! Belief in a main god and a sub god and in secret knowledge did not start in the timeframe of xianity!

I am unclear why gnosticism is treated as a heresy - Judaism and other religions are not. Heresy means going away from xian beliefs, but as it is clearly pre existing how can it go away? Do you not have to have some form of xian belief to be heretical? It looks like some gnostics added xian beliefs - or possibly invented them!

Why not HJism as a heresy of gnosticism?

The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Pagels - Gnostic Paul