Roger Pearse

I'm not sure to what you are referring, but such ideas are so general as to be of limited use in definition. What did you have in mind?

The Greek term haeresis will help you here, and it too predates Christianity. It comes from the world of Greek philosophy. This was not only, and not mainly, about noodling around with words; it also comprised a great deal of pop paganism.

Each teacher would create his own set of ideas to teach (for money) to his students. Those of his pupils who set up on their own would of course create yet another variant of them, intentionally different, in order to attract students. Each collection of ideas is a haeresis (if I have this correctly).

When Christianity came along, its teachings were delivered by divine revelation, not by the process above. But of course there was nothing to stop the philosophers adapting some Christian ideas in just the same way as they had done philosophical ideas. Thus we get the 'heresy' and the 'heretics.' The point is that they are rejecting the authority of Christ and his chosen apostles, and instead setting up to teach whatever they feel like. Obviously this is an irrational way to find out about the universe -- just make up whatever story you like -- and accounts for the irritation of the fathers with these people.

The link between the philosophical schools and various heretics is listed in Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 6.

Members of other religions are not heretics, obviously. The definition can only apply to those who claim to be Christian but reject the authority of Christ to decide what is and is not true, and substitute their own imagination.

(At a later date, this sort of semi-paganism vanishes and we get heresy applied as a claim to genuine variations in Christianity itself where no decision to reject the apostolic teaching exists. But of course that is rather a different thing, and the word is therefore probably misapplied).

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

OK.

Roger Pearse

The difference of approach between

a) a fixed and authoritative set of beliefs defined in advance by divine revelation, and

b) just exploring ideas as you go along to make up a provisional set of beliefs

probably had all sorts of interesting consequences when applied well outside the realm of theology later on, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gamera

Needless to say I agree with you. My point is assuming the worse, and based solely on paleography, the GOT does no better than John. Those scholars with an agenda tend to bend over backwards to give gnostic texts priority, for obvious reasons, with no methodological consistency.

Further while we know little or nothing about GOT, and the gospels, we know a lot about Paul, and nobody really doubts he was writing circa 55 CE, meaning his writings and his conception of Jesus has priority over the gnostic texts which cannot be definitivly dated so as to give them priority to Paul.

Gamera

I would simply be consistent. If you're going to rely on paleography GOT does no better than John and probably worse.

If you're going to rely and historical analysis, Paul's writings clearly have priority.

Obviously mss don't pop out of nowhere fully formed. On the other hand I don't mind a rigorous assumption against early dating contrary to ms dating, without strong evidence to the contrary.

By the way, but that standard, Paul and his conceptualizatio of Jesus clearly has priority.

Chris Weimer

I disagree. I think you can find valid traditions dating to at least the time of Paul or earlier. Even using Paul, you can find hints of what was earlier, i.e. James and his crew clearly are earlier than Paul, even though Paul disagrees with them.

Revenge of Montezuma

Though those elements of religious elitism are certainly present, they are certainly not unknown in the traditional canon of scripture eg. Mark 4 :11.

In addition, GT is very much at variance with the basic world-rejection of most dualistic Gnosticism, whether that of Marcion, Valentinus or Basilides. Such texts as "rather the Kingdom of Heaven is within you and upon the earth" and "Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." hardly seem consistent with a violent rejection of the material world, the province of the "Evil Demiurge".

Roger Pearse

These are good points, and I agree. For these reasons, we seem to be dealing with an undeveloped gnosticism here, and so should date it fairly early, and pre-Valentinus.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gamera

I see these as pretty developed gnostic ideas:

Saying 13: secret knowledge (that core of gnosticism)

Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."

Saying 19. Guruism.

Jesus said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being.

If you become my disciples and pay attention to my sayings, these stones will serve you.

Saying 56: Material as Evil.

Jesus said, "Whoever has come to understand the world has found (only) a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world."

Saying 87, The body is evil.

"How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on these two."

Saying 112 extreme body/soul dualism

"Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."

Revenge of Montezuma

Hello Gamera

Your quotes would only seem to substantiate that there are contradictions in an ancient scripture (hardly something totally unknown before). In fact, they would seem to support Roger Pearse's claim in the second post of this thread that there are at least two sources for the gospel, one Gnostic and one not. I'm no scholar of ancient texts like this, so I wouldn't be able to argue anything definitive.

Judging from the tone of your other posts on these matters (eg. "This is the structure of gnosticism, which is utterly contrary to Christianity's notion of a revealed religion, announced through a kerygma to everybody."), you seem to wish to set up such texts in opposition to the clear, unified message of Christianity. As if Christianity had no Gnostic traits, such as regarding the body as evil - did not St Paul exclaim "Who will deliver me from the body of this death" "Mortify your mortal members" etc. etc.

As for your wishing to identify "Guruism" as an undesirable Gnostic trait - well, even in the verses you cite in your post, there is one which is obviously completely anti-Guru, anti-elitist:

>>Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."<<

"I am NOT your master" - and that's evidence of Guruism?

I'll shut up now, and let the scholars take over.