DCHindley

I can appreciate Roger's unease at the rather casual way that anything that one disagrees with (theme, style, etc) can be labled an "interpolation" and waved away.

While you have brought me into this discussion on the basis of my long standing proposal that the Pauline letters are multi-layered with one of them representing additions by a redactor (editor) at some point in the publication history, I do not advocate identification of these interpolations on a whim.

I do think that all the christological passages were added by a redactor, but only after thinking long and hard about their place in the narrative and trying several variations of the theory in which at least part of them were original to Paul. Unfortunatly, I could not save them.

That doesn't mean I think they need to be thrown out, either. If Paul was originally not a Christian (or part of any Jesus movement) then there's the other side to the equation, that being the faction within the Jesus movement which the redactor represented, as he (or they) was/were clearly part of it.

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) * ).

It's not that I want to do away with it, but it does represent the flip side of the coin and has value to historical reconstructions.

DCH

DaBuster

Could you provide a reference to a book or article by Mr Pearson in which he discusses this theory? Thanks.

DCHindley

In Birger A. Pearson's Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), Pearson explains the circumstances he thinks came together to produce "Jewish Gnosticism." He says:

"Inasmuch as the Gnostic synthesis reflects the use and reinterpretation of Jewish scripture and tradition, it is apparent that the Gnostic phenomenon itself originates in a Jewish environment as an expression of alienation from ("orthodox") Judaism. As a result a new religion, which can no longer be called "Jewish," is born." <pp. 37-38>

"Given the massive Jewish influence discoverable in Gnostic texts, how does one interpret the Gnostics' attitude vis-a-vis their roots? It is obviously not enough to speak of "Jewish Gnosticism," [not the type of Jewish mysticism that Gershom Scholem called by this name] for once the Gnostic hermeneutical shift has occurred one can no longer recognize the resultant point of view as Jewish. One finds, instead, an essentially non-Jewish, indeed anti-Jewish, attitude ... Concomitantly, one finds reflected in the Gnostic texts a radically new self understanding, expressed, to be sure, in many different ways." <pg 125>

"If the Gnostics are "no longer Jews," who, then, are they? Curiously enough, even their own self-definition turns out to be based to some extent on Jewish traditions!" <pg. 130>

If the Rabbinic condemnations of the Min and Minim in general included Jewish Gnostics, as is very likely, Gnostics must have also been rejected by their ethnic brothers, and subject to similar charges and "persecution" that was meted out to Christians, if only in their own perception. I think R. Travers Herford covers most of the Rabbinic references to the Min and Minum in Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (or via: amazon.co.uk) (KTAV, 1975 [1903]).

So, how then does Pearson see the Jewish influence over the development of Jewish Gnosticism?

"Judaism, as a religion that takes history seriously, and that also has a market tendency in the direction of messianism, provides ipso facto a context in which, given the critical circumstances of history, an attitude of revolt could easily develop. There is a strong case to be made for the view that ancient Gnosticism developed, in large part, from a disappointed messianism, or rather a transmuted messianism." In the footnote associated with that final sentence, Pearson says "Cf. R. M. Grant's thesis Gnosticism developed out of disappointed apocalyptic hopes after the destruction of Jerusalem, in Gnosticism and Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) (New York: Harper & Row, 1966 [New York: Columbia U.P., 1959]), esp 27ff. His view that the fall of Jerusalem was the decisive historical event out of which Gnosticism arose is surely wrong, and has subsequently been withdrawn, but otherwise his theory has some merit." <pg. 28>

Later, he says:

"... it seems most plausible to conclude that the earliest Gnostics were Jewish intellectuals eager to redefine their own religious self understanding, convinced of the bankruptcy of traditional verities. It is quite possible that an important factor in the development of this Gnostic attitude was a profound sense of the failure of history. This appears to be reflected in the way in which the Gnostic sources depict the foibles and machinations of the Creator." In the footnote associated with that last sentence, Pearson says "Robert M. Grant's well-known theory that Gnosticism arose out of the debris of apocalyptic hopes shattered by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. has often been criticized, and has subsequently been abandoned by Grant himself; see _Gnosticism and Early Christianity_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959) 27-38. The socio-historical factors of the origins of Gnosticism are, nevertheless, worth pursuing, difficult as the task is. Cf. Rudolph, _Gnosis_, 275-94; and his "Forschungsbericht," ThR 36, 1971." <pp. 133-134>

This I take to mean that he sees the Jewish Gnostic synthesis as a psychological reaction to disappointed messianic hopes. His caution over attributing the destruction of Jerusalem as a cause for the creation of the Gnostic synthesis, it seems, is not so much directed at the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE influenced Gnostic development, but that it was *the decisive historical event* that did so. Rudolph, for sure, lists a multitude of other influences upon the Gnostic synthesis, such as Jewish apocalyptic and sectarian traditions, wisdom teaching, skepticism, Iranian ideas, Hellenistic ideas including middle Platonism, Egyptian Hermetic teachings, mystery religions, Orphism, tendencies toward individualism, esotericism and spiritualization, Greco-oriental syncretism, socio-economic factors and forms of social protest, popularity of foreign cults, and religious intellectualism.

However, like some chemical reactions, the creation of a new substance from individual ingredients requires the influence of a catalyst. This is the function I would assign, in the case of early Christian development, to the war of 66-74 CE, especially as it affected Coele-Syria (including Judaea, Samaria, Transjordan and Galilee) and Syria (up through Tyre and Sidon).

In a similar manner, Pearson suggests the following origin for the Hermetic tractate _Poimandres_:

"How do we account for the curious mixture of Jewish piety, Gnosticism, and Hermetic paganism found here in the [Hermetic tractate] _Poimandres_? Is it possible to reconstruct the religious history of this text? To be sure, such a reconstruction would be, at best, tentative and incapable of proof. But I should like to suggest the following scenario: An individual who has been closely associated, perhaps as a proselyte or "God-fearer." with a Jewish community somewhere in Egypt (Alexandria? Hermopolis?) forms a new group devoted to the Egyptian god Hermes-Toth, the "thrice greatest," attracting like-minded followers to the new cult. In the formation of the group, familiar Jewish traditions and worship patterns are remodeled and recast, with the aid of further study of eclectic Greek philosophy and assorted other religious revelations readily available in Roman Egypt. ... Such a process would most likely occur in a historical situation in which Judaism is on the wane, and other religions and philosophies, including native Egyptian ones, are on the rise. A specific point in time and space can be suggested for this development: the aftermath of the Jewish revolt in Egypt against the Emperor Trajan, 115-117 (or 118) C.E. After this revolt Judaism ceased to represent an important religious force in Egypt, and other religions and philosophies filled the breach." <pg. 147>

It is not clear to me whether this is intended to make a differentiation between the origins of the person who wrote this Hermetic tractate (a Jewish convert or converts) and of those who synthesized Jewish Gnosticism as represented by Sethian Gnostic schools (Jewish intellectuals, presumably ethnically Jewish). However, the differences between Pearson's explanations for the Gnostic synthesis and my explanation for the Christian synthesis is that I cannot accept that early Christians were "Jewish" (ethnically, at least).

Besides the different ethnic composition of the groups that synthesized Jewish Gnosticism and early Christianity, I see differences in location (Alexandria or Egypt for Jewish Gnosticism, and possibly Coele-Syria and Syria for early Christianity), each of which had different socio-economic situations, populations, etc.

As a result, I see a somewhat different set of previously existing conditions leading to the synthesis of early Christianity: Gentile associates or converts, rejected (or perceiving themselves to be rejected) by ethnic Jews in reaction to a traumatic social upheaval (the war of 66-74 CE), redefining traditions they had incorporated from their newfound Jewish faith under the influence of other ideas and traditions they were exposed to or had previously participated in, who then (re-)fashioned a new understanding of Jewish prophesy.

DCH

DaBuster

DCH, thanks for the references. I guess this might be deviating a bit from the OP, but by coincidence I happen to be in the middle of Pearson’s recent (2007) book Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions And Literature, and it seems he may have backed-off on the opinions he expressed in Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity as to why Gnosticism developed, if not how. Specifically, you noted that Pearson in his earlier work stated the following:

However, on page 132 of Ancient Gnosticism, Pearson states the following (italics are mine):

I didn’t know what “earlier writings” he was referring to and had made a note to try to find out more about them, when through a nice bit of serendipity you’ve gone and provided that info for me. Thanks again.

DCHindley

This sounds pretty much like a recap of what he was saying in Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. He does not appear to me to be retracting his earlier statements on the factors that may have cased Sethian/Classical Gnosticism to evolve from Judaism.

My take on that final statement is that he claims he has pretty much demonstrated that Sethian/Classic Gnosticism has it's roots in Judaism, but he is not going to be the man who will seriously grapple with the issue of the historical conditions that caused this change to occur. Pearson is pretty much retired now, so I am not surprised at this.

Just to clarify, my opinion is that he is absolutely right about the origins of Sethian/Classic Gnosicism from Judaism. I also think that Christianity ALSO developed from Judaism in a similiar manner to Sethian Gnosticism, under the same kinds of pressures, with the exception that the persons involved were gentiles (god-fearers or gentiles who had converted to Judaism).

While Sethian Gnostics adopted or fabricated a Redeemer myth from the world of middle Platonic ideas (in which their national God played a tragic supporting role and plays opposite their perfect Redeemer Aeon on a rescue mission), Christians fabricated their own Redeemer myth but centered it on the person they had formerly considered the Jewish messiah (with the Jewish God still playing a leading role, only now being the god of the faithful gentiles, who have ironically been adopted by god in place of the natural born sons).

FWIW, Pearson leaves open the possibility that there was an independent pagan Gnosticism which may have already developed a Redeemer myth.

DCH

Clivedurdle

Maybe the xian Redeemer myth is also whole cloth middle platonic? The Albigensian Crusades were a fascinating sub plot!

What do you think of Pagels?

And is Pearson Marxist? His use of the term critical is of note.

DCHindley

I would think he would be rather surpised to learn that he could be a closet Marxist. I believe he is a practicing Christian, but if so he is definitely a moderate. You should see him rip into the Jesus Seminar. What I think he meant by "critical" in my earlier citation was his characterization of the historical circumstances that precipitated the change in thinking he documents.

Yes, I would agree that the Christian redeemer myth is influnced by middle Platonism. Christianity and Sethian Gnosticism are kind of kissing cousins.

As for Elaine Pagels, I think she plays the feminist card a bit too hard, at least in _Gnostic Gospels_. I really haven't read her more recent books.

DCH

Clivedurdle

That sounds like classic 1970's Marxism to me!

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".

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

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....