angelo

Paul was a schizophrenic; he saw visions, heard voices and did not make sense when he spoke. All the symptons of mental illness. Such is the start of Christianity. Invented by a loony. apologies to people with mental illness; I have a daughter with schizophrenia.

Clouseau

He rattled your cage, though.

gurugeorge

Just to clarify that: it's not just Christian Gnosticism but early Christianity as a whole that's a complex movement (including Marcionite, several Jewish and several Gnostic strains, in the context of which orthodoxy is just another stream, and not the most important till later). (Gnosticism in its fully developed form is more intellectual, granted; still we don't know what it was like in its early stages - unless we take this Paul tack I'm taking of course.)

I think you're polarising more than is warranted - on the one had you're making Gnosticism out to be defined by this kind of guru-disciple relationship, and a distinction between some teaching that's public and a teaching that's hidden from the public; and your Paul is defined by this "narrative" business (we're been through that, I think that's a misinterpretation of "gospel", but let it pass for the moment). But that could be just a tendentious interpretation of Gnosticism taken over from the Fathers. As I said I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Some Gnosticism is defined by a guru-disciple relationship, but even then it's not that anything is "hidden". Nothing is "hidden" in yoga or Buddhism either, it's all there "hidden in plain" sight in the texts, it's just that (with yoga, say) a personal relationship is needed to help bring the texts to life for the individual, and to pass on certain "knacks" as to how to get into certain physiological states (for the "gymnosophists" at least).

But anyway, that's kind of irrelevant.

The point I'm getting at is that regardless of whether there were some things taught person to person (not necessarily "secret" in the sense you mean, but, I'll grant you, teachings about something that's "hidden" in a sense), and regardless of how the Fathers interpreted Gnosticism, there are public teachings and philosophies plainly written down in Gnosticism, just as public as Paul's teachings; and judging by that publicly available component of both gnostic and Pauline teaching, I (and others) see pre-echoes of the publicly avialable gnostic philosophies and teachings in Paul.

But we wouldn't get anywhere along those lines unless we went back into the "gospel=narrative?" question, because just as it's plain to you Paul is talking about a narrative, and that that's supported in the text, it's as plain to me that he's not, and it's not. Given my view, I'm sure you can see how there's room for proto-Gnosticism (in terms i've outlined - i.e. as personal, direct knowledge of Jesus, and in terms of the bondage/freedom motif).

But (just as a curious point of discussion, it doesn't really add anything to the main conversation) is the gospel of Thomas actually gnostic? It's a notorious fact about the Nag Hammadi find that although the majority of texts are gnostic, some of them aren't, so it can't just be assumed that because a text is in the collection, it's gnostic. And I understand there are some serious scholarly doubts about whether the content of Thomas is gnostic or not (regardless of how it's touted in New Age bookshops!). Some of Thomas certainly seems deeply mystical; and gnosticism is deeply mystical too. Yet Thomas doesn't seem to have many of the features that we see publicly available in the texts we call Gnostic. (Also, there are some scholarly rumblings to the effect that the original may have been in Syriac, not Greek!)

gurugeorge

[QUOTE=Clouseau;4568235]Riiiight.

*GG backs carefully out of the room, keeping a wary eye on Clouseau*

gurugeorge

One of the things that's not doubted by anybody on any side of these arguments is that Paul was the main engine of the initial spread of whatever Christianity originally was. I don't think schizophrenics are functional enough to do that sort of thing.

There may be some connection between the parts of the brain that are involved in the visions and voices schizophrenics have, and the parts of the brain involved in religious visionary experiences, but there's no good reason to think that religious visionary experience in itself is a form of mental illness, i.e .that it's debilitating and/or dysfunctional. There may be grey areas, but given the amount of energy and organisation it would take to found a religion at that time (given the huge times and distances involved in travelling, and the dedication and focus that would be required, the hardships to be overcome), it seems to me unlikely that Paul was mentally ill. Mentally ill people are typicall stopped in life, not driven to do great things.

Clouseau

Back to the melodrama, eh?

It's Catholics you must be wary of. It's on record- censorship, coercion, bullshit, burning.

Unless you are on their side, of course.

angelo

The gullible people that were there at the time, anything is possible. Schizophrenic people are at times very intelligent, apart from their illness. Have you not seen Russel Crow in a Beautiful Mind?

gurugeorge

It's not to do with intelligence so much as drive. But anyway, mental illness as an explanation for these things is redundant, since as I said religious-type visions can be had (without drugs) without being in the slightest bit mad (in the sense of dysfunctional, a gibbering loon so to speak).

In view of that redundancy, and in view of the unlikeliness of mad people being together enough to start religions, madness as an explanation for religious inspiration seems too much like a sledgehammer cracking a nut (if you will pardon the pun ).

gurugeorge

Clouseau, it's not that I prefer the Catholic view, it's that I don't think ordinary Protestant scholars' view of the origins of the NT are any different.

I think Protestant fundamentalists' view might be more like yours, but I'm not interesting in debating with a fundamentalist view (not in principle, but because it would take more time than I have to marshall the evidence myself - I leave arguments with sectarian fundamentalists to moderate sectarians who have a better grasp of the relevant minutiae).

Clouseau

[QUOTE=gurugeorge;4568568]Which you certainly are.

Any real scholars here?