mountainman

What elements exist in the writings and philosophies of gnosticism
(with respect to biblical studies) that are not already present in the
writings and philosophies of neo-pythagoreanism, which I consider
(for the sake of this discussion) to subsume those of neo-platonism.

If no unique elements distinguish "the gnostics" (aside from anything
related to christianity) from "the neo-pythagoreans", why the separate
term "gnostics"?

Thanks for any illumination of this subject.



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

Peter Kirby

What is "gnosticism" sheared of everything Christian?

What is "neo-pythagoreanism"?

Wouldn't asking these questions be the first and proper step to an understanding of any possible relationship or difference?

regards,
Peter Kirby

mountainman

My questions implied these precursor questions to
have been previously researched. Do you think that
is an unreasonable implication?


namaste
Pete Brown

Phlox Pyros

I believe gnostic views were very close to theirs indeed. It is just that "gnostics" use slightly different terminology and believe Jesus was the messenger that came to tell them of the spiritual world.

mountainman

Who is first to identify themselves with "the tribe of gnostics" by name?
Or was this identification (gnostic) enacted after the event by an historian?
Why didn't they identify themselves with the "tribe of (neo-)pythagoreans"?

I dont have answers for these questions.
Can you suggest any possible answers?

Many thanks,



Pete Brown

Phlox Pyros

I don't believe they ever refer to themselves as "gnostics". I think this was only said of them.

I'm not sure, but most sources I've read identify them more with Platonism or Neo-Platonism. I'm not very familiar with "neo-pythagoreanism".

The Dictionary of New Testament Background has some very interesting information on Gnosticism if you can find it at a library.

mountainman

Is Eusebius the first to identify "the tribe of gnostics"?:

HE Book 4
Chapter VII. The Persons that Became at that Time
Leaders of Knowledge Falsely So-Called.

1 As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was flourishing among the whole human race,12 the demon who hates everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most bitterly opposed to the salvation of man,turned all his arts against the Church.13 In the beginning he armed himself against it with external persecutions.

2 But now, being shut off from the use of such means,14 he devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict with the Church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him, impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were ignorant of the faith.

3 Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander, whom we have already mentioned as the successor of Simon,15 a certain serpent-like power, double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the leaders of two different heresies, Saturninus, an Antiochian by birth,16 and Basilides, an Alexandrian.17 The former of these established schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in Alexandria.

4 Irenaeus states18 that the false teaching of Saturninus agreed in most respects with that of Menander, but that Basilides, under the pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented monstrous fables, and carried the fictions of his impious heresy quite beyond bounds.

5 But as there were at that time a great many members of the Church19 who were fighting for the truth and defending apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine with uncommon eloquence, so there were some also that furnished posterity through their writings with means of defense against the heresies to which we have referred.20

6 Of these there has come down to us a most powerful refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor,21 one of the most renowned writers of that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man.

7 While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel,22 and that he invented prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph,23 and others that had no existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order to amaze those who marvel at such things; that he taught also that the eating of meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the faith in times of persecution were matters of indifference;24 and that he enjoined upon his followers, like Pythagoras, a silence of five years.25

8 Other similar things the above-mentioned writer has recorded concerning Basilides, and has ably exposed the error of his heresy.

9 Irenaeus also writes26 that Carpocrates was a contemporary of these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the heresy of the Gnostics,27 who did not wish to transmit any longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one28 had done, in secret, but openly.29 For they boasted - as of something great - of love potions that were carefully prepared by them, and of certain demons that sent them dreams and lent them their protection, and of other similar agencies; and in accordance with these things they taught that it was necessary for those who wished to enter fully into their mysteries, or rather into their abominations, to practice all the worst kinds of wickedness, on the ground that they could escape the cosmic powers, as they called them, in no other way than by discharging their obligations to them all by infamous conduct.

10 Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men brought infamy upon the whole race of Christians.

11 In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with mothers and sisters, and enjoyed impious feasts.30

12 He did not, however, long succeed in these artifices, as the truth established itself and in time shone with great brilliancy.

13 For the machinations of its enemies were refuted by its power and speedily vanished. One new heresy arose after another, and the former ones always passed away, and now at one time, now at another, now in one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various kinds and various forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church, which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of its inspired life and philosophy to every nation both of Greeks and of Barbarians.

14 At the same time the slanderous accusations which had been brought against the whole Church31 also vanished, and there remained our teaching alone, which has prevailed over all, and which is acknowledged to be superior to all in dignity and temperance, and in divine and philosophical doctrines. So that none of them now ventures to affix a base calumny upon our faith, or any such slander as our ancient enemies formerly delighted to utter.

15 Nevertheless, in those times the truth again called forth many champions who fought in its defense against the godless heresies, refuting them not only with oral, but also with written arguments.32

It appears that Eusebius gathers the gnostics together in order to
calumnify them via herecies. It is evident from this reference that
the Pythagorean influence exists in this "tribe of heretics".

Yes, I agree this is what the majority of references end up with.
However, my reasons for associating the neo-platonists and the
neo-pythoreans are as follows:

1) Plato himself acknowleges Pythagoras as his "teacher".
2) Many so-called Neo-Platonists wrote extensively about Pythagoras
(eg: Iamblichus)
3) Simplification of a categorisation system for the authors of antiquity.

I have attempted to categorise all (biblical study relevent) authors
of antiquity in a color-coded table as this web page:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm
Roman Emperors get to have the purple.
Neo-Pythagoraeans (& neoplatonists) have the green.
Historians (neutral) get to have the yellow.
Christian Bishops get to be coded in the RED.
Other christians authors are colorless white.

The idea is an attempt to establish the evolution of these
separate "tribes of antiquity" over the period in question.
The similarity between the neopythagoreans and the nep-
platonists for this purpose I think lends weight to the
argument to categorise them together, under the more
ancient tribal name.



Thanks for the reference, I will look forward to trying to find it
next time I travel into civilisation, and to its reading on this issue.

A final (and very speculative) question:
Is it reasonable to conclude that the term "gnostic"
is itself another Eusebian Tell, by which he gathers together
the tribe of neopythagoreans (and neoplatonists)
and assembles them to be calumnified to history
via herecies.




Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

Peter Kirby

These are the questions. Know the meaning of apples, know the meaning of oranges, and you'll be in a position to compare apples and oranges with ease. If you can't describe an apple, you can't compare apples and oranges. They're concomitant, not precursor.

Moreover, if they had been previously researched (which they have--if not perhaps in the way that you expect), that research may have been incomplete, of varying conclusions, or simply not what you are assuming for your own purposes. So laying out your own explanation based on your own research is the only reasonable way to approach talking about what "gnosticism" and "neopythagoreanism" may have differences in as categories.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle

If Eusebius constructed gnosticism and then their history they were truly f'ed in the Albigensian Crusades! Set up an enemy and then destroy them!

(See my post on gnosticism in GT thread).

mountainman

Agreed to the extent that the elements of each need to be identified
and specified prior to a possible subsequent step of comparison.
However, if one finds little outward difference between two objects,
such as an apple and an apple, it could be that they are essentially
similar, and the most expedient process of making a comparison is
to list their differences. This one has a worm hole at polar coordinate
44,55 and the other apple is worm-free, etc.

But even if you have an apple and an orange, the method of
sequential processing is not invalid, and in such one step
(the identification of the elements of apples and oranges) I consider
to be a precursor step in the task of making a comparison. If you can
handle the job in parallel, then you can call the steps concommitant.

People sometimes operate differently and use different steps to get
to the same place.

This I agree with, as it is generally always true.

My research has always seen a great association between those who
were referred to as neoplatonists and neopythagoreans. In fact, as
I mentioned above, seens as "tribes", it is obvious (to me anyway),
that the "tribe of platonists" is descended from the "tribe of pythagoreans"
that there methods of teaching, their writings and subject matter,
were invariably strikingly similar.

Such is the similarity found in my research I find that the actual
assessment of an apple vs orange comparison to be inappropriate.
It seems like comparing an apple to apple or an orange to an orange,
aside from probably a small set of exceptions, which are not deemed
critical enough to effect the finding of equivalence between these.

This begs the question, were these two tribes (the neo-platonists
and the neo-pythagoreans) associated by Eusebius as a new and
strange tribe which he called the "gnostics", and which he then
reports calumnified by herecy.

Is this reasonable?

You best expressed this possibility when you said earlier
What is "gnosticism" sheared of everything Christian?
What is "neo-pythagoreanism"?

What is "gnosticism" but neo-platonism sheared of everything
christian, which is essentially the same as neo-pythagoreanism.
Is this using far too broad a brush?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown