The blanket assumption that "Judaism" is/was a SINGLE unitary belief system -- without divergences, competing interests/factions/theologies, local peculiarities across vast distances of the Diaspora -- is totally illogical, refuted by archaeological evidence, etc., etc.
Philo attests to heretical groups, we know there were 'alternative' temples at Elephantine and Leontopolis and probably elsewhere. It is ridiculous to think 'all Jews' shared the same beliefs/myths/traditions -- and because they didn't, so countervailing philosophies are to be expected. Exactly as we see.
Evidence of those heretical systems (from anti-Jewish Church Fathers, even) are simply that, however embarrassing or inconvenient that admission/recognition may be. Boo hoo, it is what it is.
Whether the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed or not (it was), whether Jerusalem was leveled or not (it was), those groups existed elsewhere. I'd agree the darker gnosticism exploded after ~75 AD, but it was percolating throughout the Diaspora long before that one event.
Who were the Earliest Gnostics?
Re: Who were the Earliest Gnostics?
I think it's possible and even probable that "Gnosticism" was not [specifically] the re-framing of Jewish theology, nor that it started developing following the First Jewish-Roman War.
I think it as likely or even more likely that "Gnosticisms" arose primarily out of [a background of] Greek, Roman or Egyptian creation myths or out of 'creation-contemplation' within those cultural backgrounds or overlaps thereof (+/- in conjunction with the emergence and spread of the Genesis accounts).
This may have happened before the First Roman-Jewish War.
I think it as likely or even more likely that "Gnosticisms" arose primarily out of [a background of] Greek, Roman or Egyptian creation myths or out of 'creation-contemplation' within those cultural backgrounds or overlaps thereof (+/- in conjunction with the emergence and spread of the Genesis accounts).
This may have happened before the First Roman-Jewish War.
Re: Who were the Earliest Gnostics?
@billd89 & @MrMacSon
It is no doubt true that there were various strains of Judaism long before the wars, but what I'm talking about is the view that the Jewish God was evil or a liar or had tricked the Jews, etc. I see that as a reaction to the wars and their fallout.
It is no doubt true that there were various strains of Judaism long before the wars, but what I'm talking about is the view that the Jewish God was evil or a liar or had tricked the Jews, etc. I see that as a reaction to the wars and their fallout.
Re: Who were the Earliest Gnostics?
The view that that the Jewish God was evil or a liar or had tricked the Jews could have any number of origins [in or out of so-called 'Gnosticisms']rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:37 pm @billd89 & @MrMacSon
It is no doubt true that there were various strains of Judaism long before the wars, but what I'm talking about is the view that the Jewish God was evil or a liar or had tricked the Jews, etc. I see that as a reaction to the wars and their fallout.
For example:
"... Seth-Yahwah was a donkey-shaped god of evil established in pre-Christian cultural memory and adapted by alternative Christian groups to express a hostility toward the Judean creator that had been voiced for centuries. This means that so called Philbionite, Sethian, and Ophite Christians did not have to invent Yahwah as an evil character out of whole cloth. The 'wicked creator' [trope] was already available, and his symbolic value was cashed out in new mythmaking practices that could be aimed not (or not only) at Jews, but also at other Christian opponents who had adopted the Jewish creator as their chief diety.
"The application of the Seth-Yahwah tradition to the creator requires us to rethink the sources of early Christian theology, particularly in Egypt. We cannot assume that Gentile Christians living in 2nd century Egypt drank solely from the wells of the Septuagint and Philo. Just as Greek and Roman authors learned about the Jewish God from retold Egyptian cultural memory (Chaeremon and Apion), Gentile Christians living in Egypt learned about the Jewish god from the same traditions featuring Seth-Yahwah. Having Seth-Yahweh in their cultural encyclopaedia, many Gentile Christians would not have assumed that the Jewish creator was the kindly God and Father of Jesus Christ. They would have, rather, imagined him as chaotic and evil - and thus not like the Christ at all."
[two other paragraphs follow]
M David Litwa, The Evil Creator (the start of the Conclusion to Chapter 1, 'The Donkey Deity')*
* the subsections of which are headed (bolded and not bolded thus):
- Introduction
- The Egyptian Seth
- Interpretatio Graeca
- Exodus Lore
- Seth-Yahweh
- The Ass God
- Onocoetes
- Excursive: Seth-Yahweh in Spells and Gems
- The Alexamenos Graffito
- "Phibionites"
- The Secret Book of John
- The Ophite Diagram
- Conclusion
Re: Who were the Earliest Gnostics?
In the Introduction to Chapter 1, 'The Donkey Deity', of The Evil Creator, M David Litwa alludes to the account of [a] Zechariah/Zacharias in a book titled, The Birth (or Offspring) of Mary, preserved in Epiphanius' Panarion 26:
12(1) ... They say that one book is a “Birth of Mary,” and they palm some horrid, baneful things off in it and say that they get them from it. (2) On its authority they say that Zacharias was killed in the temple because he had seen a vision, and when he wanted to reveal the vision his mouth was stopped from fright. For at the hour of incense, while he was burning it [in the temple], he saw a man standing there, they say, with the form of an ass. (3) And when he had come out and wanted to say “Woe to you, whom are you worshiping?” the person he had seen inside in the temple stopped his mouth so that he could not speak. But when his mouth was opened, so that he could speak, he revealed it to them and they killed him. And that, they say, is how Zacharias died. (4) This, they say, is why the priest was ordered to wear bells by the lawgiver himself. Whenever he went in to officiate, the object of his worship would hear them jangle and hide, so that no one would spy the imaginary face of his form.
12(5) But all their silliness is an easy business to refute, and chock-full of absurdity. If the object of their service were visible at all, he could not be hidden. But if he could be hidden at all he could not be visible. (6) And again, we must put it to them differently: If he was visible, then he was a body and could not be a spirit. But if he was spirit, he could not be counted among the things that are visible. And since he was not something visible, how could he provide for the reduction of his size at the jangling of bells? For since he was by nature invisible, he would not be seen unless he wished to be. (7) But even though he was seen, he would not have appeared of necessity because his nature required him to appear; he must have appeared as a favor—not manifesting his appearance inadvertently, fearfully and with unease if there was no sound of bells. And thus their false, spurious statement has failed from every standpoint.
12(8) And there are many other foolish things that they say. < For they say Zacharias was killed—and they are right > —although Zacharias was surely not killed immediately. Indeed he was still alive after John’s birth, and prophesied the Lord’s advent, and his birth in the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, through the Holy Spirit. (9) As he says, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways. . . . To turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the disobedient to wisdom,” and so on. And how much else is there to say about their lying and their pollution?
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... ibionites/
Previously,
10(4) But in the eighth heaven they put the so-called Barbelo; and the “Father and Lord of all,” the same Self-begetter; and another Christ, a self-engendered one, and our Christ, who descended and revealed this knowledge to men, who they say is also called Jesus. (5) But he is not “born of Mary” but “revealed through Mary.” And he has not taken flesh but is only appearance.
10(6) Some say Sabaoth has the face of an ass; others, the face of a pig. This, they say, is why is why he forbade the Jews to eat pork. He is the maker of heaven, earth, the heavens after him, and his own angels. (7) In departing this world the soul makes its way through these archons, but no < one > can get through them unless he is in full possession of this “knowledge”—or rather, this contemptibility—and escapes the archons and authorities because he is “filled.”
10(8) The archon who holds this world captive is shaped like a dragon. He swallows souls that are not in the know, and returns them to the world through his phallus, here < to be implanted > in pigs and other animals, and brought up again through them.
10,9 But, say they, if one becomes privy to this knowledge and gathers himself from the world through the menses and the emission of lust, he is detained here no longer; he gets up above these archons. (10) They say that he passes Sabaoth by and—with impudent blasphemy—that he treads on his head. And thus he mounts above him to the height, where the Mother of the living, Barbero or Barbelo, is, and so the soul is saved.
10(11) The wretches also say that Sabaoth has hair like a woman’s. They think that the term, Sabaoth, is some archon, not realizing that where scripture says, “Thus saith Lord Sabaoth” it has not given anyone’s name, but a term of praise for the Godhead. (12) Translated from Hebrew, “Sabaoth” means “Lord of hosts.” Wherever “Sabaoth” occurs in the Old Testament, it suggests a host; hence Aquila everywhere renders “Adonai Sabaoth” as “Lord of armies.” (13) But since these people are frantic against their Master in every way they go looking for the one who does not exist, and have lost the one who does. Or rather, they have lost themselves.
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... ibionites/
12(1) ... They say that one book is a “Birth of Mary,” and they palm some horrid, baneful things off in it and say that they get them from it. (2) On its authority they say that Zacharias was killed in the temple because he had seen a vision, and when he wanted to reveal the vision his mouth was stopped from fright. For at the hour of incense, while he was burning it [in the temple], he saw a man standing there, they say, with the form of an ass. (3) And when he had come out and wanted to say “Woe to you, whom are you worshiping?” the person he had seen inside in the temple stopped his mouth so that he could not speak. But when his mouth was opened, so that he could speak, he revealed it to them and they killed him. And that, they say, is how Zacharias died. (4) This, they say, is why the priest was ordered to wear bells by the lawgiver himself. Whenever he went in to officiate, the object of his worship would hear them jangle and hide, so that no one would spy the imaginary face of his form.
12(5) But all their silliness is an easy business to refute, and chock-full of absurdity. If the object of their service were visible at all, he could not be hidden. But if he could be hidden at all he could not be visible. (6) And again, we must put it to them differently: If he was visible, then he was a body and could not be a spirit. But if he was spirit, he could not be counted among the things that are visible. And since he was not something visible, how could he provide for the reduction of his size at the jangling of bells? For since he was by nature invisible, he would not be seen unless he wished to be. (7) But even though he was seen, he would not have appeared of necessity because his nature required him to appear; he must have appeared as a favor—not manifesting his appearance inadvertently, fearfully and with unease if there was no sound of bells. And thus their false, spurious statement has failed from every standpoint.
12(8) And there are many other foolish things that they say. < For they say Zacharias was killed—and they are right > —although Zacharias was surely not killed immediately. Indeed he was still alive after John’s birth, and prophesied the Lord’s advent, and his birth in the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, through the Holy Spirit. (9) As he says, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways. . . . To turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the disobedient to wisdom,” and so on. And how much else is there to say about their lying and their pollution?
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... ibionites/
Previously,
10(4) But in the eighth heaven they put the so-called Barbelo; and the “Father and Lord of all,” the same Self-begetter; and another Christ, a self-engendered one, and our Christ, who descended and revealed this knowledge to men, who they say is also called Jesus. (5) But he is not “born of Mary” but “revealed through Mary.” And he has not taken flesh but is only appearance.
10(6) Some say Sabaoth has the face of an ass; others, the face of a pig. This, they say, is why is why he forbade the Jews to eat pork. He is the maker of heaven, earth, the heavens after him, and his own angels. (7) In departing this world the soul makes its way through these archons, but no < one > can get through them unless he is in full possession of this “knowledge”—or rather, this contemptibility—and escapes the archons and authorities because he is “filled.”
10(8) The archon who holds this world captive is shaped like a dragon. He swallows souls that are not in the know, and returns them to the world through his phallus, here < to be implanted > in pigs and other animals, and brought up again through them.
10,9 But, say they, if one becomes privy to this knowledge and gathers himself from the world through the menses and the emission of lust, he is detained here no longer; he gets up above these archons. (10) They say that he passes Sabaoth by and—with impudent blasphemy—that he treads on his head. And thus he mounts above him to the height, where the Mother of the living, Barbero or Barbelo, is, and so the soul is saved.
10(11) The wretches also say that Sabaoth has hair like a woman’s. They think that the term, Sabaoth, is some archon, not realizing that where scripture says, “Thus saith Lord Sabaoth” it has not given anyone’s name, but a term of praise for the Godhead. (12) Translated from Hebrew, “Sabaoth” means “Lord of hosts.” Wherever “Sabaoth” occurs in the Old Testament, it suggests a host; hence Aquila everywhere renders “Adonai Sabaoth” as “Lord of armies.” (13) But since these people are frantic against their Master in every way they go looking for the one who does not exist, and have lost the one who does. Or rather, they have lost themselves.
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... ibionites/
-
Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Who were the Earliest Gnostics?
I'm not wishing them away. The Intaglio gnostic material and the NHL gnostic material are both on the table.billd89 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 6:15 amNo. Intaglios are real, they are evidence: you cannot wish them away.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:10 amWe are looking for the earliest physical evidence for gnostic manuscripts dude.
That's wrong. My claim is merely that the earliest gnostic material extant as physical manuscript evidence for those gnostics involved in Christian origins theories are the NHL and a handful of other mid 4th century codices.Reread the OP. Nothing limits us to discussing the NHL or whatever you choose. But therein lies the problem: you live in a land of make-believe, shamelessly insisting your warped pov is "right."
The fact remains that the earliest gnostic mss are mid 4th century codices. That's the reality. According to Irenaeus and the heresiological fathers the earliest gnostics were actively writing manuscripts in the 2nd century. These 2nd and 3rd CE gnostic manuscripts must remain hypothetical because we don't have any physical copies. That to me is the historical truth of things related to gnostic mss.And nothing could be farther from the truth.
-
andrewcriddle
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Intaglios
The so-called Gnostic Gems certainly exist. What is uncertain is whether those who made use of them were Gnostics in any given meaning of that term.billd89 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 6:15 amNo. Intaglios are real, they are evidence: you cannot wish them away.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:10 amWe are looking for the earliest physical evidence for gnostic manuscripts dude.
Some of these gems may belong more to the world of syncretistic magic than to genuine Gnosticism.
Andrew Criddle