Carrier on "gnosticism"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by mlinssen »

Hi Giuseppe,

your point in this thread is as follows, if I may summarise your first post:
What I fear is that the rejection of gnosticism as category may imply also the rejection of an useful feature of it that was at the origin of the euhemerization of Jesus: (hostility against YHWH.)
(...)
That is my point: Jesus was not only reduced to a mere man. He was reduced to a Jew.
I don't see the connection between both, can you explain it perhaps?

I side with the others, by the way: Gnosticism is a term that only suits "the opposite party", as it blankets a ton of different elements under one pejorative label, invoking all kinds of negative associations, preferably.
You could do the same and e.g. say "Chinese" and throw 1.5 billion people, hundreds of languages, cultures, ethnic groups and whatnot into one giant recycle bin - doing so is only useful when you want nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with anything in there
Last edited by mlinssen on Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by MrMacSon »

to Joseph D.L.,

Irenaeus's Adversus haereses was originally titled, in English translation obviously, “Exposure and Refutation of Knowledge [Gnosis] Falsely So-Called.”

At one point Irenaeus mentions “the sect called gnostikê”, or “knowledge-supplying,” whose myths he claims had been adapted by Valentinus. He may have had in mind the teaching that he later summarized as that of certain gnostikoi (which may have then been more fully termed “Barbelo-gnostikoi”).

Irenaeus’s use of gnostikoi is said to be somewhat confusing, however, since he sometimes seems to apply it to all of the groups he condemns rather than to only one or two sects, ie. when he refers to “Marcion or Valentinus or Basilides or Carpocrates or Simon or the rest of the falsely called ‘gnostics.’” It is uncertain from his report how many of those movements called themselves gnostic, and whether those that did intended the term as a proper name indicating sectarian identity or merely as the assertion of a general quality (“informed” or “enlightened”).

(copied & slightly modified from https://www.britannica.com/topic/gnosticism)

It seems most scholars do not interpret what Irenaeus said as coining the term 'Gnosticism.' YMMV.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:36 pm
What I fear is that the rejection of gnosticism as category may imply also the rejection of an useful feature of it that was at the origin of the euhemerization of Jesus: hostility against YHWH.

I should ask to Carrier why he minimizes that feature
.
Carrier's not rejecting any feature as far as I can see. He's just doing what most other scholars -interested in what various religious groups and sects at the time Christianity was developing- have been doing.

I don't see hostility against YHWH as a feature of the development of and/or evolving narration about Jesus, whether he was being anthropomorphised or not.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by Giuseppe »

Martijn, I agree totally that "Gnosticism" is a modern category, etc.

Where I differ is that I think that we should recognize the existence of early "anti-demiurgists" (I don't find a better term), i.e. the sectarians who reduced YHWH to an evil demiurge. Beyond if in possession or less of a gnosis.

I think that they could give the reason and the impulse for the reduction (made by "Mark") of the celestial Jesus of the early Christians to a "historical Jesus".

In order to rehabilitate YHWH as supreme god (against the unknown Father of the anti-demiurgists), Jesus had to be shown as a pious Jew adopted by YHWH. Hence his sins confessed humbly before the Baptizer.

He had to be provided of a carnal mother and brothers and sisters, because YHWH wants procreation and likes numerous family.

He had to be described also as enemy of his own carnal family, to eclipse the anti-demiurgist ostility against procreation by reducing it to a banal bourgeois misunderstanding between a mere man and his relatives.

He had to be lived in recent times, because he was called Christ (=Jewish Messiah) while his heretical alter ego, Jesus Son of Unknown Father, had to be defamed as "Jesus Bar-Abbas".

Note that Thomas means Twin. In my view, the fact that Thomas was converted in the Doubting Thomas, is because the readers (of our Fourth Gospel debtly edited and corrected) had to be secured that the Risen one was not the "Twin" of Jesus, i.e. "Jesus Son of Father", but Jesus the Jewish Messiah. What better evidence for him only being the Risen Christ, than the confirmation of it by his own rival "Twin"?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by Giuseppe »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:02 am I don't see hostility against YHWH as a feature of the development of and/or evolving narration about Jesus, whether he was being anthropomorphised or not.
I think that you should recognize, with me, that the insistence on midrash from OT didn't serve (only) to persuade not-Christian Jews, but (also and especially) to persuade anti-demiurgists that Jesus was a pious Jew and his divine father was YHWH.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by Joseph D. L. »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:53 am to Joseph D.L.,

Irenaeus's Adversus haereses was originally titled, in English translation obviously, “Exposure and Refutation of Knowledge [Gnosis] Falsely So-Called.”

At one point Irenaeus mentions “the sect called gnostikê”, or “knowledge-supplying,” whose myths he claims had been adapted by Valentinus. He may have had in mind the teaching that he later summarized as that of certain gnostikoi (which may have then been more fully termed “Barbelo-gnostikoi”).

Irenaeus’s use of gnostikoi is said to be somewhat confusing, however, since he sometimes seems to apply it to all of the groups he condemns rather than to only one or two sects, ie. when he refers to “Marcion or Valentinus or Basilides or Carpocrates or Simon or the rest of the falsely called ‘gnostics.’” It is uncertain from his report how many of those movements called themselves gnostic, and whether those that did intended the term as a proper name indicating sectarian identity or merely as the assertion of a general quality (“informed” or “enlightened”).

(copied & slightly modified from https://www.britannica.com/topic/gnosticism)

It seems most scholars do not interpret what Irenaeus said as coining the term 'Gnosticism.' YMMV.
I'm not qualified to speak of such a linguistic quagmire, but Carrier is being wholly dishonest if he is suggesting that "gnosticism" was just invented out of nothing by modern scholars when it wasn't. Irenaeus refers to these sects as γνωστικός, and "gnosticism" is an appropriate rendering in English when speaking of these sects, instead of constantly referring to them as the gnostics, those gnostics, these gnostics.

If you want to get even more technical, Catholicism would be γνωστικός and Catholics would be γνωστικός. I agree that Gnosticism is a term that gets too much exposure and is misunderstood, but for opposite reasons. Every religion is gnostic and it's redundant to to use the word to single out heretical Christian sects and therefore we should stop using it, for that reason, not because "it was made up by modern scholars", but because it was made up by an ancient Christian PR lobbyist.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by Giuseppe »

And I think, Martijn, that insofar you also believe that the Father in Thomas is not YHWH, then you are obliged, even more than myself, to subscribe the theory that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written to exorcize the threat represented by who adored a god distinct from YHWH, as true father of Jesus.

Note that the Logion about the lion in Thomas (I go to memory) talks about the leontomorphic demiurge. Who otherwise is meant?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 am I'm not qualified to speak of such a linguistic quagmire, but Carrier is being wholly dishonest if he is suggesting that "gnosticism" was just invented out of nothing by modern scholars when it wasn't.
The main thing Carrier is doing is trumpeting the work of others -

... all this is due to “cutting-edge scholars,” including Michael Williams, David Brakke, Denise Buell, and Karen King, “who, over the past fifteen years or more, have made a thorough case against the existence of Gnosticism [as a category].” Thorough enough, indeed, to persuade a representative majority of mainstream scholars. And they’re right.

I disagree with what he said two sentences prior to that [because David Brakke +/- others probably would] -

"the central finding that “the category of Gnosticism needs to be dismantled” because it “no longer works” to describe any ancient religion or sect."

Yes, "the category of Gnosticism needs to be dismantled”, because it "no longer works" as a category, but some, such as Brakke, would say there is likely to have been one gnostic sect.

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 am Irenaeus refers to these sects as γνωστικός, and "gnosticism" is an appropriate rendering in English when speaking of these sects, instead of constantly referring to them as the gnostics, those gnostics, these gnostics.
And the key point is that Irenaeus was wrong to do that, as the Britannica webpage says -
Britannica wrote:Irenaeus’s use of gnostikoi is said to be somewhat confusing, however, since he sometimes seems to apply it to all of the groups he condemns rather than to only one or two sects, ie. when he refers to “Marcion or Valentinus or Basilides or Carpocrates or Simon or the rest of the falsely called ‘gnostics’.” It is uncertain from his report how many of those movements called themselves gnostic, and whether those that did intended the term as a proper name indicating sectarian identity or merely as the assertion of a general quality (“informed” or “enlightened”).
irenaeus' commentary has muddied the waters since; to the convenience of Christians wanting to assert (i) 'there had been an orthodoxy from the beginning' and (ii) that pesky heretical 'Gnostics' tried to upstage it in the 2nd century. That trope is bullshit.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 am If you want to get even more technical, Catholicism would be γνωστικός and Catholics would be γνωστικός. I agree that Gnosticism is a term that gets too much exposure and is misunderstood, but for opposite reasons. Every religion is gnostic and it's redundant to to use the word to single out heretical Christian sects and therefore we should stop using it, for that reason, not because "it was made up by modern scholars", but because it was made up by an ancient Christian PR lobbyist.
Carrier and you agree -

Nearly all religious sects shared one or another 'Gnostic' idea, including what we anachronistically call “orthodox” sects. ... Every sect claimed it was “orthodoxy” and every other “heresy,” and what Christianity ended up looking like in the later fourth century corresponded to no sect prior to that century.

I disagree where he claims

anything called “Gnosticism” after the first century is just an evolved or elaborated version of the originating sect launched by Peter and modified by Paul

and where he claims

each sect modif[ied] in its own way what Paul meant by gnosis, or how his cosmic dualism was to be explained, or how he imagined the task of creation was delegated or corrupted, or the specific names used for that 'corruptor' or delegated creator, and every other peculiar thing

I think that might apply to some small pseudo-Christian sects that we'll never ever hear about, but it probably doesn't apply to the ones that are known, such as the Sethians, the Valentianians, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Carrier on "gnosticism"

Post by davidmartin »

What Carrier is saying is, ignore Gnostics and their writings and anything said about them

Surely that's obvious from his own words?
He doesn't just want to remove the category 'Gnostic', he wants to remove these sects relevance by presenting them as later offshoots, presumably with them out the way he is free to spout his own theories. This is what the church fathers did as well and like them presumably he ignores anything else that's inconvenient from the historical record as well
Post Reply