Carrier on "gnosticism"

[Ben C. Smith]

I think Carrier gets to the crux of the issue in the repl[ies] below (underling and bold mine) -

Jeff Q
No ancient writer used the word “Gnostic”? What about Ireaneus’ book “On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis”, which is basically the Constitution of the Apostolic Church?

• REPLY Richard Carrier
  
  No ancient writer used that word of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas. Even that book is not about Gnostics, hence illustrates exactly my point. Irenaeus is using the word as just the Greek word “Knowledge,” i.e. that title should be translated as it is written: “On the Detection and Overthrow of False Knowledge.” ....

I guess I am not sure I understand:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.11.1: 1 Let us now look at the inconsistent opinions of those heretics (for there are some two or three of them), how they do not agree in treating the same points, but alike, in things and names, set forth opinions mutually discordant. The first of them, Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called Gnostic [ἀπὸ τῆς λεγομένης γνωστικῆς αἱρέσεως] to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows.... He also asserts that, along with the Demiurge, there was produced a lefthand power, in which particular he agrees with those falsely named Gnostics [ψευδωνύμως Γνωστικοῖς], of whom to we have yet to speak. ....

It sounds like Irenaeus is at least claiming (A) that there existed a heresy which was called Gnostic, (B) that its name was actually a misnomer, (C) that Valentinus did not strictly belong to that heresy, at least at first, but (D) that Valentinus borrowed ideas from it for his own school of thought. In the same way that there is, according to Matthew, a person named Jesus who happens to be called Christ (Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός), so too there exists, according to Irenaeus, the heresy which happens to be called Gnostic (τῆς λεγομένης γνωστικῆς αἱρέσεως).

I can certainly understand, at least in principle, a degree of doubt about Irenaeus' claim that such a sect existed by that very name, but I do not understand the suggestion that Irenaeus, in particular, as an ancient writer, does not use the word "Gnostic" of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas. He even claims that the followers of Marcellina call themselves Gnostics (Gnosticos se autem vocant) in 1.25.6. In at least a couple of spots he traces the Gnostics back to Simon Magus and Menander. But his most frequent claim is that those who are called Gnostics are falsely so called, since the name implies knowledge, and knowledge is something they lack.

[MrMacSon]

I guess I am not sure I understand:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.11.1: 1a Let us now look at the inconsistent opinions of those heretics (for there are some two or three of them), how they do not agree in treating the same points, but alike, in things and names, set forth opinions mutually discordant. The first of them, Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called Gnostic [ἀπὸ τῆς λεγομένης γνωστικῆς αἱρέσεως] to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows.... He also asserts that, along with the Demiurge, there was produced a lefthand power, in which particular he agrees with those falsely named Gnostics [ψευδωνύμως Γνωστικοῖς], of whom to we have yet to speak.

It sounds like Irenaeus is at least claiming (A) that there existed a heresy which was called Gnostic, (B) that its name was actually a misnomer, (C) that Valentinus did not strictly belong to that heresy, at least at first, but (D) that Valentinus borrowed ideas from it for his own school of thought ...

I can certainly understand, at least in principle, a degree of doubt about Irenaeus' claim that such a sect existed by that very name, but I do not understand the suggestion that Irenaeus, in particular, as an ancient writer, does not use the word "Gnostic" of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas. He even claims that the followers of Marcellina call themselves Gnostics (Gnosticos se autem vocant) in 1.25.6. In at least a couple of spots he traces the Gnostics back to Simon Magus and Menander. But his most frequent claim is that those who are called Gnostics are falsely so called, since the name implies knowledge, and knowledge is something they lack.

The issue, IIUC, isn't that Irenaeus identified a sect as Gnostic, or that Valentinus adopted the [heretical] principles of it, or even that many sects said they had gnosis - better gnosis, or more gnosis, etc., (all the gnoses ) - it's that the term Gnosticism implies all these sects were homogenous and they could and can be treated as such, and as uniformly hereretical, so can (and ought to) be sidelined in the study of early Christianity.

eta: the issue was sharpened by better delineation of some of the sects by the finding of the Nag Hammadi Library.

[Joseph D. L.]

Gnosticism does not imply that these sects are homogeneous and they are not treated as such. Gnosticism is a general umbrella term for Christian sects that have overtly mystical or "high Christological" beliefs, or extremely complicated formulas and philosophies. Calling all of these sects "gnosticism" is an appropriate way to distinguish between these, and your typical Catholic/Protestant beliefs. And while we're on the subject, "Christianity" as an umbrella term is used to cover a whole gambit of different sects, denominations, and churches, from Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Calvanist, Puritan, Mormon, Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, I mean the list is practically endless. And yet all of these sects, with their own unique beliefs, and some even with their own religious texts, are still "Christian", those who practice them are all referred to as "Christian", and "Christianity" is used to denote all of them.

Nor is "gnosticism" always used to denote the sects otherwise called gnostic. People (and I mean those who actually care about this subject, so all twelve of us), still use "Vanetinians", "Marcionites", "Cerethians", 'Manicheans", etc., when the need to refer to a specific sect arises, because we recognize that there are certain features and beliefs that separate them. "Gnosticism" is just used to blanket all of them, just as "Christianity" is used to cover the many Christian denominations, "Judaism" for the many Jewish denominations, and Islam for the Islamic denominations, and so forth. And if you want to get really pedantic about it, Islam would itself be a denomination of Christianity, and Christianity would itself be a denomination of Judaism. That's why "Abrahamic" is used to refer to all three faiths, and that includes all of their denominations.

Zoroastrianism and Buddhism are themselves just off-shoots of Hinduism, yet they are not called as such because the differences are too great, despite the fact that Buddha and Zoroaster are believed by some to be avatars of Hindu gods. Hell some even think that of Jesus!

You can say this about literally every large religion. Egyptian, Greek, Roman; Chinese and Japanese; and even philosophies like Stoicism and Cynicism; Platonism, Middle Platonism, and Neo-Platonism. I mean there isn't an end to this.

So if someone wants to use "gnosticism" to refer to a particular branch of Christian thought that itself has various different beliefs, they can. Carrier is just being a facetious little bitch as always.

[Giuseppe]

So if someone wants to use "gnosticism" to refer to a particular branch of Christian thought that itself has various different beliefs, they can. Carrier is just being a facetious little bitch as always.

he is doing honest divulgation, and you know that.

[Ben C. Smith]

The issue, IIUC, isn't that Irenaeus identified a sect as Gnostic, or that Valentinus adopted the [heretical] principles of it, or even that many sects said they had gnosis - better gnosis, or more gnosis, etc., (all the gnoses ) - it's that the term Gnosticism implies all these sects were homogenous and they could and can be treated as such, and as uniformly hereretical, so can (and ought to) be sidelined in the study of early Christianity.

That is an issue. But Carrier seems to have gone further when he claimed (and I am quoting here), "No ancient writer used that word of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas." I believe Irenaeus has done exactly this: to wit, he has used that word ("Gnostic") of a group or sect, at the very least. He has a particular sect or group of sects in mind; he thinks they sprang from Simon Magus and Menander; he knows that Valentinus does not belong to them; and he calls them Gnostic and even claims that they call themselves Gnostic.

[Ben C. Smith]

Let me put it this way. There is a very real danger of misrepresenting a group by calling it by a particular name, and Carrier is right to try to avoid that danger. But it does not appear that Irenaeus has necessarily avoided that danger.

[Secret Alias]

And I am jumping in without reading the whole thread but the Carpocratians THEMSELVES are said to have 'been the first to call themselves gnostics' according to Irenaeus.

[Secret Alias]

And by implication the title of Irenaeus's book assumes that the heretics identified themselves as gnostics - all the heretics described in the book.

[Secret Alias]

Again not taking the time to read 5 pages which feature a lot of Giuseppe's nonsense but Clement openly uses the term gnostic to describe the members of the Alexandrian Church. FWIW Irenaeus also notes that the followers of Mark (whom I identify with Clement's tradition owing to verbatim shared material) identify themselves as maskilim (or the Greek equivalent in Daniel) where maskilim = 'gnostics.'

So the Valentinians, Carpocratians and followers of (St) Mark are identified by Irenaeus as describing themselves as gnostics in some form or another. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=jnta

[Secret Alias]

The gnostics will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. [Daniel 12:3]

In other words, those who have been formed in the manner which the stranger god promised Abraham in Genesis 18. The words of Daniel were used by kabbalists in the same way as the early Christians. Carrier should go back to school and actually learn the subtleties of the Judeo-Christian tradition.