Re: According to Irenaeus, who were the Gnostics?
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:17 am
Revisiting some of the references to 'gnostics' and 'knowledge' in book 1 of Against Heresies.
Consider then for example the Gospel of Truth:
The Tripartite Tractate:
The Excerpts of Theodotus (78.2) by Clement of Alexandria:
Or perhaps the Gospel of Thomas:
What we see here, in various ways, is an idea of the redemptive power of knowledge. And since 'knowledge' is the Greek word 'gnosis', and since teaching about the importance of 'knowledge' for salvation is a key point about the 'gnostics', and given the pattern in Irenaeus about who is clearly called 'gnostic', then could this not be what a 'gnostic' was for Irenaeus?
... that they may appear more perfect than the perfect, and more knowing than the very Gnostics ...
They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it. ...
They further hold that the consummation of all things will take place when all that is spiritual has been formed and perfected by Gnosis (knowledge); and by this they mean spiritual men who have attained to the perfect knowledge of God ...
... while from Anthropos and Gnosis that Tree was produced which they also style Gnosis itself. ...
Such, then, is their [Valentinian] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. ...
[Marcus...] For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him. ...
It happens that their [following Marcus] tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible ... this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God ... They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. ...
These [following Marcus] hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. For since both defect and passion flowed from ignorance, the whole substance of what was thus formed is destroyed by knowledge; and therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This, however, is not of a corporeal nature, for the body is corruptible; nor is it animal, since the animal soul is the fruit of a defect, and is, as it were, the abode of the spirit. The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption. ...
They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it. ...
They further hold that the consummation of all things will take place when all that is spiritual has been formed and perfected by Gnosis (knowledge); and by this they mean spiritual men who have attained to the perfect knowledge of God ...
... while from Anthropos and Gnosis that Tree was produced which they also style Gnosis itself. ...
Such, then, is their [Valentinian] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. ...
[Marcus...] For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him. ...
It happens that their [following Marcus] tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible ... this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God ... They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. ...
These [following Marcus] hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. For since both defect and passion flowed from ignorance, the whole substance of what was thus formed is destroyed by knowledge; and therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This, however, is not of a corporeal nature, for the body is corruptible; nor is it animal, since the animal soul is the fruit of a defect, and is, as it were, the abode of the spirit. The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption. ...
Consider then for example the Gospel of Truth:
Hence, if one has knowledge, he is from above. If he is called, he hears, he replies, and he turns toward him who called him and he ascends to him and he knows what he is called. Since he has knowledge, he does the will of him who called him. He desires to please him and he finds rest.
The Tripartite Tractate:
The promise had the teaching and the return to what they were from the beginning, from which they have the drop in order to return to him, which is what they call “the redemption.” And it is the freedom from imprisonment and the power of freedom. The imprisonment of those who were captives of ignorance reigns in its places. But the freedom is the knowledge of the truth that existed before ignorance came to be in a position of power, eternally without beginning and end, since it is what is good and salvation of things and a release from the enslaved nature in which they have suffered.
The Excerpts of Theodotus (78.2) by Clement of Alexandria:
But it is not only washing that sets one free, but also the knowledge of who we were, what we have become, where we were, where we were placed, where we are going ...
Or perhaps the Gospel of Thomas:
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."
What we see here, in various ways, is an idea of the redemptive power of knowledge. And since 'knowledge' is the Greek word 'gnosis', and since teaching about the importance of 'knowledge' for salvation is a key point about the 'gnostics', and given the pattern in Irenaeus about who is clearly called 'gnostic', then could this not be what a 'gnostic' was for Irenaeus?
The first three posts in this thread provide more detail on Irenaeus, but this is what the OP is talking about.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:13 am And what's in a name?
Well, for one thing, considering whether Against Heresies considered the Marcionites to be 'gnostics' could shed light on both.
We already see in the first post some clues from what Irenaeus writes about why some were styled 'gnostics'. Their claim to 'perfect knowledge' (gnosis) was not just bragging, as Irenaeus sometimes suggests, but had an important function in their overall theology. Their idea of redemption was bound up with the idea of receiving knowledge through the revealer of the heavenly Father above all. This soteriology really has nothing to do with the cross. If this is the unifying concept of those called 'gnostics', their belief in the redemptive function of knowledge, that could shed light on how Irenaeus is describing those groups that he calls 'gnostic'.
If some heretics here were not strictly 'gnostic', this would help support such a reading of the term 'gnostic' in Irenaeus. At some level, we need to decide whether 'gnostic' was just an abusive catch-all term with no meaning or if Irenaeus was capable of distinguishing between 'gnostic' heretics and those that aren't styled 'gnostic.' Some details do suggest that Irenaeus was aware of what he was doing when calling some 'gnostic'. For example, when Irenaeus tells the story of how 'gnosis falsely so-called' goes back to Simon, he tells a story about Simon that we have not yet heard before in Acts or in Justin's first Apology. In this story, Simon makes himself out to be a gnostic redeemer, in a way parallel to the gnostic version of Jesus. In telling this story, Irenaeus is undermining 'gnostic' systems generally by showing how they derive from the false claims of a charlatan, Simon.
And if 'gnostic' is a term that has some meaning, beyond just being associated with heretics, then those that are not clearly 'gnostic' in Irenaeus may not fall into the same doctrine for Irenaeus as those that are called 'gnostic.' This then could open the way to allowing us to consider non-'gnostic' doctrine for those heretics not in the 'gnostic' category. For instance, we can take seriously the idea that the Marcionites had a different soteriology, which didn't line up with the 'perfect knowledge' from the gnostic revealer Jesus story of redemption that is find among the 'gnostics.' We can pay special attention to those indications that the Marcionites had a 'ransom theory' of atonement, as an idea that could have been significant in their system. Unlike the 'gnostic' idea of redemption, as outlined by Irenaeus, it is possible to consider that the Marcionites had a special place in their theology for the cross.