I guess I am not sure I understand:MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:32 pm 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.” ....
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.