Gnosticism Article Anchor Bible PDF

Preview

Summary

Background information notes on Gnosticism...

Description

Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992. GNOSTICISM. (by. Kurt Rudolph )The term “gnosticism” (from the Gk word for “knowledge,” gnoµsis) was first used in the 18th century to refer to a current in the religious life of late antiquity which had direct bearing on the development of the belief and practice of the early church. The term has traditionally functioned in a pejorative sense. ——— A. Definition and Nature B. Sources: Primary and Secondary C. History of Research D. History of Gnosticism 1. Origins 2. Early Gnostic “Schools” and Systems 3. Great Gnostic “Schools” and Systems of the 2d Century 4. Later Developments ——— A. Definition and Nature The term “gnosis,” referring to a phenomenon from the early church and its religious and philosophical contexts, was introduced into a broad array of modern academic disciplines by church historians, especially those in the field of NT scholarship. Early Christian writers already used the term as a general name for various social groups which were not content with orthodox practices and beliefs otherwise widely accepted. The first certain early Christian reference to the term, and this in an orthodox text, is 1 Tim 6:20. In reflecting on the theological problem of the origin, development, and continued existence of evil, these gnostic groups were at odds with developing orthodoxy. Radical dualism was a prime factor in the gnostic conceptual framework. Dualistic views were already found, to varying degrees, in Platonism and in Iranian and Zoroastrian religious thought, and by the Hellenistic period had entered into early Judaism as is evidenced by various writings from Qumran and in a broad array of apocalyptic texts. Such polarizing concepts provided a philosophical and religious solution to the human predicament, including the experience of difficult political situations which were believed to have had their ultimate origin in prehistory (Urzeit) when the cosmos was first created. The experience of the conquered peoples of the Near East enabled them to perceive such ultimate issues behind the tumultuous political events from the time of Alexander the Great (d. 323 b.c.e.) and later with the political occupation of the East by the Romans. To be sure, such a dualistic view was not new, but it was conceived by the gnostics in a unique fashion. Beginning with the Genesis account of creation and the element of belief in an absolute, transcendent God, many strove to attain and develop the knowledge (gnoµsis) that this world is the product of a foolish creator (demiurge) who set to work without the permission of the highest and therefore “Unknown” God. This foolish creator was assisted in the creation process by a lower angel or planetary being. In order to put an end to the monstrous process of physical (nonspiritual) creation, the highest God had only one choice: to avail himself of cunning countermoves which he initiated among human beings, understood to be the apex of the physical creation. Without the knowledge or

consent of the foolish creator, the highest God provided humankind with an otherworldly, divine substance variously called “spirit,” “soul,” and “spark.” This substance enabled humanity (called the ideal Adam) to see through the monstrous physical work of the lower creator and to perceive as the true goal of humanity a return to the spiritual realm of the highest God, which was often depicted as the “Kingdom of Light.” In the gnostic view, the end (telos) of history was the ultimate dissolution of the cosmos and the return of the human “sparks of light” to the Kingdom of Light. The knowledge (gnoµsis) of these cosmological and anthropological connections is, of course, a special and supernatural knowledge which is mediated to the gnostics (“the knowers”) through special revelation. This revelation was made available either through various messengers, who acted on the instructions of the highest God, or through the traditional form of the myth, the sacred narrative which recounted the events which occurred in the primitive period when the mistake of the physical creation first took place, events which were understood to be the ultimate causes for the problematic present state of humanity. The gnostics understood themselves to be the elite “chosen people” who, in distinction from the “worldly-minded,” were able to perceive the delicate connection between world (cosmology), humanity (anthropology), and salvation (soteriology). The goal of gnostic teaching was that with the help of insight (gnoµsis), the elect could be freed from the fetters of this world (spirit from matter, light from darkness) and so return to their true home in the Kingdom of Light—for that alone is the meaning of “salvation.” It is not a matter of deliverance from sin and guilt, as in orthodoxy, but of the freeing of the spirit from matter (hyle), in particular, the material human body. In the course of time, gnostics developed a coherent conceptual framework from both their myths and their practice in behavior and cultus. Their mythology consisted of an “exegetical protest” against the older and widely accepted traditions. This involved a reinterpretation of the older traditions in a manner which was opposed to their original sense. The field of practice, on the other hand, included both their prevalent, world-rejecting ascetic ethos and a curtailing (at least an ideologically-demanded curtailing) of traditional sacramental ritual in favor of a salvation achieved only through insight (gnoµsis). The supposed libertine traits, which arose from the ascetic desire to overcome the world, are as yet attested only in biased heresiological reports and not in the writings of actual gnostics. Their critical attitude towards traditional sacramental ritual may have included the continuation, reinterpretation, or reestablishing of even older cultic ceremonies. It is to be emphasized that Gnosis was not devoid of cult. That the gnostic “community” was established in the loose social structure of a “school of doctrine” or a “mystery club,” with at most only a rudimentary hierarchical organization (the Manichaeans were exceptions) was formally derived from the ancient social mode of the philosophical or religious association. B. Sources: Primary and Secondary Up to modern times, very little original source material was available. Quotations found in the heresiologists comprised no more than fifty or sixty pages. The so-called Corpus Hermeticum, the origin of which is still largely unexplained, contains a few Greek tractates whose tenor is gnostic, even if they have been strongly influenced by Hellenistic–Egyptian (Alexandrian) traits. An example is the first text in the collection, which has been known in Europe since the 15th century as Poimandres (Shepherd of Men). The only extensive original works were two Coptic manuscripts brought to

England in the 18th century but not published until the end of the 19th. They contain the so-called Pistis Sophia (Faith [and] Wisdom), the Two Books of Jeu, and four fragmentary texts. Another gnostic Coptic codex was discovered in 1896 by the Berlin church historian C. Schmidt (Papyrus Beroliniensis 8502), first published in 1955 and which contains, among other things, two writings which are essential to research on gnosis: the Apocryphon of John and the Sophia Jesu Christi. Finally, to the texts which claim to be gnostic belong the Odes of Solomon (Coptic and Syriac) and the so-called Song of the Pearl (= Hymn of the Pearl or Hymn of the Soul) from the apocryphal Acts of the Apostle Thomas. The most extensive amount of gnostic literature has been transmitted through the small baptismal community of the Mandaeans, still located in the region of the lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers and in Iranian Karun (Khuzistan). However, this continuing community has only become known in detail since the end of the 19th century. See MANDAEISM. A decisive event was the discovery in 1945 of thirteen Coptic gnostic books called the Nag Hammadi codices in upper Egypt near the modern village of Nag Hammadi. See NAG HAMMADI (CODICES). This discovery is one of the most extensive manuscript finds of recent times. The long and difficult process of editing, translating into modern languages (English, German, and French), and commenting began very early in the case of Nag Hammadi texts which were available to individuals (J. Doresse, H.-C. Puech, A. Böhlig, M. Krause, J. Leipoldt, P. Nagel, H.-M. Schenke). Diglot editions are now appearing in Coptic-English and Coptic-French. (For a useful English translation of all texts, see NHL.) The great significance of these new primary sources is readily apparent. Even if until now no precise explanation has been given to how this collection came to be and in what circles particular writings were handed down, the greatest part is still of gnostic origin— at least 40 of 51 writings. In any case, the entire complex seems to have been collected and used by Christian gnostics. From the documents, which were in book form and between leather covers for protection, we can establish that the place where they were found is not far from the place where they were originally prepared in antiquity, that is, in the area of the Egyptian monastic settlements of Chenoboskion: Diospolis Magna (Thebes) and Parva. We can also establish that the age of the documents’ preparation, as evidenced by palaeography and the somewhat datable cartonnage (scrap paper used to stiffen the leather bindings), dates them to no earlier than the middle of the 4th century c.e. In the Nag Hammadi texts, we have a collection of writings made by heretical monks, against whom were directed the orthodox polemics from Alexandria, the spiritual center of orthodox Egyptian Christianity at the time. The common and dominant ascetic and encratic character of the texts makes this thesis even more tenable. Upper Egypt was a very frequent place of refuge for heretical groups, such as the Manichaeans, and also the location of the Coptic language dialect regularly known as “the heretics’ dialect” (Ketzerdialekt). After Alexandria lost some of its importance under Roman rule, the native cultural life moved to Middle and Upper (i.e., S) Egypt. Evidence for this diffusion is provided not only by the discoveries of gnostic and Manichaean texts but also of classical Greek texts in the same area (e.g., Menander). The Neoplatonist Plotinus (d. ca. 270 c.e.) also comes from Upper Egypt.

Thus the collection of original gnostic texts has been considerably broadened and scholarship has taken the initiative provided by the new materials. Since the texts are almost all translations from Greek originals, though several ultimately derive from Syriac originals, the time of composition, naturally, can be estimated to be earlier than the date when the texts were prepared. On the whole, the composition of the majority of the writings is now dated to the 2d and 3d centuries, and the literary sources of some may date to the 1st century. Apart from their basically gnostic content, the Nag Hammadi texts are not uniform in their approach but can be organized according to several categories established by the heresiologists. They present us with a rather broad spectrum of gnostic positions. Aside from the Hermetic and decidedly Valentinian texts, the so-called “Barbelognostic” and “Sethian” schools are most prominent. The multiplicity of gnostic modes of thought and action are very clear, and so researchers are provided with the primary materials needed to reconstruct the nature, diversity, and development of gnostic systems of belief and practice. It is of great importance that the discovery presents us with both Christian and nonChristian gnostic writings. The latter have been occasionally edited, but only secondarily, by Christian editors. That is, the writings confirm the independence of gnostic from Christian writers, and so corroborate the thesis of the non-Christian origin of gnostic teaching. At the same time, a strong connection with Jewish traditions, especially apocalyptic and extrabiblical, is visible. Thus, the view frequently advocated earlier, that Gnosis germinated on the margins of early Judaism, can no longer be easily dismissed. On the other hand, in the intertwining of gnostic and early-Christian ideas in the Christian-gnostic texts we can now see the principal background for the polemic of the church’s heresiologists. They apparently recognized the real danger that a foreign conceptual world might initiate a popular abandonment of orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, the gnostics, as creative theologians in their own right, often contributed to Christological, trinitarian, and cosmological teachings. They were occasionally the first to raise such problems for discussion, and they caused the larger church to take a stand on a variety of subjects. Their activity in this regard was of positive value for the development of Christian doctrine. In addition, the new texts occasionally display the role of Greek philosophy in gnostic conceptions, and they also help with the question of the role of Gnosis in the formation of Neoplatonism. Thus, the discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices has already provided us with many new insights and has set an unexpectedly rich agenda for future research on Gnosis. Before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts in 1945, the Church Fathers of the 2d to the 4th centuries provided, naturally in polemical guise, several reports including abstracts from actual gnostic texts (e.g., the Book of Baruch by Justin the Gnostic, the Great Exposition ascribed to Simon Magus, the Naassene Homily and the Letter to Flora by Ptolemy). Among these Church Fathers are Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165), Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 140–200), Hippolytus of Rome (d. ca. 235), Tertullian (ca. 150–223/5), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 140/150–211/215), Origen (d. ca. 253/54), and Epiphanius of Salamis (315–403). The difficulties in using the heresiological literature are twofold. The first difficulty is the biased heresiological point of view, for they saw in gnostic teaching only deviations from pure teaching, deviations which were spawned by the devil. The second difficulty is

based in the interdependence of the gnostic sources, since the later gnostic authors naturally developed the gnostic conceptions they had received, but rarely added to them more than a few new bits of information. Moreover, the heresiologists had different theories about the historical origin of Gnosis, and these theories determined the way they presented the gnostic materials. Justin and Irenaeus prefer an origin from Judaism, and Hippolytus and Clement prefer an origin from Greek philosophy, while Epiphanius tries to trace back, in a purely schematic way (according to the Song of Songs 6:8), eighty heresies to Greek and Jewish schools or sects. In spite of all this, scholarly research in the 19th century (esp. F. C. Baur and A. von Harnack) could construct an objective image of Gnosticism, even if primary sources were limited and the traditional heresiological perspective dominated. C. History of Research The increase in new original sources has fundamentally altered the state of research in the last few decades. As a result, older notions must and should be abandoned. Together with progress in the critical analysis of sources has come a change in the formulation of questions, which above all had been introduced by the groundbreaking Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (History of Religions School) of Protestant historial theology in Germany at the turn of the century (W. Bousset, H. Gunkel, W. Wrede). This state of affairs reveals another aspect of historiography—the conditioned viewpoint of the investigator. In the 19th century, the gnostic sects were still widely seen as early Christian heresies. Scholarly accounts were influenced by the polemical rhetoric and bias of the Church Fathers, who were responsible for creating such a view. All this changed, however, with the approach adopted by the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Churchhistorical research, as it had been conducted (above all by the influential A. von Harnack), was replaced by religio-historical research as practiced by W. Bousset and R. Reitzenstein. A regional perspective was replaced by one more universal, a theological perspective by a religio-historical perspective. This change in perspective extended even further. Questions were formulated so as to include the new sociological or social scientific, economic, and social-historical approaches, in an attempt to place Gnosis in the context of the ideological history of the Hellenistic world and late antiquity. Gnosis was seen as a part of a broader religio-philosophical protest movement—as a manifestation of the dissolution of the classical world view—and as a fragmentary attempt to master social, political, and ideological complexes by opposing dualities such as “lower and higher,” between East and West (Rome), as was done by other religions. The inclusion of Gnosis in a universal, ecumenical compass strongly shapes present research, at least to the extent that that research is devoted to more than the necessary processing and analysis of sources. D. History of Gnosticism 1. Origins. According to the view of the Church Fathers, the gnostic movement was introduced by the devil “who hates what is good, as the enemy of truth, ever most hostile to man’s salvation, turned all his devices against the church” (Eusebius of Caesarea). The head of the deceivers was Simon Magus (i.e., “the Sorcerer”) known from Acts 8 in the NT. Most of the heresiologists considered Simon as the first gnostic, the founder of the sect or heresy (cf. Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius). His disciple Menander then

distributed the gnostic teaching to Saturninus of Antioch and Basilides of Alexandria. With the help of this lineage, the beginning and expansion of Gnosticism was explained for centuries in the orthodox ecclesiastical tradition. It is very difficult to write the history of Gnosis since we still do not have a text from a gnostic writer which can be considered an attempt at history writing. Only from a careful analysis of the sources themselves, and the relations of the gnostic schools to other movements, can we reconstruct parts of that history. Most of it, especially the beginnings, are still shrouded in legend. There is no doubt that the cultural and religious-historical background of Gnosis is closely tied to Judaism, Iran, and the Hellenistic tradition. The area of Syria and Palestine was its home. Many of the writings can be understood as interpretations or paraphrases of the Jewish scriptures (in spite of the polemic against the traditional meaning of those texts). Various figures of the OT (Adam, Seth, Cain, Shem, Enosh, and Noah) function as ancestors, revealers or saviors. The Jewish idea of one God can be presupposed behind the gnostic “Unknown God” (agnoµstos theos) but clothed in Greek terms; the same is true for the gnostic demiurge (often called a “fool” or, by name, Saklas) who is the devaluated creator depicted in Genesis. Two early Jewish traditions must be mentioned to understand gnostic origins: the apocalyptic and the sapiential (wisdom) tradition. Both are linked together by various threads. The apocalyptic (traced back to the 2d century b.c.e.) is characterized by the belief in the end of the world with God’s intervention in favor of the elect. The world view is dominated by a dualistic pessimism with the teaching of two ages (aeons). The present age, governed by the devil and his powers, is bound to perish and will be followed by the future age of salvation. Only the man, who “knows himself” to be truly pious, will be saved by God. Apocalyptic is esoteric, revealed wisdom, and the resulting “knowledge” has a direct relation to redemption, because cognition or wisdom is the basis for future salvation. Apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings are the main types of apocalyptic literature, and which are continued in gnostic texts, sometimes with clear literary links to the nongnostic apocalyptic classics. Figures like the Adamites and other forefathers of Judaism played a leading role in this type of literature. The same is true for the use of the interpretation of the biblical tradition in ...