| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bart Jones
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:26 am Post subject: Bear with me .... |
 |
|
Let me preface the question with the statement that I am in no way
attempting to 'fundamentalize' the subject; With that said, what is the
earliest document that could be called 'gnostic.' Not that calls itself
gnostic, but expresses what would be considered gnostic ideas or beliefs? |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
Bart Jones <bart_jones@bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: | Let me preface the question with the statement that I am in no way
attempting to 'fundamentalize' the subject; With that said, what is the
earliest document that could be called 'gnostic.' Not that calls itself
gnostic, but expresses what would be considered gnostic ideas or beliefs?
|
That depends on exactly what you're trying to find. There
are gnostic ideas in various parts of the NT, but those
documents aren't consistently gnostic, and they don't offer any
clear-cut examples of gnosticism. I'm guessing you mean
writings like the Apocryphon of John: i.e., full-blown gnostic
literature. The problem is that dating all these things --
the canonical texts as well as the others -- is damn hard to do
with any certainty. Even putting a date on the existing
copies is educated guesswork. Same goes double it comes to the
missing originals.
I realize I'm not helping very much. Another complication:
some of the gnostic writings are preserved in the Church
Fathers. They aren't documents of their own, but they could be
in the running, nonetheless. Then there's the eternally
debated question about what counts as gnostic. For example, do
you include the Gospel of Thomas? I think it's a highly
ambiguous case, and suggested dates put it somewhere between 50
and 150 AD. But if you considered it gnostic, and if you
chose the early end of the spectrum, then you would have a good
candidate.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
"Bart Jones" <bart_jones@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<ZhNbb.12892$iO.8859@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
| Quote: | Let me preface the question with the statement that I am in no way
attempting to 'fundamentalize' the subject; With that said, what is the
earliest document that could be called 'gnostic.' Not that calls itself
gnostic, but expresses what would be considered gnostic ideas or beliefs?
|
All answers will be relative and subjective. And revealing.
Before anyone answers: self-define what you mean by 'gnostic'.
You are talking about "gnostic ideas or beliefs" : Gnostic-al.
"Document" being the key word.
Unusual question.
My Q: Is this for a dissertation Mr. Jones? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bart Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
Not for a dissertation ... just personal illumination - though I was a
religious studies minor back in my college days  . Though he didn't
necessarily think so, the post by Kater Moggin is the type I am looking for.
Many of the 'apocryphal' books are considered gnostic in that they state
gnostic ideas or beliefs - spiritual views consistent with gnosticism. Many
of these are obviously so consistent to the subject as to be 'canonical' for
gnosticism. To understand the history of gnosticism, of course the earliest
writings will not be fully gnostic in nature, as gnosticism, like every
belief system, grew and morphed over time. I really am in search of the
first roots, wherever they may lie, of gnosticism, and how they came
together to form the tree - and when gnosticism indeed first became its own
entity. So I guess I am in search of both: first expressed gnostic-type
beliefs, as well as first truly gnostic-in-subject writings.
"Nuvoadam" <Nuvoadam@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:93508a0.0309222346.48e463e7@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Bart Jones" <bart_jones@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<ZhNbb.12892$iO.8859@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
Let me preface the question with the statement that I am in no way
attempting to 'fundamentalize' the subject; With that said, what is the
earliest document that could be called 'gnostic.' Not that calls itself
gnostic, but expresses what would be considered gnostic ideas or
beliefs?
All answers will be relative and subjective. And revealing.
Before anyone answers: self-define what you mean by 'gnostic'.
You are talking about "gnostic ideas or beliefs" : Gnostic-al.
"Document" being the key word.
Unusual question.
My Q: Is this for a dissertation Mr. Jones? |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
"Bart Jones" <bart_jones@bellsouth.net> writes:
| Quote: | belief system, grew and morphed over time. I really am in search of the
first roots, wherever they may lie, of gnosticism, and how they came
together to form the tree - and when gnosticism indeed first became its own
entity.
|
Of course they lie in heterodox Alexandrine Judaism,
especially the antinomianist enemies of Philo Alexandrinus
described in the book about Abraham's migration.
This has already been known by M. Friedlaender, and later by A. Drews.
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 5:13 am Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
"Bart Jones" <bart_jones@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<KYWbb.13513$iO.12837@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
Nuvoadam:
| Quote: | All answers will be relative and subjective. And revealing.
Before anyone answers: self-define what you mean by 'gnostic'.
You are talking about "gnostic ideas or beliefs" : Gnostic-al.
"Document" being the key word.
Unusual question.
My Q: Is this for a dissertation Mr. Jones?
Not for a dissertation ... just personal illumination - though I was a
religious studies minor back in my college days . Though he didn't
necessarily think so, the post by Kater Moggin is the type I am looking for.
Many of the 'apocryphal' books are considered gnostic in that they state
gnostic ideas or beliefs - spiritual views consistent with gnosticism.
|
Perhaps because so many if not all of the apocryphal books were penned
by Gnostic-minded people living over a century after Jesus' era. The
Ascension of Isaiah for example.
(Many)
| Quote: | of these are obviously so consistent to the subject as to be 'canonical' for
gnosticism.
|
You are mixing up apocrypha with pseudepigrapha, mainly penned
starting around 200 BCE to 200 CE. The Books of Enoch are a good
pseudepigraphal example of Gnostic-al writings.
(To understand the history of gnosticism, of course the earliest)
| Quote: | writings will not be fully gnostic in nature,
|
There is no such thing as a writing which is "fully gnostic in
nature", because the definiton of what "Gnostic" is has ever been up
for debate, even by those few groups we know to have used the name for
themselves, and the handful of others we believe used the name because
they are accused of such by their Church attackers.
To explain the critical point-- what is the "nature" of a Gnostic
writing? According to some, they would be 'characterised' by a belief
in a big bad evil Demiurge. According to others, the true *nature of
Gnostic writings would be found in the simple recognition that this
world is dualistic, or Maya-illusive, and that rather than faith, it
is only absolute knowledge which will bring us the emancipation of
Gnostic salvation.
(as gnosticism, like every)
| Quote: | belief system, grew and morphed over time.
|
Grew from what? From where? There were centers of Gnostical thought,
often in direct and bitter competition with each other for the
enquiring minds.
(I really am in search of the)
| Quote: | first roots, wherever they may lie, of gnosticism, and how they came
together to form the tree
|
Well if you are going to step back and squint your eyes, then yes, it
is a "tree", and yes, it had what can loosely be called "roots".
( - and when gnosticism indeed first became its own)
Never was its own entity. That's why there was never an orthodox
definition of Gnosticism beyond the agreement that duality and
self-suffering could only be ended through Knowledge-of-self and not
through Faith-in-other.
(So I guess I am in search of both: first expressed gnostic-type)
| Quote: | beliefs, as well as first truly gnostic-in-subject writings.
|
First a reminder-- you were asking about "documents".
Second, we must look for the relationship between "gnostic-type
beliefs" and "gnostic-in-subject writings".
Again, some will be looking for the first documents depicting a
evil-bad Creator figure. Others will be looking for the first
Gnostic-type documents depicting a dualistic Maya-world and thereafter
suggesting something to be done about it which will lead to
self-discovery. Two very different ideas of what Gnostic "nature"
really means.
I suggest you pick up "The Other Bible", edited by Willis Barnstone.
It is a solid source of Jewish pseudepigrapha, Christian apocrypha,
Gnostic scriptures, Kabbalah and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Be mindful of what Gnostic texts use for their own authority. "On the
Origin of the World" refers to some undiscovered older source
documents such as "The First Logos of Noraia", probably also "The
First Book of Noraia". Also it refers to "The Book of Solomon",
probably one of the pseudepigraphal Solomon works by Philo of
Alexandria, some of which were composed just before Jesus was born.
Also "The Schemata of the Heimarmene of the Heaven Which is Beneath
the Twelve", and then there is "The Seventh Cosmos of Hieralaias the
Prophet".
"The Hypostasis of the Archons" quotes Paul in Eph. 6.12, but this
doesn't mean that it was a work contemporary to Paul's era. This
being said, I have seen at least one exploration that this work could
be attributed to Paul or even to his master Gamaliel. In a
round-about way, the Gnostic work called the Pistis-Sophia
(Faith-Knowledge) is mentioned. The Sophia works are sometimes
thought to be of Valentinian origin.
"The Apocalypse of Adam" is an example of a newer work which has a
distinctly older feel to it. It can only be termed a *Sethian
tractate* in the sense that it was supposedly first compiled by Adam's
son Seth (in Adams "seven-hundredth year") as a warning about the
Elohim (Gnostic Archons). I would look closely into this kind of
Gnostical tractate. This is the same kind of mythos that Gamaliel,
Paul and especially Dositheus were tapping into in order to repackage
it as a purely Gnostical work.
"The Apocaplypse of Adam" may be grouped together with "Zostrianos",
"The Gospel of the Egyptians", "Allogenes", and "Marsanes" in works
generally called Sethian. Also we may add the "Epistle of Eugnostos",
"The Sophia of Jesus" and "The Book of Norea" to this group. These
documents seem to use stories like the "Vitae of Adam and Eve" as the
foundation for their authority. They tap into the Greek story of
Tatarus (also Tartarus), whom was the father of Typhon, also called as
the Egyptian Seth, whose royal throne name was Satan.
In a text we loosely call "The Three Steles of Seth", the revelation
is attributed to Dositheos. This would be one of the earliest Western
Gnostical texts if this is true. The "Three Stele" are mythological
stone markers scribed by Adam's son himself and left on a mountaintop
to survive the flood. Dositheus claims to have found them but does
not tell us where. Apparently his information has been challenged
because we look to Dositheus' opening statements and find the excuse
for his authority included in the prelude: "he (Dositheos) saw and
understood. And after he had read them, he remembered them. And he
gave them to the elect, just as they are inscribed there."
I suggest picking up a book called "The Nag Hammadi Library", edited
by James Robinson. This contains his short elucidations on each work
in the Nag Hammadi, and reveals that they are mostly Valentinian and
Neoplatonist, suggesting a much later date for the libraries burial
than many of us wanted to accept at first.
Also, in "The Secret Book of John" for instance we find the Sethian
works attributed to Dositheos mentioned with the name "Pigeradamas",
who appoints his son Seth over a eternal realm. Here are the biblical
Adam and his son Seth turned into mythological figures. In "The Second
Treatise of the Great Seth" Adam as Pigeradamas is shortened to
"Geradamas" and Seth is called "Emmacha Seth".
In the middle of this Nag Hammadi work in the name of John, we are
presented with a long list of angel-names which is very Zoroastrian.
As in the Alexandrian Valentinianism, the number 365 is present as a
total for the number of Archon-Angels who each contribute some part of
their genetic material to the creation of man. And then, right when
we are suspicius of syncretism of an epic order, pseudo-John sources
his authority: "There are other angels over the remaining passions,
and I have not told you about them. If you want to know about them,
the information is recorded in the Book of Zoroaster."
If you are looking for the oldest works which may be called both
WESTERN Gnostic-in-type and WESTERN Gnostic-in-subject, then you are
looking for Philo and Simon Magus. The work "The Great Declaration"
(Apophasis megale) was ascribed to Simon, and the "Pseudo-Clementines"
also present his teaching in detail.
If you are looking for the oldest documents which may be called both
Gnostic-in-type and Gnostic-in-subject in the sense that they address
a dualistic self-suffering alongside suggested techniques to do
Transcend Matter, then you are looking for the Hindu Veda's, early
Buddhist works, the Tao te Ching, and other Eastern Gnostical works.
Lao tzu once claimed to have seen early Shang Dynasty documents
concerning The Way, which he taught to others. Right around this time
the Zen documents of Mahayana Buddhism were also being created. This
was all around 600 - 500 BC, a time when the east records as the era
of a thousand Schools-- a period of enlightenment which had a
counterpart in Greece and other places.
As a lead in to the interaction of Western and Eastern Gnosticism,
here is a link to some post wherein I document some of the contacts of
Buddhism with Greece. The Essenes claim to be a western branch of
Buddhism, and Josephus states that they were around for "thousands of
years" before his era.
http://tinyurl.com/ofia
Hope some of this was of help to you sir.
peace |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bart Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:42 am Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
The responses I have received thus far are exactly what I am looking for; a
starting place on a long road. Thank you all for your assistance. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:27 am Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
Bart Jones <bart_jones@bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: | Many of the 'apocryphal' books are considered gnostic in that they state
gnostic ideas or beliefs - spiritual views consistent with gnosticism. Many
of these are obviously so consistent to the subject as to be 'canonical' for
gnosticism. To understand the history of gnosticism, of course the earliest
writings will not be fully gnostic in nature, as gnosticism, like every
belief system, grew and morphed over time. I really am in search of the
first roots, wherever they may lie, of gnosticism, and how they came
together to form the tree - and when gnosticism indeed first became its own
entity. So I guess I am in search of both: first expressed gnostic-type
beliefs, as well as first truly gnostic-in-subject writings.
|
Again, it all depends how wide a net you wanna be casting.
If you're looking for gnostic-ish ideas in the historical
background, there are plenty to choose from. The Orphic folks
talked about liberation from the wheel and referred to the
body as a tomb. Gnostic protest exegesis was preceded by some
protests in the OT. The NT has no shortage of gnostic
elements (even though you couldn't reasonably apply that label
to the thing as a whole). Etc.
With regard to gnosticism as such, things are complicated
-- as always -- since there isn't any clear sign of a
beginning. Irenaeus traced the whole deal back to Simon Magus.
You might not want to take that on faith. The Christian
gnostics of course claimed Jesus as a point of origin, and may
have been right, although he's not alone in the gnostic
literature: selected OT figures -- e.g. Seth, Cain, and Korah
-- are also given roles.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) wrote in message news:<93508a0.0309231613.491f3cfb@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | "Bart Jones" <bart_jones@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<KYWbb.13513$iO.12837@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
Nuvoadam:
All answers will be relative and subjective. And revealing.
Before anyone answers: self-define what you mean by 'gnostic'.
You are talking about "gnostic ideas or beliefs" : Gnostic-al.
"Document" being the key word.
Unusual question.
My Q: Is this for a dissertation Mr. Jones?
Not for a dissertation ... just personal illumination - though I was a
religious studies minor back in my college days . Though he didn't
necessarily think so, the post by Kater Moggin is the type I am looking for.
Many of the 'apocryphal' books are considered gnostic in that they state
gnostic ideas or beliefs - spiritual views consistent with gnosticism.
Perhaps because so many if not all of the apocryphal books were penned
by Gnostic-minded people living over a century after Jesus' era. The
Ascension of Isaiah for example.
(Many)
of these are obviously so consistent to the subject as to be 'canonical' for
gnosticism.
You are mixing up apocrypha with pseudepigrapha, mainly penned
starting around 200 BCE to 200 CE. The Books of Enoch are a good
pseudepigraphal example of Gnostic-al writings.
(To understand the history of gnosticism, of course the earliest)
writings will not be fully gnostic in nature,
There is no such thing as a writing which is "fully gnostic in
nature", because the definiton of what "Gnostic" is has ever been up
for debate, even by those few groups we know to have used the name for
themselves, and the handful of others we believe used the name because
they are accused of such by their Church attackers.
To explain the critical point-- what is the "nature" of a Gnostic
writing? According to some, they would be 'characterised' by a belief
in a big bad evil Demiurge. According to others, the true *nature of
Gnostic writings would be found in the simple recognition that this
world is dualistic, or Maya-illusive, and that rather than faith, it
is only absolute knowledge which will bring us the emancipation of
Gnostic salvation.
(as gnosticism, like every)
belief system, grew and morphed over time.
Grew from what? From where? There were centers of Gnostical thought,
often in direct and bitter competition with each other for the
enquiring minds.
|
I want to amend these comments. Even though you specifically asked
about the oldest Gnostical documents, you also have stated your
subtext-- where is the authority of Western Gnosticism? Where is the
priority? If you are looking at it as a "tree", then you must imagine
Alexander the Great sweeping over the world like a tsunami. In tow
are several famous Philosophers, and they pick more up along the way.
It seems that Alexander was even more intent on gathering esoteric and
arcane secrets than he was in conquering for the sake of it. All of
this vast vast vast vast vast collection of knowledge and Gnosis was
swept towards one single location-- Alexandria. Here it was deposited
in a library which, by Hermetic tradition, was tended by they who had
already been guarding the plethora of writings of Thoth which Josephus
and others recognize as existent for uncountable millenia.
It is in Alexandria that the first vestiges of Western-style
Gnosticism are born. Philo gave it a kick in the arse by amalgamating
all of this Hellenized witches brew into Judaic mysticism. It was
just a short time later that we find the supermen walking the earth--
men and women demonstrating siddhi powers and preaching Dharma's of
higher realms and ways of existance far beyond our own rational.
Apollonias of Tyana, Simon Magus, Jesus the Christ, and perhaps
others. It was when these individuals began demonstrating what Gnosis
really means that both the Middle East masses and the authorities
became interested in Western Gnosticism.
If you are interested in the roots of the Western Gnostic "Tree", then
you need to look into what happened to birth these many w.Gnostic
splinter sects. This was an event which can be traced almost directly
back to Jesus. Gnostic thought posits that in Jesus, eventually there
were three-in-one persona's from differing spiritual realms.
The original Jesus sometimes told us that he had only come here at the
request of his father, that he didn't want the mission, and that he
had been sent specifically to rescue the "Lost Sheep" of Israel.
These were not nations or scattered tribes, although he certainly
approached his mission from that angle as well. Instead, these were
select individuals who had been sent to this Earth for several reasons
and were all plagued by degrees of amnesia as to who they were (the
Gnostic Monads aka fallen Angels).
When Jesus butted heads with the Pharisee's he made an incredible
tactical error-- he revealed his mission statement and then taunted
them that the fallen deity who sat on the Sanhedrin were not going to
be rescued. Not only that, but for the way they had treated him and
the other "children" whom he was sent for, they themselves were doomed
by Jesus to serve out their punishments until the very last possible
day!!!
Imagine walking into a Zoo and poking the caged bears with sticks. It
was an incredible tactical error on Jesus' part, and the repurcussions
were swift. The Sanhedrin Pharisee's, many of whom sat on an inner
council called the Tanaim, turned to Jesus' rival Simon Magus (whom
the Essenes claimed was PAUL), and began redacting these old legends
wherein Adam and his son Seth had recorded their unease around these
wholly alien looking Elohim which had created them. These stories
were redacted along with Simon's Magi/Moksha Gnosis, the Hebrew and
Egyptian mythic protagonists were turned into antagonists, and the
damage was done. Using vestiges of Alexandrian and Hermetic Gnosis,
built on top of the Jewish Cosmology flipped 180 degrees (Satan =
Good, YHWH = Bad), we then had this newer creation.
Jesus was to blame, and I apologize on his behalf.
However, there is a very incredible idea at the heart of these newer
w.Gnostics. A VERY incredible idea, and this was the idea of multiple
heavens. The Great Seth and his *brothers had come down from one of
these Pleroma's (heavens) to our own time, and also claimed to have
done so on numerous other occasions. The idea of 7 heavens grew to
13, and then from there blossomed out into a much larger canvas where
there were uncountable heavens.
The Tripartite Tractate addresses a unique event wherein the Logos
(Jesus), after learning of the higher realities, is then given the
task of visiting all of the Pleroma's to unite them into one single
whole-- what we could ostensibly call a SUPER PLEROMA. Cue the
various sutra's wherein Siddhartha the Buddha visits multiple
Nirvana's (heavens) to remind them that there is a higher SUPER
NIRVANA (my words/emphasis).
More on this later.
| Quote: | (I really am in search of the)
first roots, wherever they may lie, of gnosticism, and how they came
together to form the tree
Well if you are going to step back and squint your eyes, then yes, it
is a "tree", and yes, it had what can loosely be called "roots".
( - and when gnosticism indeed first became its own)
entity.
Never was its own entity. That's why there was never an orthodox
definition of Gnosticism beyond the agreement that duality and
self-suffering could only be ended through Knowledge-of-self and not
through Faith-in-other.
(So I guess I am in search of both: first expressed gnostic-type)
beliefs, as well as first truly gnostic-in-subject writings.
First a reminder-- you were asking about "documents".
Second, we must look for the relationship between "gnostic-type
beliefs" and "gnostic-in-subject writings".
Again, some will be looking for the first documents depicting a
evil-bad Creator figure. Others will be looking for the first
Gnostic-type documents depicting a dualistic Maya-world and thereafter
suggesting something to be done about it which will lead to
self-discovery. Two very different ideas of what Gnostic "nature"
really means.
I suggest you pick up "The Other Bible", edited by Willis Barnstone.
It is a solid source of Jewish pseudepigrapha, Christian apocrypha,
Gnostic scriptures, Kabbalah and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Be mindful of what Gnostic texts use for their own authority. "On the
Origin of the World" refers to some undiscovered older source
documents such as "The First Logos of Noraia", probably also "The
First Book of Noraia". Also it refers to "The Book of Solomon",
probably one of the pseudepigraphal Solomon works by Philo of
Alexandria, some of which were composed just before Jesus was born.
Also "The Schemata of the Heimarmene of the Heaven Which is Beneath
the Twelve", and then there is "The Seventh Cosmos of Hieralaias the
Prophet".
"The Hypostasis of the Archons" quotes Paul in Eph. 6.12, but this
doesn't mean that it was a work contemporary to Paul's era. This
being said, I have seen at least one exploration that this work could
be attributed to Paul or even to his master Gamaliel. In a
round-about way, the Gnostic work called the Pistis-Sophia
(Faith-Knowledge) is mentioned. The Sophia works are sometimes
thought to be of Valentinian origin.
"The Apocalypse of Adam" is an example of a newer work which has a
distinctly older feel to it. It can only be termed a *Sethian
tractate* in the sense that it was supposedly first compiled by Adam's
son Seth (in Adams "seven-hundredth year") as a warning about the
Elohim (Gnostic Archons). I would look closely into this kind of
Gnostical tractate. This is the same kind of mythos that Gamaliel,
Paul and especially Dositheus were tapping into in order to repackage
it as a purely Gnostical work.
"The Apocaplypse of Adam" may be grouped together with "Zostrianos",
"The Gospel of the Egyptians", "Allogenes", and "Marsanes" in works
generally called Sethian. Also we may add the "Epistle of Eugnostos",
"The Sophia of Jesus" and "The Book of Norea" to this group. These
documents seem to use stories like the "Vitae of Adam and Eve" as the
foundation for their authority. They tap into the Greek story of
Tatarus (also Tartarus), whom was the father of Typhon, also called as
the Egyptian Seth, whose royal throne name was Satan.
In a text we loosely call "The Three Steles of Seth", the revelation
is attributed to Dositheos. This would be one of the earliest Western
Gnostical texts if this is true. The "Three Stele" are mythological
stone markers scribed by Adam's son himself and left on a mountaintop
to survive the flood. Dositheus claims to have found them but does
not tell us where. Apparently his information has been challenged
because we look to Dositheus' opening statements and find the excuse
for his authority included in the prelude: "he (Dositheos) saw and
understood. And after he had read them, he remembered them. And he
gave them to the elect, just as they are inscribed there."
I suggest picking up a book called "The Nag Hammadi Library", edited
by James Robinson. This contains his short elucidations on each work
in the Nag Hammadi, and reveals that they are mostly Valentinian and
Neoplatonist, suggesting a much later date for the libraries burial
than many of us wanted to accept at first.
Also, in "The Secret Book of John" for instance we find the Sethian
works attributed to Dositheos mentioned with the name "Pigeradamas",
who appoints his son Seth over a eternal realm. Here are the biblical
Adam and his son Seth turned into mythological figures. In "The Second
Treatise of the Great Seth" Adam as Pigeradamas is shortened to
"Geradamas" and Seth is called "Emmacha Seth".
In the middle of this Nag Hammadi work in the name of John, we are
presented with a long list of angel-names which is very Zoroastrian.
As in the Alexandrian Valentinianism, the number 365 is present as a
total for the number of Archon-Angels who each contribute some part of
their genetic material to the creation of man. And then, right when
we are suspicius of syncretism of an epic order, pseudo-John sources
his authority: "There are other angels over the remaining passions,
and I have not told you about them. If you want to know about them,
the information is recorded in the Book of Zoroaster."
If you are looking for the oldest works which may be called both
WESTERN Gnostic-in-type and WESTERN Gnostic-in-subject, then you are
looking for Philo and Simon Magus. The work "The Great Declaration"
(Apophasis megale) was ascribed to Simon, and the "Pseudo-Clementines"
also present his teaching in detail.
If you are looking for the oldest documents which may be called both
Gnostic-in-type and Gnostic-in-subject in the sense that they address
a dualistic self-suffering alongside suggested techniques to do
Transcend Matter, then you are looking for the Hindu Veda's, early
Buddhist works, the Tao te Ching, and other Eastern Gnostical works.
Lao tzu once claimed to have seen early Shang Dynasty documents
concerning The Way, which he taught to others. Right around this time
the Zen documents of Mahayana Buddhism were also being created. This
was all around 600 - 500 BC, a time when the east records as the era
of a thousand Schools-- a period of enlightenment which had a
counterpart in Greece and other places.
|
Didn't mean to imply the Veda's were from this era. Although some
believe so, most historians have the Veda's recorded around 1500 BC,
while others try to stretch these back to the pre-dawn of our own era
of humanity, some tens-of-thousands of years in the past.
| Quote: | As a lead in to the interaction of Western and Eastern Gnosticism,
here is a link to some post wherein I document some of the contacts of
Buddhism with Greece. The Essenes claim to be a western branch of
Buddhism, and Josephus states that they were around for "thousands of
years" before his era.
http://tinyurl.com/ofia
Hope some of this was of help to you sir.
peace |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dreamsnake
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Bear with me .... |
|
|
"Bart Jones" <bart_jones@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<KYWbb.13513$iO.12837@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
| Quote: | Not for a dissertation ... just personal illumination - though I was a
religious studies minor back in my college days . Though he didn't
necessarily think so, the post by Kater Moggin is the type I am looking for.
Many of the 'apocryphal' books are considered gnostic in that they state
gnostic ideas or beliefs - spiritual views consistent with gnosticism. Many
of these are obviously so consistent to the subject as to be 'canonical' for
gnosticism.
|
Which documents do you have in mind? There are a *lot* of apocryphal
(and pseudepigraphical) books, many of which postdate early Gnostic
works.
| Quote: | To understand the history of gnosticism, of course the earliest
writings will not be fully gnostic in nature, as gnosticism, like every
belief system, grew and morphed over time. I really am in search of the
first roots, wherever they may lie, of gnosticism, and how they came
together to form the tree - and when gnosticism indeed first became its own
entity. So I guess I am in search of both: first expressed gnostic-type
beliefs, as well as first truly gnostic-in-subject writings.
|
The first traces of what I consider to be major Gnostic ideas appear
(to our view) among the Greeks with figures like Empedocles and the
Orphics, possibly the Pythagoreans as well. According to them,
because of a divine wrongdoing, we are trapped in mortal bodies
although we are of a godly origin, and we shall be reincarnated for
thousands of years. Salvation comes through purification and
knowledge of our origins. We have fragments of Presocratic writings
that date to the fifth century BCE. I think the earliest Orphic
document is fourth century BCE, but I could easily be wrong. Look
for information about the gold tablets, which are highly intriguing
(and perplexing).
Other possible sources ancestral to Gnosticism include India (for
reincarnation and world-denying tendencies, as well as the emphasis
on knowledge and spiritual discipline), and Zoroastrianism (for
dualism). If you want the earliest document directly ancestral to
Gnostic works, look up Ziusudra and Atrahasis. Very old. Enjoy.
Dreamsnake |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
