13004Re: Jewish Gnostics
- Feb 22, 2007Oh, Ken.... I probably should have added that this was Dr Scholem's
theory as well, though you probably already gathered that from the
previous conversation about him and his belief that Merkabah is an
offshoot of Gnosticism. Since Philo was born in the first century
B.C.E., this would place Gnosticism in the first century at the
latest. This can be found in his "Origins of Kabbalah" that we were
talking about previously.
Questions have been raised over whether Dr Scholem was using the
term "Gnosticism" correctly. Pearson countered on behalf of Scholem
that while he agreed Dr Scholem's usage of the term "Gnosticism" was
not quite accurate, his basic historical outline still held. As one
would expect, other scholars disagree.
Anyway we look at it, we are looking at a date between the second
century B.C. to the second century A.D., likely not quite so early
and definately no later.
--- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Hey Ken
> If I recall correctly, that would be Birger Pearson in his
> book "Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity". His outline
> is similar to that of Turner in that he presents a preChristian
> Sethianism that would have to come from the first or second century
> (since that is the only way it could be "pre Christian" I guess
> *lol*). Of course, most scholars feel that is too early. However, I
> think that Petrement's date that seems to influence scholars like
> Davies simply doesn't work either, and is far too late (not to
> mention the fact that it is presented for the wrong reasons).
> Without speculating on the real date of Gnostic origins, if we do
> accept a relationship between Philo and Gnostic thinking then at
> very least we can prove Jewish Platonism as early as the first
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gnostic_ken" <gnostic_ken@>
> > --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > again). The earliest date I have ever seen any scholar date
> > > Gnosticism is in the second century B.C.E..
> > >
> > > PMCV
> > Hi PMCV,
> > That is interesting. Much earlier than anything I have ever
> > don't happen to have a reference for that do you? I would like to
> > it up.
> > Ken
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>