Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13064Re: Classifications among the Valentinians

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Jun 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Dwain

      You ask...

      >>>exactly who i was speaking of. who did the more sensitive evaluation
      and when did it occur? are there any links to this information you can
      share?<<<

      Hmmm, now that you mention it I don't really even know of many
      websites on the subject. I guess I can't be very helpful in that way.
      I am far from a specialist when it comes to the Mandaeans, so I am
      only quoting the story as I have heard it. According to Lady Drower,
      one of the early researchers of these people, she initially
      categorized Mandaeans as "Gnostics" because a friend of hers (I
      believe it was Quispel, if I remember correctly) convinced her they
      must be connected. She states that at the time she didn't know much
      about "Gnosticism" (though she knew very much about Mandaeans and
      Quispel did not), and in her later books she recants her initial
      categorization because as she learned more about Gnosticism she felt
      they were actually quite different. In other words, the person who
      categorized them this way in the first place is the one later points
      out that the categorization was overly hasty.

      By that time, though, I guess the damage was done, so to speak.
      Depending on her early observations many other authors who are either
      specialists in Gnosticism but not Mandaeans, or in Mandaeans but not
      Gnosticism have recounted the similarities and lumped them together.
      For instance, Rudolph does so in "Gnosis". I even have a book by
      Lupieri called "Mandaeans; the last Gnostics". The problem is that
      Rudolph simply takes it for granted that they must be Gnostics, and
      doesn't really explain why that would be so. Lupieri, on the other
      hand, does try to explain the connection but he is not as well
      informed about Gnosticism so some of the things he seems to set up as
      points of similarity don't actually work very well.

      Although it came out that way in my previous post, I don't actually
      intend to say that the Mandaeans COULDN'T be in some way categorized
      as Gnosticism (the way I tend to with Manichaeans). It could be a good
      conversation to explore right here on the forum. If you have some
      specific similarities in mind we can certainly test them and see what
      everyone thinks about it.

      It seems to me that one of the most common things I hear people
      mention as important in connecting the two movements is the
      name "Mandaean" itself. The problem with this is that it is not what
      they traditionally called themselves. I am skeptical about the role of
      esoteric knowing in the soteriology of the Mandaeans, and this is the
      sort of thing I think we need to be sensetive about when we deal with
      the issue. What I have read about the Mandaeans has implied to me that
      their salvational beliefs actually place the emphasis on ritual
      practice rather than on some kind of "Gnosis". Perhaps you can help
      clarify this issue for us in the course of conversation.

      PMCV
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic