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

Re: Valentinian Exegesis of Paul

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Steve ... word Gentiles may refer to pneumatics.
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Steve

      >>>"For example, the word "Jews" may refer to psychics while the
      word "Gentiles" may refer to pneumatics."<<<

      I find this version counterintuitive, in contrast to the version we
      see in Philip where it is....

      Hylic = Gentile
      Psychic = Jew
      Pneumatic = Christian

      I need to check out this pook sometime since it comes up so much.

      In any event, I tend to side with the arguement that outside the
      obvious convention of the time, most of what Paul gets blamed for is
      largely the invention (and insertions) of other authors.

      PMCV
    • Steve
      ... Hi Karl. I m still not quite sure what to make of the Valentinian interpretations of Paul. Some of the interpretations that Pagels reports do strike me as
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Hey Steve
        >
        > >>>"For example, the word "Jews" may refer to psychics while the
        > word "Gentiles" may refer to pneumatics."<<<
        >
        > I find this version counterintuitive, in contrast to the version we
        > see in Philip where it is....
        >
        > Hylic = Gentile
        > Psychic = Jew
        > Pneumatic = Christian
        >
        > I need to check out this pook sometime since it comes up so much.
        >
        > In any event, I tend to side with the arguement that outside the
        > obvious convention of the time, most of what Paul gets blamed for is
        > largely the invention (and insertions) of other authors.
        >
        > PMCV

        Hi Karl. I'm still not quite sure what to make of the Valentinian
        interpretations of Paul. Some of the interpretations that Pagels
        reports do strike me as being somewhat forced. However, some of them
        are quite intriguing. And yes, I agree that the interpolations in the
        authentic letters, along with the outright forgeries of the pastorals
        and the disputed status of Ephesians, Colossians and Hebrews, does
        give a very distorted view of Paul. But even just by reading a variety
        of English translations of Paul's epistles, I have come to the
        conclusion that he refers to the Demiurge myth, the Sophia myth, the
        triple division of hylic, psychic and pneumatic, and the docetic
        conception of Christ. He also hints that he had both an exoteric and
        an esoteric teaching. Scholars often refer to Paul as proto-gnostic
        because they hesitate to allow that the full-blown gnostic myth
        existed in the 50s of the first century, but I suspect that, in fact,
        it did. -Steve W.
      • pmcvflag
        Hey Steve... ... interpretations of Paul. Some of the interpretations that Pagels reports do strike me as being somewhat forced.
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Steve...

          >>>"I'm still not quite sure what to make of the Valentinian
          interpretations of Paul. Some of the interpretations that Pagels
          reports do strike me as being somewhat forced."<<<

          I can't say off the top of my head whether I personally think this
          is simply from Pagels' understanding, or if what you are talking
          about is from specific Valentinian attempts to deal with the
          subject. I do find some of the Valentinain attempts at John to be a
          little forced, and in fact I believe that John was a reaction
          against Gnosticism to some extent. To me, though (as with you), Paul
          is a differet story. (I do personally tend towards Sethian thought,
          though I can admit that 8 times out of 10 I am likely to point to
          Valentinian sources when making a point about "Gnosticism")

          >>>"But even just by reading a variety of English translations of
          Paul's epistles, I have come to the conclusion that he refers to the
          Demiurge myth, the Sophia myth, the triple division of hylic,
          psychic and pneumatic, and the docetic conception of Christ. He also
          hints that he had both an exoteric and an esoteric teaching."<<<

          Not only do I think you are right, I think your thinking is actually
          in the mainstream of objective scholasticism right now. The
          term "Biblical Scholors" is such a wide category for most people, so
          I am not talking about most theologians... but I think most
          HISTORIANS would agree with you.

          >>>"Scholars often refer to Paul as proto-gnostic because they
          hesitate to allow that the full-blown gnostic myth existed in the
          50s of the first century, but I suspect that, in fact, it did."<<<

          At the same time, many scholors like Dr Turner, Rudolph, Pearson,
          Scholem, all are unafraid to talk about very early expressions of a
          full blown Gnostic myth (and this is not even talking about VERY
          closely related movements). Even Dr Erhman, whom I know Gerry has
          had a personal run in with and we should be careful about because he
          has some traditional Christian misgivings, postulates an early date
          for Thomas, and believes it is dependant on a full Gnostic system.
          Scholors who support the Petrement dating have really fallen to the
          side as evidence has mounted against them. My own prof on the
          subject was conservative with dating, but still believed the
          likelyhood that the original "Gnostics" was quite early in Christian
          history.

          Platonizing influence certainly existed in Jewish sources even
          before the 50s of the first century b.c.. When we cut away certain
          groups, like the Manichaeans (for instance) and deal with Gnosticism
          in the more specific realm of Hellenized Judism... we actually set
          the date back a bit further. At this point Paul becomes not a "proto-
          Gnostic", but simply a part of a larger movement that predates him.

          PMCV
        • Gerry
          ... Speaking of Dr. Ehrman, I picked up another of his books today. What can I say . . . it was my third full day off in over two months, so when I was
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 10, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            >
            > [...]
            > At the same time, many scholors like Dr Turner, Rudolph, Pearson,
            > Scholem, all are unafraid to talk about very early expressions of a
            > full blown Gnostic myth (and this is not even talking about VERY
            > closely related movements). Even Dr Erhman, whom I know Gerry has
            > had a personal run in with and we should be careful about because
            > he has some traditional Christian misgivings, postulates an early
            > date for Thomas, and believes it is dependant on a full Gnostic
            > system. Scholors who support the Petrement dating have really
            > fallen to the side as evidence has mounted against them. My own
            > prof on the subject was conservative with dating, but still
            > believed the likelyhood that the original "Gnostics" was quite
            > early in Christian history.
            > [....]


            Speaking of Dr. Ehrman, I picked up another of his books today. What
            can I say . . . it was my third full day off in over two months, so
            when I was finally able to make a trip to "civilization," I went crazy
            by the time I hit Barnes & Noble. BTW, I was pleased (somewhat) to see
            that they now feature a "Gnosis" section; it consisted of two shelves
            at the particular location I visited, but I couldn't resist rolling my
            eyes at some of the titles there.

            Anyway, I grabbed Ehrman's _Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code_.
            Since I lent my copy of DVC to a friend, and recently heard reports of
            the controversy surrounding the movie production, I wanted to refresh
            my memory on some of the content, just to be prepared when the subject
            inevitably makes its way to water-cooler discussions at work. Of
            course, I'll also be interested to discover if I agree with the
            professor's critical analysis for the same reasons he puts forward, or
            if we would both tend to argue against the book's "factual" claims from
            different perspectives. It may prove to be a challenging exercise in
            historical objectivity.

            Gerry
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.