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

Re: Lebanese Gnostics? Crispin's questions

Expand Messages
  • Steve
    ... Steve ... classical ... of ... and ... of ... The author of The Tripartite Tractate does seem to want to bring the discussion of the Valentinian
    Message 1 of 44 , Apr 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <eugnostos2000@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Well, that makes sense. By focusing on the general function of
      > the
      > > motifs it should be possible to address this. Of course, as you
      > note,
      > > we need to be reasonably sure of what that function is before
      > > proceeding. Perhaps then we can account, for example, for why the
      > > Logos, rather than Sophia, is blamed for the gnostic Fall in the
      > > Tripartite Tractate in contradiction of other Valentinian works,
      > and
      > > so on and so forth. A bit of work, though, don't you think? -
      > W.
      > > >
      > >
      > Steve, you've hit on one example of what Harold Attridge and Elaine
      > Pagels in their introduction to The Tripartite Tractate (Robinson's
      > _The Nag Hammadi Library_) have seen as an attempt to present a
      > theological statement that appeals to the church as a whole,
      > including ordinary Christians,... a "work that departs from
      > Valentinian doctrine more radically than any known representative
      > the tradition."
      > The fall of logos (as "agent of rupture in the pleroma")
      > is "presented in remarkably positive terms, as a result of his
      > own `abundant love,'"... "in accordance with the Father's will,"
      > the fall even "proceeds from the Logos' free choice."
      > If we weigh this against other works in which the "agent of rupture
      > in the pleroma" is Sophia, do we find a comparable function? Or
      > rather does this highly Christianized work compromise a perceived
      > function of the other more classical Valentinian works?
      > You're right, Steve. We might need to identify what the function
      > Logos and the fall are before proceeding. Then again, maybe there
      > are other *related* functions among the works that are even more
      > important.
      > Cari

      The author of The Tripartite Tractate does seem to want to bring
      the discussion of the Valentinian understanding of materiality into
      line with a simpler, more streamlined Aeonology that would be more
      compatible with the emerging orthodoxy. The author is at pains to
      present the defective creation of the material world by the Logos as
      being a freely chosen act motivated by love whereas A Valentinian
      Exposition, which also seems to modify, or at least clarify,
      traditional Valentinian thought, stresses that it is an act of
      willfulness on the part of Sophia. Also, the author of The Tripartite
      Tractate seems particularly anxious to show that ultimately all was
      in accord with the will of the Father. These do seem like overtures
      toward the centrist proto-orthodox position.
      -Steve W.
    • Michael Leavitt
      ... Doesn t seem necessary for the Quabalists and the breaking of the vessles. Might make it better though, if he were there. -- M. Leavitt
      Message 44 of 44 , Apr 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Steve wrote:
        >> I'm curious what others think. Going back to Plato (as Steve did
        >> with his reference to Theaetetus), we see Plato's demiurge in
        >> Timaeus. How is a relational demiurge of some sort necessary
        >> functionally to a Gnostic system, and is this necessary to carry into
        >> a modern adaptation?
        >> Cari
        > Hi Cari. IMO, it's fascinating to see how, for example, the author of
        > The Apocryphon of John goes back and forth from the Timaeus to Genesis
        > and uses both as a point of departure for his/her own perspective. In
        > Timaeus Plato has the Demiurge using the Form of the Intelligible
        > Living Creature as a template for the Cosmos. As such, Plato seems to
        > be an early advocate for 'Intelligent Design'. For Plato, the world is
        > intelligible, hence modeled upon an intelligible pattern. In the
        > Apocryphon of John the Demiurge also seeks to work from an intelligible
        > pattern, but doesn't fully understand it. Consequently his handiwork is
        > flawed in ways that go beyond the inherent imperfection of a copy in
        > relation to the original. IMO, it might be possible to dispense with a
        > demiurgos in an Neo-Platonic emanationist system wherein the only
        > problem with materiality is the inherent inferiority of copy to
        > original and wherein the successive unfolding of emanations is simply
        > inevitable. However, it seems to me that the problem in the Apocryphon
        > of John goes deeper than this and is conceived as being an actual
        > rupture in the Great Chain of Being. As such, it would be difficult to
        > account for this apart from a Demiurgic figure, or at least a Sophia
        > figure driven by a desire which is contrary to the will of her Consort,
        > that is to say, unbalanced. What is your opinion on this? -Steve W.
        Doesn't seem necessary for the Quabalists and the breaking of the
        vessles. Might make it better though, if he were there.

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