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

Re: Was Job a Gnostic?

Expand Messages
  • pneumen_borealis
    ... No, I don t think he comes to that level of realization. However, he may very well be put on the path to searching for it. The longing for direct knowledge
    Message 1 of 79 , Dec 3, 2003
      >
      > My reference
      > to "Unknown Father" was to the unknown, ineffable, infinite prime
      > source we have talked about fairly recently. Does Job come to that
      > realization through gnosis?

      No, I don't think he comes to that level of realization. However, he
      may very well be put on the path to searching for it. The longing for
      direct knowledge of God seems to well up inside him, to the point
      that he can no longer live without it. He rejects faith directly,
      gains direct knowledge, and is exalted by God for it, while his pious
      friends are chastised for not recognizing Job's elevetated
      spiituality.

      My understanding of gnosis is that there are lesser levels of
      understanding and experience that rely on contact with the Primal
      Father through his many emanations. The exact form that God takes in
      Job is unkown, but he definately makes a deeper part of himself known
      to Job through direct experience than he has through scipture and
      law. It is still direct knowledge of God that is imparted to Job.
      Interstingly, it is imparted by a questioning of faith, and not pious
      affirmation of it.

      The nature of the knowledge appears to be the very inneffable and
      unknowable nature of God, as God comes forth with a long list of
      mysteries Job does not know.


      > I'm not sure that can be determined,
      > although he might possibly be experiencing some kind of spiritual
      or
      > psychic maturing.
      >

      Is spiritual maturity possible without gnosis of some kind? Wisdom
      and maturity by definition imply some sort of affective understanding
      of the deeper nature of oneself and the world.

      > Although later traditions might very well be influenced by earlier
      > ones, I will say nonetheless that I am reticent to reverse
      direction
      > by superimposing a later Christology on this story.

      I do not think that is what I am doing, although rereading my
      postings, I can't blame you for thinking that I am.

      What's interesting about the passages posted earlier in this thread
      is that there is evidence that the idea of a gnostic Christ-like
      intermediary figure between God and the individual was around in
      those times. It would show that Jesus, by presenting himself as a
      Christ, was adressing a spiritual need that had been expressed by the
      Hebrews much earlier.

      >
      > > Job 42
      > >
      > > 3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without
      > knowledge?'
      > > Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
      > > things too wonderful for me to know.
      > >
      > > 4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
      > > I will question you,
      > > and you shall answer me.'
      > > 5 My ears had heard of you
      > > but now my eyes have seen you.
      > >
      > > It's a passage from belief to knowledge, from "hearing of" to
      > > "seeing".
      >
      >
      > Is it? Possibly. But then, traditions other than Gnostic,
      including
      > other Old Testament books, have used this theme of "sight" or lack
      > thereof. Even within a Christian context that you propose here,
      this
      > sight could still be viewed as an orthodox version of a deeper
      > *belief* or *faith*, not necessarily gnosis.

      Cetainly, there are probably millions of Christians in the world who
      would call Job's reaction to his vision a deepening of faith. One
      could just as easily interpret it as gnosis, as it also involves
      gaining spiritual insight through a direct interaction with the
      divine. The two, after all, are not mutually exclusive. I'd even go
      as far to say that you cannot have true faith without gnosis.Anything
      else is piety: faith in he absence of spiitual understanding.

      Labeling it differently does not change the nature of the spiritual
      experience described in Job. The Hebrews were wise to present it as a
      literary story, with it's inherent ambiguities and contradictions
      apparant to those who have not experienced it themselves: it does
      more justice to the inherent ambiguities of real-life experience.



      > Pneumen, you speak
      > of "the beautiful mysteries of God's creation" in your previous
      > post. Even using the term "god," this creator god is not the True
      > God of the Gnostics.

      I'm taking this for granted. But to someone without the neccessary
      spiritual maturity, this Father has no affective meaning. He would
      remain at best a very abstract intellectual construct. The Demiurge
      personifies how the creative powers that govern the physical and
      emotional universe treat the individual: you find disaster after
      disaster followed by some feeling that you should be taking active
      measures to prevent it all from happening.

      I had more to say, but I'm too tired to finish. I apologize for
      cutting off so abruptly.
    • pneumen_borealis
      1. Attaining pneumatic understanding (Gnosis?) ... Life ... No. I ll elaborate further. I believe that eating from the Tree of Knowledge represents moving from
      Message 79 of 79 , Dec 14, 2003
        1. Attaining pneumatic understanding (Gnosis?)

        >
        > "I see Eternal Life as allegory for a final psychological state of
        > gnosis that is irreversable. If one accepts salvation as an
        > allegorical process of spiritual death and rebirth, then Eternal
        Life
        > implies an ultimate end to the process. I believe that the Tree of
        > Life that Yaweh denies Adam and Eve is allegory for the realization
        > that such a world-changing process exists. I believe that when the
        > New Testament refers to eternal life, if one accepts it as allegory,
        > points to the same human condition as Gnosis. I thin that is the
        > first level of Gnosis to which Job ascends."
        >
        > If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that Job has
        > moved from the Hylic to the Psychic level of understanding.

        No. I'll elaborate further.

        I believe that eating from the Tree of Knowledge represents moving
        from the Hylic to the Psychic level, and that eating from the Tree of
        Life means moving from the Pychic to the Pneumatic level of
        understanding. Adam and Eve would be the defining Hebrew (and
        Gnostic!) myth where this initial leap were made.

        I think it is clear that Job is already at the Psychic level at the
        beginning of the Drama. He knows of God, knows of his laws, knows
        what is good and evil, believes in His laws, and is unimpeachable in
        his faith and moral conduct out of sincere, psychic conviction. A
        Hylic would act strictly out of fear and self-gain. Job's
        lamentations are based on a sincere and deeply rooted psychic
        interest in justice, which drives him to confront Yaweh. A Hylic
        wouldn't even think about the point of justice in the face of an
        omnipotent being. He'd just duck for cover and hope that groveling
        would curb further afflictions.

        What we are really debating is whether this is a psychic deepening of
        knowledge and faith (Lady Caritas' words) or an initial leap to a
        pneumatic level of understanding (my contention).

        I'll accept that I may have missed something in my definition
        of "pneumatic".

        In order to clarify this point in a concrete way, I'll ask you to
        answer the following questions:

        1.1. Precisely what points to this knowledge being psychic?

        1.2. In what Gnostic allegory or exposition is the Drama of ascending
        from the psychic to a pneumatic understanding of the Divine descibed
        or depicted?

        1.3. If there is no such drama or exposition, upon what do you base
        your conception of ascension to a pneumatic level?



        2. The related question of "Gnosis" vs. "gnosis"

        > years ago, in this club, we tried to outline a distinction
        > between "Gnosis" with a capitol "G", and "gnosis", little "g",

        I'll certainly attest to the potential for confusion here. I'm
        totally missing something in this line of conversation.

        2.1 Correct me if I'm wrong: gnosis = growing psychological
        undertanding through affective mystical experience. Right?

        That takes care of one definition. Could you elaborate on precisely
        how the second one differs?

        2.2 Gnosis: ?

        Perhaps "pneumatic understanding" is a better term? Of course this
        begs the question of what we mean by "pneumatic", and whether
        pneumatic can just mean spiritual. All this seems to indicate how
        important and fundamental this definition or description is. However,
        it does seem to clarify what we are debating in he Job question.

        3. Allegorical vs. Literal view of gnosis
        >
        > I feel it is important to point out though, that it is debatable as
        > to whether the Gnostics saw this salvation in such allegorical
        > terms. Truely Gnostic sources are full of allegory, but they also
        > seem to intend some literal points concerning spiritual function.
        >

        No, they undestood these things in experiential and pneumatic terms.
        The allegory merely points to the source of this understanding. They
        would have seen decribing these things in literal terms as an
        inherently limited psychic exercise. That's why they wouldn't even
        try to explain it to the Heresologists, who approached everything on
        a literal psychic level.

        4. Paul's conversion experience.

        > ... I am leary about equating Paul's experience on
        > the road to Damascus with Gnosis.

        4.1 I can probably guess why. That's proven to be dangerous here, so
        instead I'll ask you to elaborate on why.

        This is an important point and an opportunity to elaborate on the
        distinction what you see between pneumatic and psychic understanding
        in a more concrete way.


        5. The utility of faith in the historical Jesus

        > "Therefore, for some, the belief in an external Redeemer
        > sets up the groundwork for establishing a personal relationship more
        > suitable for establishing an identification, affectivelt reinforcing
        > Christ as a mythic intermediary figure with the Father."

        > It is interesting that the Talmud states explicitly that Job is an
        > allegory, and he never historically existed, while Orthodox
        > Christians often comment on the supposed historical Job. By the
        same
        > token.... Christians also talk about the historical Jesus, and
        > equate him with Christ.
        >

        I realize I've proposed a motive for "creating" the life of Jesus
        here.

        However, the writings of the apostles seems to give direct
        testimonials that Jesus was a real person. There are no countervailin
        testimonies.

        I would say that a group that gets hung up on literal interpretations
        of allegory, dwelling on the fact that Jesus did or did not live in
        the literal sense, isn't really Gnostic . Any Gnostic would take
        such an arguement about a psychic rendering of gnosis as the domain
        of the Archons and realize that they are pointing towards a faith in
        dogma rather than primordial experience as the source of truth.

        7. Lady Caritas's post
        >
        > "Well, I was given this link for a definition of Gnosis, and you
        > approved. If I was mistaken, it is certainly not my fault."
        >
        > There are aspects on this page I find useful, and some that I find
        > create confusion. Lady Cari's explination to Terje puts it quite
        > nicely.
        >

        I really couldn't follow this letter. It didn't make any sense to me.
        The article did. It was saying quite clearly that the big "G" Gnosis
        refers to a universal experience independent of the Gnostic belief
        system. I'm almost quoting he article here. It's pretty unambiguous,
        considering that the author says it twice.

        Platonic systems are one of many influences on the psychic part of
        their belief system. The pneumatic part resides in the individual's
        direct experience of the Divine.

        8. Modern Value judgements are inevitable


        > It is possible that the Gnostics would have seen an historical
        > treatment as superficial, but they would be wrong in that respect.

        This, of course, is not a statment of fact, but a value judgement
        based on very modern sensibilities similar to the ones you critique
        below. They are based on taking a modern historical view laden with
        ideological and cultural baggage to describe very different times. It
        is simply too limiting an approach, especially when studying a group
        that would have totally rejected the approach as "psychic".

        > In fact, this is one of the failings of what Dr Wind calls "that
        > ugly thing called Late Antiquities Syncratism (sic)". The fact is,
        some of
        > the vogue in the Late Antiquities was really more ecclectic than
        > syncratic (sic), and was not always so careful to understand the
        sources
        > they borrowed from (much like the New Age movement today).

        (LOL. Dr. Wind ... You're kidding, right? )

        This is not surprising considering that the praxis and beliefs of
        Gnostics was not based on faith or allegiance to any one of the many
        ideas of the divine that were floating around at the time, but rather
        a) personal experience with the divine; b) personal instrucion from
        some sort of mentor. They used whatever worked to animate and affirm
        their religious experience in the psychic realm.

        > We cannot
        > actually understand the Gnostics, without understanding the context
        > in which thier ideas grew. This goes back to the problem I see with
        > the "Archetype" system. Our modern perspective of some of the
        > allegories can give us a very different picture than the one
        > intended by the original authors, thier communication can be lost
        > beneath our attempt to "archetype" them.
        >

        We cannot understand them unless we examine all aspects of their
        experience, of which their "ideas", by their own accounts, play a
        secondary role. In the case of the Orthodox, who DO base their praxis
        and beliefs primarily on a succession of written documents,
        testimonials, and intellectual belief systems, it makes sense to
        stress the philosophical and theological context. In the case of the
        Gnostics, the context that is central is that of human experience?
        What inspired them from wihin to reach out for Jewish, Greek, and
        even Indian ideas to express their faith and outlook?

        Modern ideological bias is always a danger. But this is true of any
        theoretical framework we would care to use. It is inevitable.
        All we can do is take care to choose the appropriate one.

        So when choosing one, it is best to choose one that refers to the
        same defining source of the movement's Truth to describe it. This is
        a phenomenological world, of which the spiritual world is a subset.
        The narrow confines of Platonic philosophy. again, are too limiting.

        >
        > "To the Gnostics themselves, the Greek/Platonic context is at worst
        > superficial and at best only the tip of the iceberg. The key, for
        > them, lies in understanding and identifying with the myths expressed
        > in these archetypical dramas (and I believe that the creators of
        > these myths are very conscious of the universal appeal of these
        > drama). In other words, do the Platonists point to the same human
        > experience as the writers of Job?"
        >
        > I am not aware of any human philosophy or religion that does not,
        if
        > we are dealing with it as an archetype. Human suffering is explicit
        > in human existance.
        >

        8.1 I'll be more specific. A central theme in Job is Redemption
        through knowledge of the Divine. This theme is also central to the
        Gnostics. How do the Platonists deal with redemption? How is it
        different than in Job and more similar to the Gnostics?

        > And besides simply the treatment of suffering, one of the criticims
        > of Plotinus is that it can be difficult to tell the difference
        > between him and the Gnostics he attacks... even sometimes for
        > Plotinus himself *lol*. Some time ago I did a post on
        > Neopythagorians and how difficult it can be to seperate some of
        them
        > from the Gnostics, thier view of salvation, cosmology, etc. The
        > Neopythagorians are also Platonists.
        >

        8.2 Do they point to a mystical experience of the Divine as a source
        of Truth, as all Gnostics do?


        >
        > How do you see salvation/redemption achieved in Gnosticism/Job in
        > general?"
        >
        > My point is not meant to deal with whether we can see psychological
        > and archetypal connections, we can.... with any religion. My point
        > is a bit more specific concerning whether reducing these motifs to
        > mere archetypes is a good thing to do.
        >

        I appreciate the point. You have to be careful. I'm arguing that
        reducing it to Platonic philosophy (which I also recognize is
        possible) is even more dangerous, because it does not address the
        primordial experience at the center Gnosticism, and can lead to empty
        arguements about secondary issues. Looking for archeypes does. The
        probability of doing a bad analysis is there, but it will at least
        allow us to compare personal experience to other mystics, both modern
        and historical. I will allow us truly to separate the cultural
        baggage from the universal.

        > BTW, I am curious... you have not commented on the earlier
        > Mesopotamian texts like "Man and his God", "I Will Praise Thee,
        Lord
        > of Wisdom", and the "Babylonian Theodicy" which some believe Job
        was
        > taken.
        >

        Later. I'm still dealing with the Gospel of Philip and some documents
        from Clement of Alexandia that refer to Job in a Gnostic context. He
        refers to Job as one of the elect!

        > BTW, I also wanted to point out that the date of Job is HOTLY
        > debated... and I thought I would post a webpage that gives an
        > outline of a number of theories concerning origin etc..
        >
        > http://www.bible.org/docs/ot/books/job/job-intr.htm
        >

        Thanks. I've found others. Curiously, all the dates predate Plato.


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