Re: Was Job a Gnostic?
>No, I don't think he comes to that level of realization. However, he
> 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?
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
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,or
> although he might possibly be experiencing some kind of spiritual
> 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 earlierdirection
> ones, I will say nonetheless that I am reticent to reverse
> 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
> > 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,
> other Old Testament books, have used this theme of "sight" or lackthis
> thereof. Even within a Christian context that you propose here,
> sight could still be viewed as an orthodox version of a deeperCetainly, there are probably millions of Christians in the world who
> *belief* or *faith*, not necessarily gnosis.
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 speakI'm taking this for granted. But to someone without the neccessary
> 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.
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.
- 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
> implies an ultimate end to the process. I believe that the Tree ofNo. I'll elaborate further.
> 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.
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
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
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 distinctionI'll certainly attest to the potential for confusion here. I'm
> between "Gnosis" with a capitol "G", and "gnosis", little "g",
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
>No, they undestood these things in experiential and pneumatic terms.
> 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.
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 on4.1 I can probably guess why. That's proven to be dangerous here, so
> the road to Damascus with Gnosis.
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 Redeemersame
> 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
> token.... Christians also talk about the historical Jesus, andI realize I've proposed a motive for "creating" the life of Jesus
> equate him with Christ.
However, the writings of the apostles seems to give direct
testimonials that Jesus was a real person. There are no countervailin
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
>I really couldn't follow this letter. It didn't make any sense to me.
> "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
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 historicalThis, of course, is not a statment of fact, but a value judgement
> treatment as superficial, but they would be wrong in that respect.
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 "thatsome of
> ugly thing called Late Antiquities Syncratism (sic)". The fact is,
> the vogue in the Late Antiquities was really more ecclectic thansources
> syncratic (sic), and was not always so careful to understand the
> 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 cannotWe cannot understand them unless we examine all aspects of their
> 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.
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,
> we are dealing with it as an archetype. Human suffering is explicit8.1 I'll be more specific. A central theme in Job is Redemption
> in human existance.
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 criticimsthem
> 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
> from the Gnostics, thier view of salvation, cosmology, etc. The8.2 Do they point to a mystical experience of the Divine as a source
> Neopythagorians are also Platonists.
of Truth, as all Gnostics do?
>I appreciate the point. You have to be careful. I'm arguing that
> How do you see salvation/redemption achieved in Gnosticism/Job in
> 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.
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 earlierLord
> Mesopotamian texts like "Man and his God", "I Will Praise Thee,
> of Wisdom", and the "Babylonian Theodicy" which some believe Jobwas
> 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 HOTLYThanks. I've found others. Curiously, all the dates predate Plato.
> debated... and I thought I would post a webpage that gives an
> outline of a number of theories concerning origin etc..