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

Re: [GTh] Re: "Gnosticism"

Expand Messages
  • fmmccoy
    ... From: Karl To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:04 AM Subject: [GTh] Re: Gnosticism ... Hi Karl! I
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Karl" <pmcvflag@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:04 AM
      Subject: [GTh] Re: "Gnosticism"


      >
      >
      > Say Frank, you state....


      > >>>"Perhaps the key problem is that there is no standardized
      > universally accepted definition of "Gnosticism". It means different
      > things to different people, and that's the rub."<<<


      > True, but I don't think that the fact that it is not universally
      > accepted goes so far as to say it is strictly divergent in usage
      > either. I mean, I do understand that outside academic usages there
      > is practically no quality that can be stated as
      > definitively "Gnostic" since the word is used for everything from
      > UFO cults to Racist groups. However, the word "Gnosticism" is still
      > technically a modern academic word in origin and I think we can in
      > that sense point out some attributes if we use it at all (and I have
      > stated for the record that I am one who questions the validity of
      > the word "Gnosticism" itself, which is why I generally write it in
      > quotes)

      Hi Karl!

      I think you do well in questioning the validity of the word "Gnosticism"
      itself--for, even in Academia, there are major problems with this word.

      For example, in What is Gnosticism? (pp. 213-214), Karen L. King states,
      "Although I have treated only three of the most common stereotypical
      characterizations of Gnosticism (radical anticosmic dualism, incapacity for
      true ethics, and doceticism). similar reservations could be raised about the
      general applicability of all the other typological characteristics used to
      define Gnosticism. The so-called Gnostic works provide evidence of a wide
      variety of ethical orientations, theological and anthropological views,
      spiritual disciplines, and ritual practices, confounding any attempt to
      develop a single set of typological categories that will fit everything
      scholars have labeled Gnosticism. In order to comprehend the complexity of
      early Christianity in its formative centures, scholars need to reject the
      old typologies."

      A little later (p. 218), she makes the comment, "In the end, I think the
      term 'Gnosticism' will most likely be abandoned, at least in its current
      usage. Perhaps scholars will continue to use it to designate a much more
      delimited group of materials, such as 'Sethian Gnosticism' or 'Classical
      Gnosticism.' Perhaps not."

      Karl, I am 62 years old and one of the major developments in my lifetime has
      been a growing realization of just how complex early Christianity was. In
      Lost Christianities (p. 1), Bart D. Ehrman states, "What could be more
      diverse than this vareigated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world?
      In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As
      historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries,
      the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian
      were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive
      Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists pale by comparison."

      Can labels, such as "orthodox" and "gnostic", formulated under older and
      more simplistic conceptualizations of early Christianity, be made applicable
      the newer conceptualization of an almost unbelievably complex early
      Christianity? If yes, then how? Is it is time for a whole new nomenclature
      or, at least, a major re-defining of the old nomenclature? What do you
      think?

      Also, kind of thinking out loud, perhaps we can assign a type of
      Christianity to each early Christian document: so a GThomas Christianity for
      GThomas, a I John Christianity for I John, etc..

      Then, we could try to arrange them into groups/families. For example, GJohn
      Christianity, I John Christianity, II John Christianity, and III John
      Christianity could be grouped together as Johannine Christianity. Again,
      GMark Christianity, GMatthew Christianity, GLuke Christianity, and Acts
      Christianity could be grouped together as Synoptic Christianity.

      This would not be any easy task. For example, while it would be easy to
      place the unquestionably genuine Pauline texts under one group of
      Christianity, called Pauline Christianity, what about those of disputed
      Pauline authorship (e.g., II Thess and Colossians) or those that are clearly
      forgeries?

      Again, would it be better to group II Peter Christianity with I Peter
      Christianity or with Jude Christianity? On the one hand, some might prefer
      to lump I Peter and II Peter Christianities into a more general group of
      Petrine Christianity. On the other hand, since II Peter is, in literary and
      doctrinal terms, more closely linked to Jude than than to I Peter, others
      might want to lump II Peter Christianity and Jude Christianity into a more
      general group--perhaps labeled Petro-Jude Christianity.

      These groups/families, in turn, could be lumped into a smaller number of
      super-groups/super-families.

      Does this idea sound feasible to you or not? If you think not, do you think
      that there is some way it can be modified to become feasible?

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 15
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.