From My Book, An Excerpt On Nibley and Baptism of Adam

[_Kishkumen]

I'm thinking of themes like the idea found already in the Orphic gold tablets that humans are spiritual exiles from heaven who need to find their way back to their true home. I think you can draw a straight line from that (via Platonism and Pythagoreanism) to the myths of the fall into matter and the quest for liberation and enlightenment that were central to the Gnostic vision. These are esoteric religions for spiritually élite initiates. They're quite distinctive, although they belong to a recognisable genus of religious experience. I don't doubt, of course, that there was a lot of influence from Judaism and Christianity too.

Maybe. Maybe. I am not so sure about the myth being dependent on Platonism/Pythagoreanism as you suggest. Part of me would love to agree with you readily. And perhaps that is true. Of course, Pythagoras may have been indebted to eastern sources for many of his ideas, so it may not be the case that Gnostics are so dependent on Plato as that they are all drinking from the same trough. I am inclined to agree that they are all esoteric religions for spiritually elite initiates.

But that Gnosticism is indebted to an attitude of resistance to Roman imperialism, nego.

To the extent that it was influenced by Christianity, of course it was. Christianity barely makes any sense without Roman imperialism. In fact, I doubt Christianity would have ever happened without Roman imperialism. I do not accept pre-Christian Gnosticism, I should say. I don't believe there was such a thing.

I'd accept that Gnostic cosmology may be a reflection of, and on, a profoundly hierarchical society.

And that profoundly hierarchical society was, at that time... drum roll, please.... quite Roman! And more hierarchical in nature than ever, more layered and complicated in nature, more taxing on human ingenuity to navigate than ever because.... Romans.

I would be inclined to doubt that, although from the opposite perspective from yours. My claim is that Gnosticism is deeply political insofar as it tacitly affirmed the status quo, or at least demobilised opposition to it. What I don't believe that we can say is that it arose out of the experience of Roman imperial rule, because it is part of much older and broader set of trends.

Yes, we are probably going to differ on this. More to the point, we may simply be talking past each other. My thoughts on this are informed by scholarship on the Second Sophistic. Yes, the intelligentsia of the Second Sophistic could be elite, wealthy, and engaged with Roman society and Roman authorities while also resisting Roman imperial culture and privileging Hellenic culture. Gnosticism was probably elite, and it may have had nothing to do with violently resisting Rome, but it also represents an escape from the powers of a flawed system of which Rome was the most visible symbol.

So, while I concede that what we are seeing is quite a complicated interaction with a Roman world, I think it is interacting with the Roman world, and I believe that, to the extent that it is dependent on Christianity for its existence, and I am among those who think it most definitely is, then Roman imperial power does belong among the causes of its very existence and something of its posture toward the world.

[_Johannes]

Thanks again for your thoughts, Kish. I hope you'll forgive me if I add a few further comments.

Maybe. Maybe. I am not so sure about the myth being dependent on Platonism/Pythagoreanism as you suggest. Part of me would love to agree with you readily. And perhaps that is true.

I think it's a mainstream position to draw this connection. It's J.M. Dillon's "Platonic underworld": in places like Alexandria, you get a heady, unstable mixture of Platonism, Egyptian spirituality and eastern religions which produces phenomena like Gnosticism, Hermeticism and ultimately Neoplatonism.

To the extent that it was influenced by Christianity, of course it was. Christianity barely makes any sense without Roman imperialism. In fact, I doubt Christianity would have ever happened without Roman imperialism. I do not accept pre-Christian Gnosticism, I should say. I don't believe there was such a thing.

Oh, well, I do. I'd say that there was a Jewish Gnosticism, at least (whcih is where the Sethian current came from). But I accept that this can't be proven conclusively. As to the relationship of Christian Gnosticism with proto-orthodox Christianity, the point is surely the contrast between the two. As Symmachus intimated, the political quietism of the Gnostics is what stands out. Hence my claim that Gnosticism is basically conservative and pro-imperial. It's the sort of thing that a Roman governor would have wanted to sell to his educated and semi-educated subjects. It kept them out of trouble.

More to the point, we may simply be talking past each other. My thoughts on this are informed by scholarship on the Second Sophistic. Yes, the intelligentsia of the Second Sophistic could be elite, wealthy, and engaged with Roman society and Roman authorities while also resisting Roman imperial culture and privileging Hellenic culture. Gnosticism was probably elite, and it may have had nothing to do with violently resisting Rome, but it also represents an escape from the powers of a flawed system of which Rome was the most visible symbol.

Thanks, I think I understand your position better now. I think our disagreement hinges on how you read that "escape". Was it an escape in the sense of a rejection of the imperial system, coupled with a coded critique of it through the idiom of myth; or was it an escape in the sense of an élitist flight from ordinary material life which conveniently managed to leave the structures of social power intact?

[_Kishkumen]

I think it's a mainstream position to draw this connection. It's J.M. Dillon's "Platonic underworld": in places like Alexandria, you get a heady, unstable mixture of Platonism, Egyptian spirituality and eastern religions which produces phenomena like Gnosticism, Hermeticism and ultimately Neoplatonism.

I don't disagree with this, but this is not exactly the same as the straight line from Orphism to Gnosticism that I was seeing in your initial comments. I thought I was drawing on Dillon. So, I don't know exactly where this leaves us. There is the eternal argument about the chicken and the Orphic egg, and who influenced whom.

Oh, well, I do. I'd say that there was a Jewish Gnosticism, at least (whcih is where the Sethian current came from). But I accept that this can't be proven conclusively. As to the relationship of Christian Gnosticism with proto-orthodox Christianity, the point is surely the contrast between the two. As Symmachus intimated, the political quietism of the Gnostics is what stands out. Hence my claim that Gnosticism is basically conservative and pro-imperial. It's the sort of thing that a Roman governor would have wanted to sell to his educated and semi-educated subjects. It kept them out of trouble.

Well, on the topic of Jewish Gnosticism we can agree to disagree and both maintain our scholarly dignity. The simple fact is that the experts don't agree, and neither need we.

On the notion that Gnosticism is somehow pro-imperial, I simply can't agree. Nothing in Gnostic teachings, at least that I know of, aligns well with the idea that the Roman Empire is a good thing. Listen, if you are correct that the first Gnostics were Jewish, then it is very likely that they would have been familiar with the concept of the angels of the nations, whom they would have associated with the archons. One of these, of course, was Samael, who was identified as the angel of Rome. The argument has been put forward that this Samael became the "Creator of the World" in Gnostic literature. See, "Angels of the Nations and Gnostic Dualism," in G. Quispel, Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, for example.

I don't know that I buy that argument, but I think it is worth considering the possibility of a connection there. It is not as though it is universally agreed that Gnostics were pro-imperial, even by virtue of the fact that they were not openly rebelling against Roman authorities. I quote "Angels of the Nations," p. 91:

On the other hand, the lieutenant of God, as a chief of the national angels, receives the title of SR H'WLM, "Prince of the World". At the same time, this title was due the angel of Rome, since Rome was the master of the world. The angel of Rome was Sammael, who also was the angel of Death and was identified with Satan, God's challenger and chief of the evil angels. This way, the "Prince of the World" might become the Creator of the world: moreover, he might become the evil Creator of the world.

Not the most convincing argument, I know, but one at least sees how these things might align and the role that Rome plays as part of the theological machinery of angels, archons, and rule over the world order.

Was it an escape in the sense of a rejection of the imperial system, coupled with a coded critique of it through the idiom of myth; or was it an escape in the sense of an élitist flight from ordinary material life which conveniently managed to leave the structures of social power intact?

Yes, I see the desire for it to be an either/or situation; it certainly, and probably was in not a few cases, a both/and. You can recognize the flaws of the world system, the theological causes of the problem, and then seek an escape from the system that does not consist of a direct, violent opposition to it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I think to be an effective critic of Nibley on this particular topic you'd have to be able to read Greek mss. I don't think much of persons who challenge New Testament translations who can't read Greek.

[_Johannes]

I think to be an effective critic of Nibley on this particular topic you'd have to be able to read Greek mss. I don't think much of persons who challenge New Testament translations who can't read Greek.

With respect, I believe that I, Kish and Symmachus all have postgraduate, if not doctoral, degrees pertaining to Greek literature and thought.

[Guest]

I think to be an effective critic of Nibley on this particular topic you'd have to be able to read Greek mss. I don't think much of persons who challenge New Testament translations who can't read Greek.

With respect, I believe that I, Kish and Symmachus all have postgraduate, if not doctoral, degrees pertaining to Greek literature and thought.

Prove it, number one. Have they read that pseudepigrapha and compared it to Nibley, number 2?

Hey, I don't like Nibley all that much and don't necessarily trust him. But it is absurd to challenge an English translation of Candide if one cannot read French.

[_Johannes]

Thanks for the debate again, Kish. I don't know if you're a cricket fan, but I hope you'll forgive the metaphor if I suggest we draw stumps now.

One thing struck me in what you said, not least because you referenced Quispel, who is something of a hero of mine:

Listen, if you are correct that the first Gnostics were Jewish, then it is very likely that they would have been familiar with the concept of the angels of the nations, whom they would have associated with the archons. One of these, of course, was Samael, who was identified as the angel of Rome. The argument has been put forward that this Samael became the "Creator of the World" in Gnostic literature. See, "Angels of the Nations and Gnostic Dualism," in G. Quispel, Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, for example.

As an Englishman, this reminds me of John Henry Newman's fantasy about the angel of the English nation, "John Bull" (who was neither good nor evil). To divert this conversation back to Mormonism, who would be the angel of the Mormon nation, or the angel of Utah? I'm guessing it would be quite different from "Uncle Sam".

[_Kishkumen]

I think to be an effective critic of Nibley on this particular topic you'd have to be able to read Greek mss. I don't think much of persons who challenge New Testament translations who can't read Greek.

The Apocalypse of Adam is a Coptic text.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks for the interesting conversation, Johannes. You are, as always, a gentleman and scholar. Thanks also for tolerating my opinionated posts on a topic outside of my area of expertise. I reserve the right to bluster while being totally wrong.

[_Philo Sofee]

Thanks for the interesting conversation, Johannes. You are, as always, a gentleman and scholar. Thanks also for tolerating my opinionated posts on a topic outside of my area of expertise. I reserve the right to bluster while being totally wrong.

I've never seen you totally wrong, so the preponderance of evidence appears to be on your side.....