The Pew Forum has put out an absolutely fascinating report about a survey they recently conducted in which they wanted to analyze how much and in what ways Americans "mix" aspects of different religions. This report has me captivated since I feel like I am reading a report about religious belief of Christians in the second century.
The argument I have been developing about second century Christians is that they were eclectic, and that gnosticism was an amalgamation of Egyptian astrology and religion, Greek mysteries and Hermetism, middle Platonic philosophy, Judaism and Christianity, with its constituents comfortable attending more than one religious house or being part of a multiple of religious bodies. It is exactly the kind of 'hybrid' that we are seeing today, and may have been seeing since the 1800s. I think it has something to do with 'internationalization', when a variety of religious traditions become available for consumption within a given culture at a given point in history.
I will be returning to this report and analyzing it carefully, and expect to post more thoughts on it. For now I just want to bring it to your attention because it is so fascinating and representative of the religion of no religion that is sweeping America.
Showing posts with label Gnostics and Their Gospels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gnostics and Their Gospels. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What are the different Gnostic types?
I have been working on understanding the larger parameters of ancient gnosticism. In that process I have developed some language to talk about the different kinds of Gnostics we find in the ancient (and likely modern) world.
This material is being published in my paper for the Codex Judas Congress. I will probably be talking about this at SBL during the session honoring the work of Elaine Pagels. What you are reading here is my own analysis and language that has come out of years of research into the ancient Gnostics. You won't find this in any book on Gnosticism (yet! - it will be the framework for my next book The Gnostics and Their Gospels). So if you find this useful and start to use this language in your teaching or research, I would appreciate it if you would reference me - either this blog, or better, my published article: April D. DeConick, "Apostles as Archons: The Fight for Authority and the Emergence of Gnosticism in the Tchacos Codex and Other Early Christian Literature," in the Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13-16, 2008 (April D. DeConick, ed.; NHMS 71; Brill: Leiden, 2009) 243-288.
Lodge Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would define themselves as Jewish or Christian. They attend regular synagogue and/or church, but they also attend additional "lodge" meetings where they learn more esoteric teachings and likely participate in special rituals that the lodge has developed. They are beginning to interpret their scriptures differently from the way the rabbis and priests are doing from the pulpit. They are discussing this at their lodge meetings. Some of the leaders of the lodge may be writing new theological material and this is being distributed and read among the members of the lodge. The rabbis and priests still see these people as part of their flock and are willing to engage them in conversation and theological discussions.
Reform Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would define themselves as Gnostic Jews or Gnostic Christians. Gnostic would be an adjective for them. They associate with the synagogue and/or church, but their lodge meetings are more central to their religious life. They would like to see their synagogue or church reform to reflect the esoteric teachings and practices they are partaking of in the lodge meetings. Some of these Gnostics may even be opening their own synagogues and churches and running them themselves as Jewish and Christian alternatives to the traditional places of worship. They have developed a subversive interpretation of scripture that is not being well-received by the traditional rabbis and priests. They may be writing additional scriptures, but understand them to be a supplement to the traditional ones. There is tension developing between the leaders of the reformers and the leaders of the traditionalists who are rejecting the reformers' interpretation of scripture and ritual activity. The word "heretic" starts to be trotted out.
Separatist Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would define themselves as Jewish Gnostics or Christian Gnostics. Gnostic would be a noun for them. They think that the traditional synagogue and church is so corrupt that it is beyond redemption. So they belong to synagogues and churches that they themselves have opened and operated. They are not interested in reforming the traditional synagogue or church. They see themselves as starting over and starting right. They are the "authentic" Jews and Christians. They have their own interpretation of scripture that is subversive. They have their own rituals that may or may not be a reflection of the traditional ones. They likely have begun to add new scriptures to their canon, and may be rewriting the old to reflect their beliefs better. They try to convince traditionalists to leave the synagogue and church and join them because they perceive the traditional faiths as corrupt beyond repair. The word "heretic" is normally being used. The tension is so high that persecution from the dominant religion often occurs.
New Religion Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would understand themselves as Gnostics, as members of a separate religion. Many have left behind former religious associations. They no longer perceive themselves as Jews or Christians although their brand of Gnosticism likely contains elements from those religions. The place of worship is entirely their own. Their theology tends to be eclectic, drawing on a number of religious traditions. They usually have their own set of scriptures that is different from the traditional religions. They have their own rituals. Over time this new religion is either persecuted by the traditional faiths (in cases of totalitarian state-sponsored religion, when Gnosticism isn't the state-sponsored religion), or the tension between the Gnostics and the traditional people of faith weakens because the traditional faiths are no longer being threatened (in cases where religious freedom is permitted or at least tolerated). In this latter case, the Gnostic religion can survive.
This material is being published in my paper for the Codex Judas Congress. I will probably be talking about this at SBL during the session honoring the work of Elaine Pagels. What you are reading here is my own analysis and language that has come out of years of research into the ancient Gnostics. You won't find this in any book on Gnosticism (yet! - it will be the framework for my next book The Gnostics and Their Gospels). So if you find this useful and start to use this language in your teaching or research, I would appreciate it if you would reference me - either this blog, or better, my published article: April D. DeConick, "Apostles as Archons: The Fight for Authority and the Emergence of Gnosticism in the Tchacos Codex and Other Early Christian Literature," in the Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13-16, 2008 (April D. DeConick, ed.; NHMS 71; Brill: Leiden, 2009) 243-288.
Lodge Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would define themselves as Jewish or Christian. They attend regular synagogue and/or church, but they also attend additional "lodge" meetings where they learn more esoteric teachings and likely participate in special rituals that the lodge has developed. They are beginning to interpret their scriptures differently from the way the rabbis and priests are doing from the pulpit. They are discussing this at their lodge meetings. Some of the leaders of the lodge may be writing new theological material and this is being distributed and read among the members of the lodge. The rabbis and priests still see these people as part of their flock and are willing to engage them in conversation and theological discussions.
Reform Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would define themselves as Gnostic Jews or Gnostic Christians. Gnostic would be an adjective for them. They associate with the synagogue and/or church, but their lodge meetings are more central to their religious life. They would like to see their synagogue or church reform to reflect the esoteric teachings and practices they are partaking of in the lodge meetings. Some of these Gnostics may even be opening their own synagogues and churches and running them themselves as Jewish and Christian alternatives to the traditional places of worship. They have developed a subversive interpretation of scripture that is not being well-received by the traditional rabbis and priests. They may be writing additional scriptures, but understand them to be a supplement to the traditional ones. There is tension developing between the leaders of the reformers and the leaders of the traditionalists who are rejecting the reformers' interpretation of scripture and ritual activity. The word "heretic" starts to be trotted out.
Separatist Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would define themselves as Jewish Gnostics or Christian Gnostics. Gnostic would be a noun for them. They think that the traditional synagogue and church is so corrupt that it is beyond redemption. So they belong to synagogues and churches that they themselves have opened and operated. They are not interested in reforming the traditional synagogue or church. They see themselves as starting over and starting right. They are the "authentic" Jews and Christians. They have their own interpretation of scripture that is subversive. They have their own rituals that may or may not be a reflection of the traditional ones. They likely have begun to add new scriptures to their canon, and may be rewriting the old to reflect their beliefs better. They try to convince traditionalists to leave the synagogue and church and join them because they perceive the traditional faiths as corrupt beyond repair. The word "heretic" is normally being used. The tension is so high that persecution from the dominant religion often occurs.
New Religion Gnostics: these kinds of Gnostics would understand themselves as Gnostics, as members of a separate religion. Many have left behind former religious associations. They no longer perceive themselves as Jews or Christians although their brand of Gnosticism likely contains elements from those religions. The place of worship is entirely their own. Their theology tends to be eclectic, drawing on a number of religious traditions. They usually have their own set of scriptures that is different from the traditional religions. They have their own rituals. Over time this new religion is either persecuted by the traditional faiths (in cases of totalitarian state-sponsored religion, when Gnosticism isn't the state-sponsored religion), or the tension between the Gnostics and the traditional people of faith weakens because the traditional faiths are no longer being threatened (in cases where religious freedom is permitted or at least tolerated). In this latter case, the Gnostic religion can survive.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Transtheism it is
I have continued to ponder this terminology, and I have fallen in love with it. What it will allow me to do in terms of analysis is truly astonishing. I wish I had thought about this earlier in my career. To name the type of theism that these ancient thinkers were involved in allows me to cross boundaries and open up discussions of their ideology. I am not going to be restrained by previous research and definitions! The limits are gone.
So who is our first transtheist? Plato may be the one, although I need to do some more reading in early Greek philosophy. It might go back to Pythagorus, but I need to study him more. Anyone out there who knows, chime in. Now Plato was not worshiping the God-Beyond, but he postulated that such a god existed. It was not a personal god, but the abstract Good. Nonetheless, this Good was outside the kosmos. And it was the goal of the pious life to encounter him.
Our first worshipers of the God-Beyond appear to be the Hermetics. And then this combines with Judaism and then with Christianity, and we get quite diverse systems of transtheism, with different combinations on how the God-Beyond forms the God-World-Beyond, and then how a creator god comes into being, who he is identified with (Abrasax? IAO? Samael?), what his characteristics are, how he creates the kosmos (heavens, earth, human being), and how he rules. The systems develop very interesting figures who descend from the God-World-Beyond to aid humans trapped under his rule. And they develop practices (magic/ritual) to aid the person's return to the God-World-Beyond.
So what I am working on now is seeing chunks of the systems. What I have noticed over the years is that these chunks are clusters of traditions that roam about together from system to system. Moreover, they are made of single traditions that change out. So the language I'm pondering to identify and talk about this comes from the word "modular". A single tradition that can be interchanged with another like-tradition I am calling a "modeme". I am not using "meme" because I do not want to bring into my discussion the evolutionary theory that meme scholarship brings with it. I have my own ideas about how and why these modular units develop in the way that they do.
So a modeme is a modular unit of tradition, the simpliest form a tradition can have. Modemes don't usually circulate on their own. They are clustered into a complex. So these I will call modeplexes. A bunch of modeplexes form a religious system.
I am hoping that this type of language will aid my analysis of the transtheistic systems by breaking them down into smaller tradition complexes and then identifing the modular units themselves. A modeplex might be "astral architecture". The modemes in astral architecture might be "astral ruler"; "subordinate rulers"; "heavens"; "planets"; "fixed stars"; etc. The modeplex will usually contain all of these elements, although the particular modeme might switch out. For instance, in one system, the astral ruler is Abrasax, in another he is IAO, in another he is Samael. When this modeme switches out, what does it do to the rest of modeplex? And then the rest of the system?
At any rate, this is where my thinking is going, the direction I am heading. There is so much to do - even more than before!
So who is our first transtheist? Plato may be the one, although I need to do some more reading in early Greek philosophy. It might go back to Pythagorus, but I need to study him more. Anyone out there who knows, chime in. Now Plato was not worshiping the God-Beyond, but he postulated that such a god existed. It was not a personal god, but the abstract Good. Nonetheless, this Good was outside the kosmos. And it was the goal of the pious life to encounter him.
Our first worshipers of the God-Beyond appear to be the Hermetics. And then this combines with Judaism and then with Christianity, and we get quite diverse systems of transtheism, with different combinations on how the God-Beyond forms the God-World-Beyond, and then how a creator god comes into being, who he is identified with (Abrasax? IAO? Samael?), what his characteristics are, how he creates the kosmos (heavens, earth, human being), and how he rules. The systems develop very interesting figures who descend from the God-World-Beyond to aid humans trapped under his rule. And they develop practices (magic/ritual) to aid the person's return to the God-World-Beyond.
So what I am working on now is seeing chunks of the systems. What I have noticed over the years is that these chunks are clusters of traditions that roam about together from system to system. Moreover, they are made of single traditions that change out. So the language I'm pondering to identify and talk about this comes from the word "modular". A single tradition that can be interchanged with another like-tradition I am calling a "modeme". I am not using "meme" because I do not want to bring into my discussion the evolutionary theory that meme scholarship brings with it. I have my own ideas about how and why these modular units develop in the way that they do.
So a modeme is a modular unit of tradition, the simpliest form a tradition can have. Modemes don't usually circulate on their own. They are clustered into a complex. So these I will call modeplexes. A bunch of modeplexes form a religious system.
I am hoping that this type of language will aid my analysis of the transtheistic systems by breaking them down into smaller tradition complexes and then identifing the modular units themselves. A modeplex might be "astral architecture". The modemes in astral architecture might be "astral ruler"; "subordinate rulers"; "heavens"; "planets"; "fixed stars"; etc. The modeplex will usually contain all of these elements, although the particular modeme might switch out. For instance, in one system, the astral ruler is Abrasax, in another he is IAO, in another he is Samael. When this modeme switches out, what does it do to the rest of modeplex? And then the rest of the system?
At any rate, this is where my thinking is going, the direction I am heading. There is so much to do - even more than before!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Transtheism or Supratheism?
I am giving serious thought to letting go of the category "gnostic and gnosticism" (just as I did with "orthodoxy" and "heresy" in my period, turning instead to "polydoxy" or multiple competing self-defining orthodoxies). My reason for this is not that I do not think that gnosticism existed in the ancient world - in fact I do. But the categories have become so abused, that they have become heuristically meaningless for me as an historian of religion. I can't use them without running into walls.
The category is a huge mess and people use these words whatever-which-way they see fit for whatever argument they want to make. If they don't want a particular text to be gnostic, they will say that it doesn't have this-that-or-the-other characteristic that is gnostic. If they want the text to be gnostic, they will say that it has such-and-such characteristic which is gnostic. And then there is proto-gnostic, which means there are elements of gnosticism here, but not enough to make it gnostic yet. And then when it comes to those who make the claim to be gnostics, like Clement of Alexandria, well, he can't be a gnostic because he is a famous church father who is considered "orthodox".
The biggest gripe I have is the claim to doceticism that so many people want to make - as if all or even most gnostics were! Marcion was docetic. For him, Jesus appeared on earth one day as an adult "appearance". But for most of the other Christian gnostics, Jesus was born and had a physical body (including the Eastern Valentinians).
"The snake is always the good guy." No, not in all gnostic systems. And even in those systems where he is "good", he sometimes becomes "evil" as in the case of the Ophians described by Irenaeus.
"The gnostics hated the body and lived encratic lifestyles." Some did. But not all by any means. The Valentinians and the Simonians enjoyed sex and considered it a sacred activity within the confines of monogamous marriage. Who knows what Carpocrates was up to or the Archontics.
"The creator god has to be evil." In some cases he is, in some cases he is just foolish, or trying the best he can - but because he is ignorant, he has a hard time. He is rash. He is arrogant. He is even repentant as in the case of Western Valentinianism. For Basilides, Abrasax is "psyche" and the best that psyche can be (if we believe Hippolytus' account). In all cases, he is powerful and must be reckoned with because he owns the soul within which lives the spirit from above him.
"The creator is singular." Most of the time he isn't. He is often helped by the archons or angels in the heavens to create Adam. Sometimes it is a collective of angels who create and a single angel name is not identified.
I could go on and on with all the misconceptions and nonsense that have been heaped on this category, smothering it to death.
So I am about to retire it because I cannot continue my work if I have to constantly be fighting the category's baggage. I am going to set it aside and work to develop new language so that I can create a map of what was going on in the first, second, third and fourth centuries with these communities. I want to know their histories, their relationships to each other, their relationships to other religious movements, their multiplicity of beliefs and practices, their scriptures, their hermeneutics, their geographical locations, etc.
My proposal is to name descriptively the phenonemon I want to study. What I want to study are those groups of religious people in the ancient world that worship a god who is spatially beyond our universe and who is not identified as the immediate creator and ruler of our universe. Instead, these roles are attributed to subordinate powers who are not being worshiped.
I'm considering two names for this phenonemon. Transtheism or Supratheism. I like Transtheism because "trans" has two connotations: across and above/beyond. This is nice because it suggests that the believers could understand that a cross-over between our universe and the otherworld is possible, in terms of the spilling over of the otherworldly god into our universe (as our spirits) and/or the sending of an emissary from the otherworld to assist with salvation and/or our journey "home" to the otherworld. Supratheism is also possible, although it may indicate too much of a complete transcendence and separation of the God, as if the otherworldly God has no contact with this world (which is not the case in these systems).
This may mean that I will have to subtitle my book: The Gnostics and Their Gospels: An Introduction to Ancient Transtheism, the Worship of the God-Beyond our World.
What are your preferences? Transtheism or Supratheism?
The category is a huge mess and people use these words whatever-which-way they see fit for whatever argument they want to make. If they don't want a particular text to be gnostic, they will say that it doesn't have this-that-or-the-other characteristic that is gnostic. If they want the text to be gnostic, they will say that it has such-and-such characteristic which is gnostic. And then there is proto-gnostic, which means there are elements of gnosticism here, but not enough to make it gnostic yet. And then when it comes to those who make the claim to be gnostics, like Clement of Alexandria, well, he can't be a gnostic because he is a famous church father who is considered "orthodox".
The biggest gripe I have is the claim to doceticism that so many people want to make - as if all or even most gnostics were! Marcion was docetic. For him, Jesus appeared on earth one day as an adult "appearance". But for most of the other Christian gnostics, Jesus was born and had a physical body (including the Eastern Valentinians).
"The snake is always the good guy." No, not in all gnostic systems. And even in those systems where he is "good", he sometimes becomes "evil" as in the case of the Ophians described by Irenaeus.
"The gnostics hated the body and lived encratic lifestyles." Some did. But not all by any means. The Valentinians and the Simonians enjoyed sex and considered it a sacred activity within the confines of monogamous marriage. Who knows what Carpocrates was up to or the Archontics.
"The creator god has to be evil." In some cases he is, in some cases he is just foolish, or trying the best he can - but because he is ignorant, he has a hard time. He is rash. He is arrogant. He is even repentant as in the case of Western Valentinianism. For Basilides, Abrasax is "psyche" and the best that psyche can be (if we believe Hippolytus' account). In all cases, he is powerful and must be reckoned with because he owns the soul within which lives the spirit from above him.
"The creator is singular." Most of the time he isn't. He is often helped by the archons or angels in the heavens to create Adam. Sometimes it is a collective of angels who create and a single angel name is not identified.
I could go on and on with all the misconceptions and nonsense that have been heaped on this category, smothering it to death.
So I am about to retire it because I cannot continue my work if I have to constantly be fighting the category's baggage. I am going to set it aside and work to develop new language so that I can create a map of what was going on in the first, second, third and fourth centuries with these communities. I want to know their histories, their relationships to each other, their relationships to other religious movements, their multiplicity of beliefs and practices, their scriptures, their hermeneutics, their geographical locations, etc.
My proposal is to name descriptively the phenonemon I want to study. What I want to study are those groups of religious people in the ancient world that worship a god who is spatially beyond our universe and who is not identified as the immediate creator and ruler of our universe. Instead, these roles are attributed to subordinate powers who are not being worshiped.
I'm considering two names for this phenonemon. Transtheism or Supratheism. I like Transtheism because "trans" has two connotations: across and above/beyond. This is nice because it suggests that the believers could understand that a cross-over between our universe and the otherworld is possible, in terms of the spilling over of the otherworldly god into our universe (as our spirits) and/or the sending of an emissary from the otherworld to assist with salvation and/or our journey "home" to the otherworld. Supratheism is also possible, although it may indicate too much of a complete transcendence and separation of the God, as if the otherworldly God has no contact with this world (which is not the case in these systems).
This may mean that I will have to subtitle my book: The Gnostics and Their Gospels: An Introduction to Ancient Transtheism, the Worship of the God-Beyond our World.
What are your preferences? Transtheism or Supratheism?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
First day of classes
Today is the first day of classes for me this semester. I am teaching two courses. The first is an undergraduate lecture course called The Gnostics and their Gospels. This is actually my title for the general audience book I've been wanting to write for years - The Gnostics and their Gospels: An Introduction to Ancient Gnostic Spirituality. So one of my goals this semester is to record in writing as much of my lecture material as I am able, so that by the end of the semester I will have a fairly comprehensive draft of my book complete. It won't be ready to go to press, but much of the hard and detailed thinking and drafting will be done.
In conjunction with this course, I am running the Gnostic Gospels Seminar for my graduate students. We will be retranscribing and retranslating the Gospel of Judas, and we will be immersing ourselves in as much of the primary gnostic literature as we can possibly read in a semester. I have found that when I totally immerse myself in a corpus of literature - whatever the subject is - all kinds of wonderful insights happen. So I am looking forward to this opportunity to reread all the literature over the next fifteen weeks with my terrific students.
My second goal this semester is to complete the editing process of the Codex Judas Congress papers. I hope to do this by the end of February. The title will be: The Judas Codex: Proceedings of the International Congress on Codex Tchacos held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13-16, 2008.
I am also writing my own academic volume on the Gospel of Judas. I have almost all the chapters complete, but I need to do some additional research and some rewriting. I believe that this will have to wait until summer, but it won't be too long before I have a draft ready to send to an academic press on Judas the Apostate. I don't have a subtitle yet.
In conjunction with this course, I am running the Gnostic Gospels Seminar for my graduate students. We will be retranscribing and retranslating the Gospel of Judas, and we will be immersing ourselves in as much of the primary gnostic literature as we can possibly read in a semester. I have found that when I totally immerse myself in a corpus of literature - whatever the subject is - all kinds of wonderful insights happen. So I am looking forward to this opportunity to reread all the literature over the next fifteen weeks with my terrific students.
My second goal this semester is to complete the editing process of the Codex Judas Congress papers. I hope to do this by the end of February. The title will be: The Judas Codex: Proceedings of the International Congress on Codex Tchacos held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13-16, 2008.
I am also writing my own academic volume on the Gospel of Judas. I have almost all the chapters complete, but I need to do some additional research and some rewriting. I believe that this will have to wait until summer, but it won't be too long before I have a draft ready to send to an academic press on Judas the Apostate. I don't have a subtitle yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)