Jesse can go into tremendous detail regarding the difficulty he's had as a researcher in this field.
The "old" definition is regarded as old, and people like King and Williams are getting so frustrated over the attempts with a new one they seem to have decided we don't exist. So the "old wheel" won't roll.
While the EG laundry-list of Gn characteristics, is, in my opinion, accurate, there's no way to hand that to a panel of thesis advisors and say "this is what Gnosticism is and I want to study it". No, such definitions must be framed in a very specific way, and that's what we're working on.
How do we take the laundry-list and make it something that academics will recognize? It's not reinventing the wheel, it is in some ways expressing the wheel so it will be intelligible to academe which it currently is most definitely not.
Most if not all the work that's being done in this regard is, I feel, harmful to us as modern Gnostics; either by implying that the whole term is a revisionist construct (even though we have mention of people calling themselves Gnostics in the classical period); or by writing us off as some post-reformation Protestant sect (gak!); or by associating us with the New Age – a problem exacerbated by the whining by some that "gnosis is personal so it means whatever you want it to mean".
So the reality is the work has NOT been done - by +Hoeller or anybody else – and there currently exists no accurate definition of Gnosticism that is academically acceptable. That's why all the sweating of blood.
Now it must be said that in the process of developing the 3 point plane definition that it is not necessary that each point be clearly distinctive from every other religion; that is to say each one need not be unique. If one is developing a definition of a kangaroo, it will come up that the animal is both a vertebrate and a mammal; neither are unique characteristics but vital in the definition regardless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
While the EG laundry-list of Gn characteristics, is, in my opinion, accurate, there's no way to hand that to a panel of thesis advisors and say "this is what Gnosticism is and I want to study it". No, such definitions must be framed in a very specific way, and that's what we're working on.
Jordan, it is indeed a commendable task to try and come up with more concise definitions regarding Gnosticism. I must point out, however that the 'laundry-list' to which you refer has been successfully presented to panels of thesis advisors long before it was ever posted on the internet. It is accepted because it was authored by a PhD in the field with nearly 7 decades of field experience. There are folks working on their theses now who used it.
I'm sure that like every other Gnostic I know, you would like to have a concise way to describe your path to others who aren't. To say the 'old wheel' won't roll because academia won't understand it is entirely innaccurate.
I have to disagree. It is simply not the case that one can present Bishop Hoeller's article and have a comparitive religions or a religious studies panel say "yeah okay that's Gnosticism". The entire Williams/King (and god forbid, Vogelin) debacle is the clearest evidence of this.
You misunderstand me entirely if you think I'm looking for "a concise way to describe your path to others who aren't" Gnostic. I can do - and have done - that in fewer words (I hope!).
Academia *doesn't* understand it. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.
Who, in academia, comes closest?
They're trashing poor ol' Elaine Pagels. The other academics who speak to the issue sort of "skirt" the Gnostic focus by working around a "what Jesus isn't or what Jesus really was" theme...
Who's not sitting on the fence? Who, in academia proper, is walking the talk?
And Padre - the bummer is that most of the professors I had in college wouldn't trust +Hoeller's credentials. This sucks. It is unfair. But it is.
We must understand their bias and address it.
Who comes closest? Meyer, by far.
http://www1.chapman.edu/~meyer/
LOL If it's a matter of credentials, and Dr. Hoeller isn't good enough, no one online stands a chance.
Seriously, my issue with all of this is the assumption that it has to be a theological definition. Actually, it's not my issue per se, it's the issue of it not working. It is a logical impossibility.
Now I'm not saying you can't trick thesis advisers into thinking you have a theological definition. But that is a different enterprise.
Rev. Troy et al. - You are right to question and push the issue of why an "academic credibility" is necessary at all.
But please understand, there is no effort here to undermine the exceptional gifts and accomplishments of +Hoeller.
Jordan+ is attempting to apply perhaps more exactitude, more rigour, to the definition(s) - allowing that they may be plural, and there may be disagreements.
And I don't think he's advocating for gnostics everywhere to begin genuflecting before the Ivory Tower.
If I might make a presumption - he is advocating for scholarship and stating a fact - that at present the state of institutionally based / funded scholarship is poor, muddy and full of incongruities.
It behoves us to foster scholarship amidst the teachers and learners who challenge us. Not to be like them. Not to win their approval while jettisoning our truth. But to engage in dialogue - in a language they speak.
If we cannot engage in dialogue with the hard asses in the ivory tower, we'll stay on the fringe forever. Which, although full of warm and fuzzy people, is a kind of sucky place to be if you want to grow a movement.
imho ;)
I don't think anybody's questioning SH's credentials, but the language of this one document presented is not up to snuff academically. It's obvious that it's not meant to be. For one thing the document is specific to the EG and not to Gn as a whole.
" It is a logical impossibility."
Why would that be, do you think? Why would it be possible to define Buddhism but not Gnosticism? Both are varied, diverse, and based on an intangible (enlightenment). And as for a theological, academic litmus test, I would argue that this one presented is the best one out there, thus far (not because I'm so damn smart, but the smart people haven't really tried it yet).
"Now I'm not saying you can't trick thesis advisers into thinking you have a theological definition. But that is a different enterprise."
Well that specifically is the task at hand, yes. But the broader issue is that if we fail to speak for ourselves, others will speak for us. And if you've been listening, you probably haven't liked what they're saying.
In my own humble opinion, I think it's difficult to establish a general definition in scholarly terms for Gnosticism because the language itself is difficult for some to understand.
For instance, while Buddhism has been defined, it also seems to express less mythological and allegorical language - more or less "straight to the point," if you will.
While I believe Gnosticism CAN be defined, we must first agree what the language is actually speaking of, what each item might represent allegorically, and eliminate some of the confusion of misinterpretation.
Example:
- One might approach a panel and say that Gnosticism is a belief structure in which a Demiurge is believed to be the creator of the physical universe and that the ultimate goal is to look past this lesser creator God and...etc, etc.
- Another might approach the same panel and, speaking more directly, offer that Gnosticism is a way to seek the Divine within and ultimately push away the outside forces of negativity from your spirit, thereby allowing a state of awareness to...etc, etc.
As Gnostics, we UNDERSTAND what we all mean. To describe to academia what we mean is the challenge.
Jordan: thanks--I have always loved a "can of worms." Looks like prospective PhD candidates could easily work via E. Pagels, Marven Meyer, probably Claremont and possibly Harvard Divinity School. I am also quite certain that scholars could petition the faculty at Meadville Lombard Theological School (Chicago--UU) or Starr King School for the Ministry (Oakland, CA UU) for work in this area along with the standard course work for becoming clergy. For an undergraduate "jumpstart" to work with GN in general a student could profit a great deal from The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA.
The jumping off places are already present--next it is up to the quality of the students who attend graduate and then publish that will make the Niche for Gnostic Research and contextual meanings.
I am assuming this effort is for the greater good of general Gnostic Studies (as opposed for prep. for "ministry")--true?
In terms of prep. for ministry--academic certifications are actually unnecessary--since one is ultimately judged by and hired (called) by peers who know. Of course I would encourage that one add the formation processes currently being discussed to a person who has already, at minimum, earned a BA and has an MA in comparative religions or some comparable field.
Not sure this helps, but it helps me clarify what the issues are and what efforts are ahead. By the way while I am sure Marvin Meyer is a fantastic scholar I believe he is still somewhat conservative in his Xian confession--the jesus sem. are real points in his favor. All this to say that if you tend toward academics that are Liberals you will fare better.
And I had another related question--at least I think it is related. In your opinion is Jesus (whatever that means) ontologically different from me or you? For me there is confusion in a claim to be either a Gnostic "Christian" or a Christian "Gnostic." As for me--I wish to move Toward the ONE and you could even spell that V.A.L.I.S.
Cheerfully, ROK
Hmmm... At the rate folks fill in the non-existent blanks around here, I can sell you all my novel that consists entirely of "It was a dark and stormy night." I'm sure the reviews will find the last 100 pages a bit trite and predictable and doubt my literary ability with my dropping the ball at the end. ;)
So, in the interest of fostering communication instead of whatever the heck seems to be going on here, let's take a look at original statements.
1) Finding unintentional cross talk about credentials amusing.
"LOL If it's a matter of credentials, and Dr. Hoeller isn't good enough, no one online stands a chance."
2) Finding problems with the assumption that a THEOLOGICAL definition is the way to go, in that a THEOLOGICAL definition of Gnosticism is a logical impossibility.
"Seriously, my issue with all of this is the assumption that it has to be a theological definition. Actually, it's not my issue per se, it's the issue of it not working. It is a logical impossibility."
Where did we go with these? Defending Dr. Hoeller (like he needs me to defend him, really). And some weird reactionary assumptions about both academia and definitions.
At this point, he wonders to himself, I can either try to continue or hope to avoid a further quagmire. Not being the timid sort, I'll continue. ;)
So, assuming no one else finds 1) funny, I'm guessing we can drop it. (See what happens to humor when theology comes up? j/k)
The only thing left are the points from 2) Why does the definition have to be theological? Is is for this special purpose or is it an assumption? Which leads to the issue that a THEOLOGICAL definition of Gnosticism is a logical impossibility. (sorry, but the word just gets dropped if I don't all-caps it.) The latter is bigger than a comment, and is fairly obvious. But the wall is right there, and you know where your head is, bang away until you're all satisfied. Or, we can start talking about definitions for academia that are not by necessity theological.
2) Finding problems with the assumption that a THEOLOGICAL definition is the way to go, in that a THEOLOGICAL definition of Gnosticism is a logical impossibility.
Fr. Troy, I have heard you make this assertions on several occasions, but you have yet to demonstrate it. I tried to get to the bottom this assertion with you when we briefly discussed ontology, but we didn't make much head way (most likely due to my own misunderstandings). So, would you be kind enough to demonstrate this assertion? I really would like to understand your thinking on this point. And, if you would be happier to do so via email, just let me know.
As for the other issues, knowing that their individuals working within academia, utilizing +Hoeller's list (which I believed he derived from an academic conference, though I could be mistaken), and knowing that there are schools that take such work seriously, I'm still not sure what the whole point is to this.
But, I want to be explicit that I absolutely agree on the question of establishing ourselves within academia.
If I might make a presumption - he is advocating for scholarship and stating a fact - that at present the state of institutionally based / funded scholarship is poor, muddy and full of incongruities.
It behoves us to foster scholarship amidst the teachers and learners who challenge us. Not to be like them. Not to win their approval while jettisoning our truth. But to engage in dialogue - in a language they speak.
If we cannot engage in dialogue with the hard asses in the ivory tower, we'll stay on the fringe forever. Which, although full of warm and fuzzy people, is a kind of sucky place to be if you want to grow a movement.
Here! Here! Amen!
Roger:
"I am assuming this effort is for the greater good of general Gnostic Studies (as opposed for prep. for "ministry")--true?"
True.
Troy: Bravo, good sir! Fortune favours the brave.
Let's back away from your theology-phobia (and an understandable one, to be sure) and look at it this way: in the interest of clarity, you are standing before your thesis committe and say you want to do your Masters in Gnosticism.
The panel is familiar with, say, Jonas and Quispel and Robinson, but dismissive of Pagels; they are also familiar with the arguments of King and Williams. But they still think Gnosticism is a world-hating dualist Christian heresy of the second century, and who wants to study that? Besides, there's controversy whether or not it's even a field of study!
So you reply that Gn is a religion, distinguished by emanations cosmogeny, immanent pneumatology, and above all, gnostic soteriology; and further that this definition is supported historically by the Gnostic Scriptures.
Now you have an argument. You have their attention, and you've moved past the "dualists vs. never-existed construct" continuum. THAT'S what this is for.
" In your opinion is Jesus (whatever that means) ontologically different from me or you? "
Yes. Otherwise I don't think the "whatever that means" would enter into it.
Rev. Troy, if I've contributed to any reactionary whatnot, I do apologize. You're a clever bloke and I only do my best to understand a person's meaning. Let's face it - we'd all rather be doing this in a pub somewhere.
And Eck - dear boy - you quote me like Shakespeare. I am now officially in love with you. Charisophia has a wickedly vain underside. (Or is that just my thong?)
What's a girl to do but drag out some more nudie pictures. Enough shlocky poetry on my blog already - let's party.
Studying Buddhism here in Taiwan makes me realize the meaning of nothingness. In this case of trying to produce a viable description of gnosticism, it is like trying to pin a fly, except it ain't there. One's definition of it is through the EG, another's is through the Johannites, another's is through Dan Brown. (This struggle with definition clarity is widespread, in politics, sports rules, science, etc. Maybe our minds are just too puny for the job, or are in an archonic haze.)
We must approach Gnosticism through several perspectives: spiritual, psychological, religious, historical, philosophical, political, factional, sociological, emotional, logical, scientific and uber-rationally. Only through multiple perspectives can the true meaning arise. Joe Daher and Father Jordan are correct in their comments.
But, coming back to Buddhist nothingness, rather than think about the black hole that we are concentrating our academic efforts on, let's do something else. Stop thinking gnosticism, start acting it. Karl Marx said, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it." To articulate: get off your duffs and act gnostically.
To start: dispense with labels. Forget personal titles, forget labels and methodologies, forget your egos and empty your minds. Get rid of any archonic poison.
Then: go for a beer and watch the Tour De France. Socialise and have a good time. Help people in need. Cry for a beautiful sunset. After that, look again. The truth stands before you naked, as Leonard Cohen says.
Ta da.
PS- I saw a great bumper sticker online: "Christian? Act like it!"
Michael: let's stay focused; we can't dispense with labels. They're useful *in this context*. Critical even. You're advocating abandoning the work at hand and I can't responsibly sanction that just because it's difficult.
You're also assuming there's a different definition of Gn between the EG and the AJC etc and that's a very damaging and false assumption. We have slightly (and objectively so minor as to be irrelevant) different styles of expressing our Gnosticism, but it is very obviously the same religion. And Dan Brown's book doesn't even mention the word.
And the "fly" really is there, by the way. Unless you want to take on specific flaws in the 3 point plane we've established - which is the point of posting this stuff in the first place. Let's road test it.
Jordan, I'm not suggesting any abandonment of the task at hand. I should articulate myself better. Labels can be loaded by either multiple interpretations or public misconceptions.
We must examine the semantics of any word of concept used to define Gnosticism. Or else we inadvertently paint ourselves in. Buddhist nothingingness is useful here because it provides a mental framework for logical, detachment-from-meaning/agenda multi-perspective academic exploration. Define the words/concepts used to define Gnosticism.
I'm not saying there are massive differences between EG and AJC. But any academically acceptable approach to Gnosticism should reconcile or go above any differences that exist between them and others. The Dan Brown thing was a joke. Sheesh!
Yes, test-drive the 'fly,' never a bad thing, although I prefer a Honda ;) Are our parametres and approach sound, or do we need to adjust as we go?
What makes us free is the Gnosis
Of who we were
Of what we have become
Of where we were
Of wherein we have been thrown
Of whereto we are hastening
Of what we are being freed
Of what birth really is
Of what rebirth really is
"What makes us free is the Gnosis"
Of course. It was I who proposed this creed in the first place. But it has no place in the discussion at hand, having no "external" elements - we can and do use this amongst ourselves but you can't study a religion with it.
But you can practice a religion with it. ;-)
Post a Comment