- "Publicity and naïveté have encouraged the rise of a form of neo-Gnosticism, a fashion greatly encouraged by recent discoveries and alleged discoveries. In embracing these ancient sources, the neo-Gnostics are unlike their ancient counterparts. They want to embrace the earth, not subjugate it; they don't wish to be elitist. Above all, they want to insist on the gender-equality of women with men. You need to cherry-pick Gnostic sources, and ignore a great deal of what they say, to make that picture work as an account of the Nag Hammadi library. Neo-Gnostics do just that, and falsify history. Many ancient Gnostics were openly anti-Semitic, taught that the physical world was the hopelessly corrupt product of a false god, and insisted that only the predestined elect could know the divine truth. These are persistent tendencies, rather than a set of precise ideas that all Gnostics repeated, but they are facts that can't be denied."
I don't deny the facts that some Gnostic texts contain some elements of anti-Semitism and radical dualism (and let us remember that there are some elements of anti-Semitism and radical dualism in Paul, for example). This does not condemn the entirety of classical Gnosticism – leastwise define it. I deny the "facts" that "only the predestined elect could know the divine truth" – this assertion is not supported by Gnostic texts. It's just not.
As for cherry-picking, absolutely. The individual Gnostic reflects on passages of Gn scripture without swallowing the text whole, employing discernment and taking inspiration where they find it. We do not impose a revisionism in which we imagine a once-upon-a-time monolithic orthodoxy wherein the text authors spoke authoritatively for everybody.
Contemporary Christianity too must cherry-pick in order to be a coherent functioning religion. Modern Christians are not swallowing Paul whole and keeping women silent in church. They are free to read, reflect, and be inspired by what reaches them. The differences in canon between Catholic and Protestant churches shows that such cherry-picking is institutionalized not just between phrases but entire books of the bible.
The unusually vicious paragraph above irks out of hypocricy: are not "neo-Christians" unlike their ancient counterparts? Doesn't ancient Christianity have a history of anti-Semitism, misogyny, elitism, and dualism? Jesse recently posted about a dozen or so New Testament quotes which reject the flesh, the world, and its corrupting power: one could just as easily mischaracterize Christianity as "world hating dualism", and with far more credibility and evidence than castigating Gnosticism with the same slur.
What really bothers Chilton (a scholar for whom I have a great deal of respect) is that "Neo-Gnostics" (us, presumably) accept The Secret Mark as a genuine text. The thrust of his article here isn't really about how dishonest "Neo-Gnostics" are, but how Secret Mark is an obvious forgery. So we're really guilty by association.
Here's the thing: I don't know of a single Gnostic who identifies with Secret Mark, or considers it to be a legitimate or authentic Gnostic text. Not one. At best it's a peripheral curiosity. Gnostics are not standing up in churches or the PTG saying "this proves Jesus was gay!". Gnosticdom (!) as a general rule is just not interested in Secret Mark, and every Gnostic I know familiar with the text rejects it as a total forgery.
What scholars like Chilton so often fail to grasp is that the role of history is simply not as important to us as it is to Christians. If an early copy of a Christian Gospel had Jesus doodling in the dirt with a stick instead of his finger, this would throw all of Christendom in turmoil. Most Christians keep trying to wring "what really happened" out of their Gospels, whereas we've never been about that. We're more interested in what is happening, our own alchemical reaction to these catalytic texts.
What keeps biblical pundits busy upon the discovery of Judas, for example, is their efforts to discredit Gnostic scripture as historical accounts. Such efforts are met by Gnostics with a resounding "Well, duh!". To us it's absurd to think that the authors of Judas were describing actual events, and absurd to think that the first readers of these texts accepted them as such. Gnostics do not believe, as a whole, that Thomas wrote Thomas or that Jesus actually said the things that "Jesus said:". This does not make Gnostic scriptures less valuable: it cannot be reasonably upheld that Luke wrote Luke or that John wrote John, and if Mark wrote Mark he most certainly didn't write the ending we have today.
In two weeks I'll have the opportunity to discuss this issue with Dr. Chilton, and I'll let you know how it goes.
13 comments:
This is the kind of clarity I tune into Father Jordie for. :)
Hallelujah.
And if Chilton doesn't take you seriously he's a ding bat.
Beautiful post, Fr. Jordan+ :)
Indeed, if we were to take every account of cherry-picking from traditional Christians in regards to the Bible, we'd need a whole blog dedicated to that alone. As you've pointed out, what exactly is the problem with discernment and selection? If material is contradictory or outdated, or, indeed, from a different Gnostic sect entirely (Manichianism would have alot less to do with the Valentinian-orientated modern Gnostic Church, for example, and just because its texts are labelled "Gnostic" doesn't mean all Gnostics have to accept, revere, or stringently adhere to them), why should we force ourselves to "obey" them? As you made clear, scripture is not the only authority used in Christianity and likewise with Gnosticism, and as I've pointed out in one of my latest posts, our traditions need to be alive if they are to be of any real value to us. 2,000 years of evolution should include 2,000 years of evolved thinking and doing.
-D
in chilton's favor, it must be admitted that he is just as critical of "orthodox" christians.
what i find most disturbing about this sort of discussion is that is assumes a battle between people who have different parts, different views, of the truth, which precludes any ease of working together if not the very possibility of it.
i suspect that ye olde empire, a.k.a. demiurge, is continuing the tactic of julius caesar: omnes galliam in tres partes divisa est.
so, although i consider myself fairly "orthodox," i shall continue to check out jordan's blog for the pearls it contains, even if some of the more partisan types consider me a swine.
pax et caritas,
+dale
Well, I am batting less than 1000 tonight. Mixed up on Chilton--now that I recall who he is I have answered my own questions.
Cheerfully, RK
Contemporary Christianity too must cherry-pick in order to be a coherent functioning religion... Are not "neo-Christians" unlike their ancient counterparts? Doesn't ancient Christianity have a history of anti-Semitism, misogyny, elitism, and dualism?
Yes, but this isn't exactly news. Neo-gnosticism often comes as an antidote to a traditional Christianity weighed down precisely by the above baggage. It's a mystery to many that the sources of that antidote have just as much (if not more) baggage. There's more ignorance and misperceptions about gnosticism than about traditional Christianity, and reports like this don't exactly reinforce one's faith in any discerning ability of the laity.
What really bothers Chilton (a scholar for whom I have a great deal of respect) is that "Neo-Gnostics" (us, presumably) accept The Secret Mark as a genuine text. The thrust of his article here isn't really about how dishonest "Neo-Gnostics" are, but how Secret Mark is an obvious forgery. So we're really guilty by association.
I hate to break the nightly news, but scholars who like the gnostic gospels tend to be the same ones who defend the authenticity of Secret Mark.
Here's the thing: I don't know of a single Gnostic who identifies with Secret Mark, or considers it to be a legitimate or authentic Gnostic text. Not one. At best it's a peripheral curiosity. Gnostics are not standing up in churches or the PTG saying "this proves Jesus was gay!". Gnosticdom (!) as a general rule is just not interested in Secret Mark, and every Gnostic I know familiar with the text rejects it as a total forgery.
Neo-gnostics I know either (a) prefer to give Secret Mark the benefit of the doubt without knowing quite what to make of it, (b) accept and identify with it as gnostic, or (c) have never heard of it before. I haven't run into a single neo-gnostic who rejects it as a forgery/hoax. We mix with different breeds, obviously.
What scholars like Chilton so often fail to grasp is that the role of history is simply not as important to us as it is to Christians... Most Christians keep trying to wring "what really happened" out of their Gospels, whereas we've never been about that. We're more interested in what is happening, our own alchemical reaction to these catalytic texts.
And there's certainly nothing wrong with that, so long as one is upfront about it. But as I'm sure you know, many people who read (say) Elaine Pagels walk away convinced that gnosticism is really what Jesus was about, and claim accordingly.
Gnosticism (and please, the "neo" is just plain rude – I used "neo-Christian" to illustrate how absurd a tag it is) is not an "antidote" to Christianity any more than Judaism is an antidote to Hinduism.
Many themes within classical Gnosticism appeal to contemporary Christians, particularly in the egalitarianism which is pervasive throughout Gn texts. This is not to deny there are some troubling passages that seem to reinforce the gender roles and power structures of the time in which they were written, but it is a mistake to state that these intermittent phrases characterize either the texts or Gn as a whole.
Indeed one would have to "cherry pick" in order to cast Gnosticism in such a light.
Two factors bear consideration: one is that esoteric material cannot be read as exoteric. Gn text are reliant upon metaphor and simile and analogy and parable; they are as fluid as dream journals, and can be taken just as literally. The idea is not to impart dogma but to inspire and invite participation on a mythic level.
In this way we can see the last phrase of Thomas - which is a very peachy spin on the indwelling Divine, but ends on a thud about how women have to become men. This is taken by Gnostics as a metaphor referring to 1st century gender roles: women are passive and obedient, men are the "masters of their own house". So "male" is a symbol meaning "responsible" or "mature". It's not a particularly good symbol, but there you are. It's certainly not Paul telling women to be silent in church, where he means exactly what he says.
The second factor is theological, and the impact of this theology is why some find Gnosticism more palatable than *what has been mainstream* Christianity: the theology of the pre-existence of the soul.
Christianity teaches that your soul is created at the same time as your body: your body IS your identity, which is why it shall rise from the grave intact on judgment day and live physically forever.
Gnosticism teaches that the soul is infinite and eternal, and pre-exists the body. The body is a car your soul drives around but it's NOT YOU. So physical things such as gender are not fundamental to identity, and this can lead in some cases to a more accepting culture if you're feminist or gay or transgendered. It's a different perspective with an upside for compassion, but it's not an "antidote".
And I would agree that the overwhelming majority of Gnostics are not familiar with Secret Mark, the exception being clergy who consider it a hoax. SM does raise some interesting points about Clement, a straight-up-orthodox Father of the Church, who wrote about gnosis extensively and beautifully and who basically says that it's the entire point of the Catholic enterprise.
To be honest, I don't think Smith was going for 'gay Jesus.' I've always been a b it suspicious of secret mark because I've read Smith's work and it's just too damn convenient...he's spent his career on the magical papyri and suddenly appears this text which places an early gospel in a magical context (his main thesis- Jesus the magi*), solves a mystery (ie, the missing bits of Mark), all tied up neat with a bow on top. What makes it suspicious, ironically, is that it rings too true...anything too neat is suspicious.
*More irony- I think that was much more likely than a lot of people want to admit, which is why so many of the establishment who go after SM saddle up that straw horse- it's easier to roll one's eyes at a gay savior than explain all the uncomfortable allusions to magic that keep popping up.
OTOH, I'd love to ask Chilton if he's castrated, if his wife wears a veil to church, or if they've shed their misogynistic & earth-loathing notions as well. ;-)
mostly re: neo-gnosticism
(but with the introductory remark that unfortunately very few people, gnostic, neo-gnostic, orthodox, or neo-orthodox, read very critically these days. the secret gospel of mark is included in the other bible, for instance, which makes the rather misleading remark that it is a collection of writings which were excluded from the canon, rather than a collection of writings which were not included--very different concepts.)
i don't think one need take umbrage at the term neo-gnostic, nor neo-christian the truth is that there are new expressions of both "gnostic" and "orthodox" strands of understanding coming up all the time. your later analogy of piano music vs. guitar music under the monatists post seems very appropriate.
often misunderstandings occur, i.m.h.o., when we who are playing guitars or ouds (i personally think that if we all played ouds peace would break out immediately) claim that we are still playing piano.
but we also need to be confident enough not to need the approval of "the scholarly community. "
keep up the good blogging.
pax et caritas,
+dale
Gnosticism needs no justification beyond the individual's comprehension of the whole seen through his or her intellect/soul's acquisition of Gnosis through Spirit. No need to apologize, or rule out, or distance itself from certain texts/ideas, nor cowering in the corner of theological intellectualism, tossing out scraps of dogma to sate the wolves waiting to tear enlightenment asunder, nor satisfy or own ego needs. Gnosticism is the embrace of freedom granted by Christ's realignment of the fallen world. Freedom to Wisdom/Knowledge; to know heaven on Earth.
Everyone took Carlson at his word but no one bothered to check the methodology for his greatest proof.
Be prepared to change your opinion on the issue of whether the Mar Saba letter is a forgery:
http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/2009/12/tremors-or-just-optical-illusion.html
There is no reason to think that it is a forgery. Even Birger Pearson questions Carlson's methodology now after reading that article
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/12/birger-pearson-says-it-best-it-is.html
There is nothing gay about Secret Mark; the only thing that was queer was Carlson's methodology (and again that not one scholar bothered to check it ... until now).
Stephan - Having read the debate in BAR, and having previously seen Meyer's view of Secret Mark, I have come 'round and no longer consider it a forgery. This original post is several years old.
Post a Comment