Language and the effect on the appeal of Gnosticism

[ELoWolfe]

As I converse with individuals on religion, I find there appears to be a consensus on a couple points:

1) The individual rejects religion because they reject the hypocrisy of the orthodox churches

2) They individual has trouble finding the logic that connects both the Old and New testament

3) The individual agrees with Jesus, but does not know or outright rejects the Old Testament and its portrayal of God

However, these individuals either leave religion because they don't have an alternative to go to, or else stay in their churches and groups because it is what they know and they don't know alternatives. In each of these three groups, I see large potential for Gnostics, or at least gnostic sympathizers.

But when talking to them, how difficult is it? Pleroma, Monad, Gnosis, Sophia, Demiurge, Archon, Yaldabaoth, Saklas. The list goes on. While these terms express something we understand, how intimidating are they to someone who is fertile ground but scared of a foreign seed?

Are these terms necessary, especially untranslated? Couldn't we say "Divine Craftsman" instead of "Demiurge"? Or "Fullness" instead of "Pleroma"? Or even "Heaven"?

Our Father, who art in Heaven... When we read this line, do we really prefer to say "who are in the Pleroma"?

Is it easier to keep these words in a tongue that is no longer spoken, or to say "We both see this word, but this is the real meaning behind it"?

 

[frangipani]

You make very good points from the academic viewpoint. But no amount of external learning will excite the Spark of the Devine within each of us. Sure we will 'learn' about Truth, religion, history, etc. To find Truth and become a new being in Truth one needs to rely on the sensibility of the heart, the deep down gut feeling that tells you when something is right, wrong, true or false. This is the good ground in which the seed will grow. One needs to use intellect, which is reason that is from within when discerning what is and what isn't Truth. The difference between an intellect and an academic is this, an intellect discovers an idea which comes from within and makes it a fact. An academic learns what the intellect has discovered and accepts it as a fact which comes from without. So all the written records and scriptures that one accepts as their 'bible' are for the true believers only confirmation of what they already know. For the others they are text books whereby the religious people learn to adapt certain ideas and behaviours as life guides. In either case both find a certain amount of comfort from these texts in the knowledge they are not alone in this world and there has been others before them.

 

[nazz]

As I converse with individuals on religion, I find there appears to be a consensus on a couple points:

1) The individual rejects religion because they reject the hypocrisy of the orthodox churches

2) They individual has trouble finding the logic that connects both the Old and New testament

3) The individual agrees with Jesus, but does not know or outright rejects the Old Testament and its portrayal of God

However, these individuals either leave religion because they don't have an alternative to go to, or else stay in their churches and groups because it is what they know and they don't know alternatives. In each of these three groups, I see large potential for Gnostics, or at least gnostic sympathizers.

Yes, I agree

But when talking to them, how difficult is it? Pleroma, Monad, Gnosis, Sophia, Demiurge, Archon, Yaldabaoth, Saklas. The list goes on. While these terms express something we understand, how intimidating are they to someone who is fertile ground but scared of a foreign seed?

Are these terms necessary, especially untranslated? Couldn't we say "Divine Craftsman" instead of "Demiurge"? Or "Fullness" instead of "Pleroma"? Or even "Heaven"?

Our Father, who art in Heaven... When we read this line, do we really prefer to say "who are in the Pleroma"?

Is it easier to keep these words in a tongue that is no longer spoken, or to say "We both see this word, but this is the real meaning behind it"?

I don't think those terms are what put people off. It's extremely difficult if you are reared in an orthodox and/or fundamentalist environment to accept the notion that the portrayal of God in the OT is inept and/or evil (I know because I speak from experience).

We must remember that when the ancient Gnostics used those (for the most part Greek) terms they were speaking to an audience that spoke Greek. So we could conceivably translate them to English but sometimes there is not always a good equivalent. For instance substituting "heaven" for "pleroma" doesn't quite work for me because the orthodox conception of heaven is so different from the Gnostic one.

 

[ELoWolfe]

I've been trying to understand the idea of Heaven and the afterlife recently. Being "prisoners" of the Creator, the Hebrew concept of Sheol makes sense. When we die, we "go down" in the world to the abode of the dead. But Jesus "went up into heaven." We understand the Christ would have went to the Fullness. Wouldn't the two be one and the same?

It made me wonder about the Craftman and his residence. He very clearly does not want humanity existing with him there. In fact, I would say that the concept of death is utterly abominable to him, considering the rules against touching the dead, let alone the fact that Sheol is a removal of the presence of the Craftsman. It would be for that reason that the only two potential humans said to have been taken by the Craftsman (Enoch and Elijah) were still alive when it happened - or else they were taken by God and not the Craftsman. Would that have been done before?

Unfortunately, I do not know Hebrew to know if the translation of "heavens" would really equate the common understanding of Heaven. Certainly they were talking about the sky (with the numerous references to creating, as well as to rain and clouds). Does the word mean the same?

We (or at least I) still call the Father "God," even though the orthodox concept of God is of the Craftsman.

 

[nazz]

I've been trying to understand the idea of Heaven and the afterlife recently. Being "prisoners" of the Creator, the Hebrew concept of Sheol makes sense. When we die, we "go down" in the world to the abode of the dead. But Jesus "went up into heaven." We understand the Christ would have went to the Fullness. Wouldn't the two be one and the same?

Yes and no. When I said they were different I was really referring to the common Christian conception of heaven. That is really not a biblical idea. Heaven more refers to a place whereas Pleroma more refers to a state. I guess you could say the Pleroma is located in the highest heaven.

You make a good point that the Great Archon (as I call him) never makes any promises regarding any afterlife even for the faithful.

It made me wonder about the Craftman and his residence. He very clearly does not want humanity existing with him there.

Yes, very true. He wants to maintain a separation between himself and mankind. Both spatially and ontologically.

In fact, I would say that the concept of death is utterly abominable to him, considering the rules against touching the dead, let alone the fact that Sheol is a removal of the presence of the Craftsman.

I wouldn't agree with that. I think he is all about death. He made livings things to die and to kill to live. And he kills himself and orders humans to kill.

It would be for that reason that the only two potential humans said to have been taken by the Craftsman (Enoch and Elijah) were still alive when it happened - or else they were taken by God and not the Craftsman. Would that have been done before?

Actually there is controversy over whether or not either of those events happened (according to the Bible) at least in the Jewish view.

Unfortunately, I do not know Hebrew to know if the translation of "heavens" would really equate the common understanding of Heaven. Certainly they were talking about the sky (with the numerous references to creating, as well as to rain and clouds). Does the word mean the same?

The Hebrew word, shamayim, is plural and refers to three distinct "heavens": the atmosphere, the celestial heavens, and the abode of God.

We (or at least I) still call the Father "God," even though the orthodox concept of God is of the Craftsman.

Been thinking about doing a thread on the Gnostic conception of God. Certainly the Father is part of that, the highest part. But I think the term has many meanings in Gnostic thought. When I speak of the Father I do so in contradistinction to any other use of the term.

 

[ELoWolfe]

I wouldn't agree with that. I think he is all about death. He made livings things to die and to kill to live. And he kills himself and orders humans to kill.

Death for others, yes. But not for himself. I would say he is like a child. He makes his toys, but when they break, he wants them as far from his as possible. Any defects are undesirable. Just look to the commandments regarding who can and can not be a priest, women who are "defective," and anything dealing with death and holiness.

Hypocritical. He wants perfection (example: You can't be a priest and wear glasses), but worries whenever humans get close to him in perfection.

Actually there is controversy over whether or not either of those events happened (according to the Bible) at least in the Jewish view.

Enoch I could see enough wiggle room, but Enoch also is the Metatron, so he had to have risen. Elijah, mythologically, is pretty clear.

The Hebrew word, shamayim, is plural and refers to three distinct "heavens": the atmosphere, the celestial heavens, and the abode of God.

Thanks. Was the Hebrew thought that God rested on clouds, much like some people think today?

Been thinking about doing a thread on the Gnostic conception of God. Certainly the Father is part of that, the highest part. But I think the term has many meanings in Gnostic thought. When I speak of the Father I do so in contradistinction to any other use of the term.

Well that is the problem of language. And the initial posting of this topic. I am just wondering if the non-translation is necessary, considering it was written with the language the original readers were speaking. Do we really need to say "Demiurge"? It seems a little pompous for my tastes. I understand it, but necessary?

 

[nazz]

Was the Hebrew thought that God rested on clouds, much like some people think today?

I believe there is something in the Bible about God riding on the clouds like chariots.

Well that is the problem of language. And the initial posting of this topic. I am just wondering if the non-translation is necessary, considering it was written with the language the original readers were speaking. Do we really need to say "Demiurge"? It seems a little pompous for my tastes. I understand it, but necessary?

I don't think it is necessary. I certainly won't complain if you use other terms. It's just pretty typical of spiritual systems to use special terms. Words like Tao, wu-wei, karma, bodhisattva, nirvana, kosher, halal, salat, Calvary, Golgotha, apostle, epistle, etc. I think it is way of keeping continuity with past traditions and having a special jargon for the group.

Heck when you come right down to it our English language is 60% Anglicized Latin!

 

[Shermana]

I've been trying to understand the idea of Heaven and the afterlife recently. Being "prisoners" of the Creator, the Hebrew concept of Sheol makes sense. When we die, we "go down" in the world to the abode of the dead. But Jesus "went up into heaven." We understand the Christ would have went to the Fullness. Wouldn't the two be one and the same?

It made me wonder about the Craftman and his residence. He very clearly does not want humanity existing with him there. In fact, I would say that the concept of death is utterly abominable to him, considering the rules against touching the dead, let alone the fact that Sheol is a removal of the presence of the Craftsman. It would be for that reason that the only two potential humans said to have been taken by the Craftsman (Enoch and Elijah) were still alive when it happened - or else they were taken by God and not the Craftsman. Would that have been done before?

Unfortunately, I do not know Hebrew to know if the translation of "heavens" would really equate the common understanding of Heaven. Certainly they were talking about the sky (with the numerous references to creating, as well as to rain and clouds). Does the word mean the same?

We (or at least I) still call the Father "God," even though the orthodox concept of God is of the Craftsman.

Indeed, Ha-Shmayim is referring to the "Sky". There's little reason to separate the concept of "Outer Space" with "heavens" in Hebrew terminology. Especially so we see this in the book of Enoch.

The notion of the orthodox concept of God being the "Craftsman" does not necessarily make him the same depiction as that of the Sethians. Certain Gnostic groups like the Valentinians did not see it as depicting the OT creator as a villain or inferior deity. For some reason the Sethian view became the dominant defining view of the "Gnostic" idea of the Demiurge, and rather unjustifiably I say.

 

[nazz]

Certain Gnostic groups like the Valentinians did not see it as depicting the OT creator as a villain or inferior deity.

Not villainous but certainly inferior

 

[Shermana]

Not villainous but certainly inferior

I don't recall the Valentinians regarding him as inferior or of lower rank than the TRUE god or even saying he was different from the true god, got a link?

 

[ELoWolfe]

I don't recall the Valentinians regarding him as inferior or of lower rank than the TRUE god or even saying he was different from the true god, got a link?

He was a product of Sophia's passions though, which would make him inferior to the Father. If he wasn't, the Savior wouldn't have had to come down and save anyone.

In Rethinking the Gospel of Truth: A study of its eastern Valentinian setting by J¨orgen Magnusson (http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:168690/FULLTEXT01.pdf), it reads: "One example of the relationship between the GospTruth and the Fragments of Valentinus is that they have in common a much more hostile attitude to the demiurge than later Valentinian texts. For instance, in 18.21-25 of the GospTruth, Error who is the demiurge murders Jesus. This fits well with the Valentinian Fragment that is preserved in Clement of Alexandria’s Strommateis 4.89.4: ‘the cause of death is the work of the creator of the world.’

Further, it says: "To sum up: 18.21b-26a shows clear traces of a demiurge figure who has produced one fruit that may appear as knowledge, but as at its best is a substitute for the truth, which in fact brings perishability. The demiurge persecutes Jesus, but since this persecution takes place not in an undefined mythological past but in the time of the historical Jesus, the characteristics of the demiurge spreads to the group who carried out the actual crucifixion. Since the demiurge is depicted in such a sharply antagonistic way, the spilling over to those who are associated with Error is reinforced."

Finally, another section: "The ethics of the GospTruth is intelligible from an anti-cosmic perspective. I therefore side with Meekson page 41 who stresses the important link between the worldview and ethics. As is evident from the discussion regarding the law and the Sabbath but also from the discussion about Error on page 87-92 the demiurge figure is depicted as an evil and aggressive being. From this perspective it would be surprising if something good could be found in the law of the Old Testament, since after all it has its origin in Error. But other wordly attitudes towards ethics are rooted in the cosmic sphere as well. It is in this light I interpret page 33 of the GospTruth. The one who hurts people because of lawless living causes fear and pain, but so does the one who punishes through the legal system as well."

In Ptolomy's Letter to Flora, he also distinguishes between the good God of the Father and of the lesser God of Justice. See: "For it is evident that the Law was not ordained by the perfect God the Father, for it is secondary, being imperfect and in need of completion by another, containing commandments alien to the nature and thought of such a God" and "From what has been said, it is evident that these persons entirely miss the truth; each of the two groups has experienced this, the first because they do not know the God of justice, the second because they do not know the Father of all, who alone was revealed by him who alone came." Finally, we can read "For if the Law was not ordained by the perfect God himself, as we have already taught you, nor by the devil, a statement one cannot possibly make, the legislator must be some one other than these two. In fact, he is the demiurge and maker of this universe and everything in it; and because he is essentially different from these two and is between them, he is rightly given the name, intermediate."

So the two are different, one inferior (but not evil) than the other (which is good).

 

[ELoWolfe]

I don't think it is necessary. I certainly won't complain if you use other terms. It's just pretty typical of spiritual systems to use special terms. Words like Tao, wu-wei, karma, bodhisattva, nirvana, kosher, halal, salat, Calvary, Golgotha, apostle, epistle, etc. I think it is way of keeping continuity with past traditions and having a special jargon for the group.

You make a good point. I just wonder when is too much. Karma, Tao, Nirvana and Kosher are all examples of words I hear non-practitioners use with vague familiarity. Apostle, Golgotha, Epistle eventually came with the religion. Wu-wei, Bodhisattva, Halal and Salat are not words I hear from non-practitioners.

Perhaps I need to look into the formation of language and loan words. I don't even know if it would have a clear answer. Some words are just as they are. Pleroma, I imagine, would be such a word since Heaven doesn't quite fit it. Aeon, as well, since it is a very special and specific word and possibly with Archon.

But others, like demiurge, seem too foreign without any correlation to vernacular words and not being short and "easy" to remember and use. Archon, while just as foreign, at least can be seen in monarch. Names also fit into this category. Yao, Sophia and Samael seem familiar enough, but Astaphanos, Yaldabaoth and Achamōth do not.

 

[nazz]

You make a good point. I just wonder when is too much. Karma, Tao, Nirvana and Kosher are all examples of words I hear non-practitioners use with vague familiarity. Apostle, Golgotha, Epistle eventually came with the religion. Wu-wei, Bodhisattva, Halal and Salat are not words I hear from non-practitioners.

Perhaps I need to look into the formation of language and loan words. I don't even know if it would have a clear answer. Some words are just as they are. Pleroma, I imagine, would be such a word since Heaven doesn't quite fit it. Aeon, as well, since it is a very special and specific word and possibly with Archon.

But others, like demiurge, seem too foreign without any correlation to vernacular words and not being short and "easy" to remember and use. Archon, while just as foreign, at least can be seen in monarch. Names also fit into this category. Yao, Sophia and Samael seem familiar enough, but Astaphanos, Yaldabaoth and Achamōth do not.

Yes, I agree that all those names can be confusing especially since different Gnostic groups used different ones. I think with demiurge the intent was to keep a connection to Greek philosophy.

 

[nazz]

He was a product of Sophia's passions though, which would make him inferior to the Father. If he wasn't, the Savior wouldn't have had to come down and save anyone.

Exactly

In Rethinking the Gospel of Truth: A study of its eastern Valentinian setting by J¨orgen Magnusson (http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:168690/FULLTEXT01.pdf), it reads: "One example of the relationship between the GospTruth and the Fragments of Valentinus is that they have in common a much more hostile attitude to the demiurge than later Valentinian texts. For instance, in 18.21-25 of the GospTruth, Error who is the demiurge murders Jesus. This fits well with the Valentinian Fragment that is preserved in Clement of Alexandria’s Strommateis 4.89.4: ‘the cause of death is the work of the creator of the world.’

Further, it says: "To sum up: 18.21b-26a shows clear traces of a demiurge figure who has produced one fruit that may appear as knowledge, but as at its best is a substitute for the truth, which in fact brings perishability. The demiurge persecutes Jesus, but since this persecution takes place not in an undefined mythological past but in the time of the historical Jesus, the characteristics of the demiurge spreads to the group who carried out the actual crucifixion. Since the demiurge is depicted in such a sharply antagonistic way, the spilling over to those who are associated with Error is reinforced."

This is an interesting idea that I more or less agree with. After all we read in Isaiah 53: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief"

I sometimes see Jesus' death as a final sacrifice to the deity who demanded sacrifice for sin (but not as a similar sacrifice to the Father).

In Ptolomy's Letter to Flora, he also distinguishes between the good God of the Father and of the lesser God of Justice. See: "For it is evident that the Law was not ordained by the perfect God the Father, for it is secondary, being imperfect and in need of completion by another, containing commandments alien to the nature and thought of such a God"

Yes as Jesus is reported to make clear in the gospels.