Talk:Gnosticism

Anti-Semetism and Gnosticism (within intro)

1) Does the opinion of one scholar, apparently, belong in the intro?

2) The quotation of Gershom Scholem's is not properly referenced. What's referenced is material that contains the quote. Where and when did Scholem say this? I'm not familiar with his work. Does he have anything else to say? Does he still hold this view?

3) The referenced material, Understanding Jewish History, goes on to clarify the author's opinion that what "Gnostics" believed was anti-Judaic and not anti-Semetic. Why isn't this mentioned? Why are things worded one way when the referenced material is actual saying something different?

4) The text "Many schools inverted traditional interpretations of the Hebrew Bible," should be referenced. Where does this information come from? "Many"? "Inverted"? As far I've come across, "the Gnostics" really only touch upon the Book of Genesis, and within that, only the primordial history, not the entire Hebrew Bible. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

These are exactly the problems with this article. These problems arise from "modern gnostic-hobbyists" inserting unsourced modern opinions throughout the article. The problem can be fixed by simply getting a few of the latest books by scholars that analyze/publish the original gnostic texts (Nag Hammadi and other), and summarizing their definitions of gnosticism, with references to their works.Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This article greatly suffers from original research, lack of NPOV, poor citations, lack of focus and other issues. I think it'd be worth having an admin lock it so that it can be cleaned up properly. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Question 1-yes but the source is (Steven Bayme) and Gershom Scholem not just Scholem by himself. Wikipedia:Citation overkill says two sources are enough. But here's one from Oxford press.[1]-This one includes Hans Jonas making comments like the gnostic view of Judaism is saturated with "anti-Jewish animus". Hans Jonas is also the source of the Scholem quote. It would be good to know these sources before attempting to marginalized them. Notice the Oxford book used the terms "Many"? "Inverted"? as a book on Anti-semitism. The editor tSR - Nth Man appears to not be assuming good faith. These sources are not me and I would request to editors to knock off the ad hominem and style over substance fallacies and actually adhere to policy.

Question 2

then correct it in conformity to Wikipedia:Citing sources. This is no justification to delete any content.

These comments appear to be accusing contributors of bad faith, and original research.

Question 3.

" The referenced material, Understanding Jewish History, goes on to clarify the author's opinion that what "Gnostics" believed was anti-Judaic and not anti-Semetic. Why isn't this mentioned?"

This comment really appears be POV because this is actually in the article -just not the intro. User:- tSR - Nth Man needs to clarify how using a literal quite from a Hebrew Kabbalist scholar

Question 4 you appear to be posting your opinion on wikipedia that's considered original research. Put in citation tags like policy states and I'll source it, if I can. Thats collaboration.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

^{(In response to question 1, now unthreaded per WP:TALK) Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)}

So why are you going out of your way to ensure these views are prominent in the article, in attempt to make a point? That is exactly what this article looks like - a slanted view that doesn't actually reflect what appears in modern scholarship to summarize the phenomenon of gnosticism. Modern scholarship meaning those scholars which actually analyze/deal with the original gnostic texts in a critical academic way.Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you denying the work of these scholars and their positions that are documented?

As I have somehow made them up and as if the Tempelhofgesellschaft#Tempelhofgesellschaft

Don't validate their point that the gnostic cosmology is used by Anti-Semitic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveMonkey (talk • contribs)

If a group of anti-Semites are using a school of Gnosticism to frame their hatred, that is unfortunate. Anti-Semitism, and hatred itself, is unfortunate. I am not trying to validate anyone's anti-Semitism. I would just like for this to be a good article. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, why does the opinion of one scholar belong in the intro? A citation still hasn't been provided. In what publication did Jonas quote Scholem? Gager is examining the Judaic origins of gnostic religions. He paraphrases Jonas's opinions that they have an anti-Judaic slant to show that a Judaic origin is unlikely. He does not say that certain gnostic groups were anti-Semetic. Nor does Jonas, according to Gager. Nor does Bayme. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again thats four scholars Gershom Scholem, Steven Bayme, Hans Jonas and John G. Gager. That's also two different scholars themselves saying that gnosticism is anti-Semitic those being Hans Jonas and Gershom Scholem. Thats three Gershom Scholem, Steven Bayme, Hans Jonas saying that gnosticism is anti-Semitic and or anti-Jewish. As a valid citation I need two sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. That's one scholar saying that Gnostics were anti-Semitic, and only metaphysically so. The rest say that Gnostics disagreed, reinterpreted, or refuted Judaism. Just because Gnostics didn't agree with Judaism, that doesn't mean they were anti-Semitic. They did not hate or incite violence towards Jews, as far as I know. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, the amount of weight given to ideas should reflect the amount of weight given by sources. Enough prominent sources discuss the anti-Semitic interpretations to warrent mention in the article, but most sources do not focus on anti-Semitic elements within Gnosticism, especially more recent sources that have analyzed more recent discoveries. As such, the article should mention them, but that shouldn't be the overarching theme. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright now that is a valid point. However removing from the article in general is not valid. If there is consensus here that it is undue weight being in the intro. I will concede to that point. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The actual contents are present elsewhere in the article. The header "Gnosticism and Anti-semitism" was changed to "Gnosticism and Judaism" to combine that section with the section discussing Gnosticism and Kabbalah. I think it's just prominent enough to warrent the single sentence that's in the intro, but I would like to expand the part about Gnosticism's relation to Judaism to include Hekhalot's influence. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the recent alterations of the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit of an idle observer on this subject ---- my main concern with this article would be the fantastic connection to Buddhism (!) being challenged ---- Seems to me that the particular discussion of a metaphysical "anti-Semitism" per Christian Wiese The life and thought of Hans Jonas: Jewish dimensions p62 needs to be contextualized in the Judaism and Gnosticism section by the context of starting with the 19th Century view (per Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig Blau etc.) that there was some continuity with mystic pre-Christian Judaism. Though as a main characteristic of the groups Irenaeus and Epiphanius call gnostic seems to be syncretism, is a Jewish part-source surprising? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Do these individuals address Gershom Scholem's statement? If not then we are interpreting and that is not something the Wiki is for. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello LoveMonkey.

Do Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig Blau address Gershom Scholem's statement? No, Gershom Scholem would have been 6 years old when the Jewish Encyclopedia was published. It is not "interpreting" to look at other Jewish sources than Gershom Scholem, and it is not typical in a Wiki lede to focus in on one man's statement like this. There evidently is a case for a subsection on anti-semitic traits in some of the gnostic sects, e.g. Hans Urs von Balthasar - 1983 p99 "Would not this bring us back to Marcion's anti-Semitic gnosticism, in which the God of the Old Testament was an inferior demon?" ....btw I note that the statement in the lead which you guys are discussing about "leading Jewish-Israeli scholar Gershom Scholem (according to Hans Jonas) to call Gnosticism" is not even a ref, it's just hearsay. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Antiestablishmentarianism, and the idea that the individual, not any institution, holds the key to knowledge, is by no means "anti-Semitic". I've removed this ridiculous notion and sad attempt at POV pushing from the lead. I've also restored a previous version of the lead in the process. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Typo?

In the section: 3rd century gnosticism in India: I see that Σαρμαναίοι is transliterated as Sramanas when possibly it should be Sarmanais (Sarmanai plural). Anyone confirm? Manytexts (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Article still woolly?

I added in image of Irenaeus right under the etymology, as its he who coined this usage. The lede still has in it some material not convincingly sourced in main body. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently supposed to be pretending to take notes, but (while dealing with other things) I've been gathering sources for the article discussing the different views on the relationships between Gnosticism, paganism, Neoplatonism, etc:

• What is Gnosticism? By Karen King
• The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas
• From Jewish magic to Gnosticism
• The Jewish apocalyptic heritage in early Christianity By James C. VanderKam, William Adler
• Gnosis and hermeticism from antiquity to modern times By R. van den Broek, Wouter J. Hanegraaff
• Neoplatonism and gnosticism By Richard T. Wallis, International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
• Sethian gnosticism and the platonic tradition By John Douglas Turner
• Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt By Birger Albert Pearson

My schedule is shifting, but I may have time to try to get to work on summarizing those texts (haha, good one, life, almost had me fooled!). I won't stop others from doing so, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that perhaps the article should take a stricter structure based on the uncontroverted core information：

• "Gnostic" = the core sects described by Irenaeus as gnostic. At the moment someone looks at the article and can't see "Irenaeus describes 7 (or 9 or 12 or how many?) distinct sects as "gnostic". Later ____ included 2 more, later ____ included another 3, etc...." which is pretty basic information for an article this length to be failing to provide

Then

• possible precedents. (a) Platonic precedents. (b) Jewish (all very subjective, since all Christian sects are syncretic between Jewish / Platonic elements)
• possible links to other groups which were never called gnostic by Irenaeus. Mandaeans for example.
• The fruitcake and fringe corner at the end.

In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Structure it around the evolution of the term? Also, Mandaiia more or less means "Gnosis," so while Irenaeus doesn't identify the Mandaeans as Gnostic, they do. Perhaps:

• Irenaeus's original use
• Other groups for whom Gnosis was important (e.g. Manichaeism)
• Precedents: Western (Jewish, Neoplatonic) and Eastern (Zurvanist, discussion of possible Buddhist influence)
• Legacy (Mandaeism, potential influence on Cathars and Kabbalah, Gnosticism in Modern Times)
• Fringe
• 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

One detail that caught my eye (or that I missed perhaps): Who was holding this conference in Messina and what gave them the authority to redefine the term? DS Belgium (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... The section should be kept (it is a valid question even though I don't exactly agree with the conclusions.), but it should be a bit reworded to either downplay the conference's "authority," or explain why they should be seen with any authority. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Initiation and secret knowledge

It's been many years since I read anything on Gnosticism, but as I recall a major element described in my references was an emphasis on secret knowledge that is revealed only gradually through initiation. Perhaps this was only in reference to particular sects, but it seemed central to my reading of the subject. The emphasis actually makes sense of the name Gnostic, after all. Gnostics would be those with special knowledge, not shared with outsiders. And it would separate them from contemporary Christians and Jews, who made no effort to keep their own beliefs secret.

So for those who know, is this topic worth more discussion? MarkBul (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)