I've come to similar conclusions. I grow weary of the way that "gnosticism" is hurled about as a pejorative against "occulting of information," as you call it.
I am reminded of Athanasios of Limassol's approach to giving advice to people at different stages of spiritual maturity (see Kyriacos Markides's books). The "slaves of God" sometimes need the threat of punishment and God's justice, the "employees of God" respond to the idea of spiritual rewards for obedience, and the "lovers of God" need only appeals to knowledge of God ("connaitre" knowledge, not "savoir" knowledge).
I would own the label of “mystic,” but not gnostic.
Gnosticism refers to a collection of different writings now known in academia as the Nag Hammadi library, as well as lost material from different heresiarchs (Valentinus, Basilides, Heracleon, etc).
Right, so it’s a technical term descriptive of actual people in actual places who held actual beliefs and had actual practices (though a lot of those actuals are conveyed to us by their actual detractors). So, when modern people hold any beliefs that seem to overlap with those aforementioned, this does not necessarily make those people “gnostic”. The term has gotten overapplied recently, but it’s still useful. Somewhat ironically, I’ve heard a popular academic refer to many in academia as types of gnostics: those who lord secret knowledge over the commoners.
Yeah, “lording secret knowledge over the commoners” is exactly what I’m here calling a fiction. I don’t see the evidence that this is what the actual Gnostics did. So the modern use as a simple jab is itself rooted in historical revisionism.
You’re right about people looking for “any” overlap in belief. And as I’ve mentioned before, this is what makes people wrongly think Gnostics were incorrect about every single thing they ever said, and that they are just supposed to believe the opposite to be orthodox, and so now you have people being anti-dualists to such an extent that they’re now ironically no longer aligned with the teachings of the New Testament.
I've come to similar conclusions. I grow weary of the way that "gnosticism" is hurled about as a pejorative against "occulting of information," as you call it.
I am reminded of Athanasios of Limassol's approach to giving advice to people at different stages of spiritual maturity (see Kyriacos Markides's books). The "slaves of God" sometimes need the threat of punishment and God's justice, the "employees of God" respond to the idea of spiritual rewards for obedience, and the "lovers of God" need only appeals to knowledge of God ("connaitre" knowledge, not "savoir" knowledge).
I’m curious, Ambrose: Would you own the label of a gnostic, are you rather saying that it’s a wholly unuseful term, or… other?
I would own the label of “mystic,” but not gnostic.
Gnosticism refers to a collection of different writings now known in academia as the Nag Hammadi library, as well as lost material from different heresiarchs (Valentinus, Basilides, Heracleon, etc).
Right, so it’s a technical term descriptive of actual people in actual places who held actual beliefs and had actual practices (though a lot of those actuals are conveyed to us by their actual detractors). So, when modern people hold any beliefs that seem to overlap with those aforementioned, this does not necessarily make those people “gnostic”. The term has gotten overapplied recently, but it’s still useful. Somewhat ironically, I’ve heard a popular academic refer to many in academia as types of gnostics: those who lord secret knowledge over the commoners.
Yeah, “lording secret knowledge over the commoners” is exactly what I’m here calling a fiction. I don’t see the evidence that this is what the actual Gnostics did. So the modern use as a simple jab is itself rooted in historical revisionism.
You’re right about people looking for “any” overlap in belief. And as I’ve mentioned before, this is what makes people wrongly think Gnostics were incorrect about every single thing they ever said, and that they are just supposed to believe the opposite to be orthodox, and so now you have people being anti-dualists to such an extent that they’re now ironically no longer aligned with the teachings of the New Testament.