Talk:Gnosticism

Identification of Demiurge with YHWH - Georges Bataille a potentially dubious source?

The following is currently the second sentence of the article:

• Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament) who is responsible for creating the material universe.

This sentence states that the Demiurge-figure described in many texts deemed Gnostic is sometimes associated with the God of the Hebrew Bible. The claim that the authors of Gnostic texts were making such an association isn't particularly controversial - they indeed often are linked, and several Nag Hammadi texts are pretty explicit about making such a link.

However, I note that the source cited here is a philosophical essay by Georges Bataille, a philosopher (and a rather unusual one at that) with no specific scholarly expertise in Gnostic texts. Bataille himself in the source cited doesn't cite this claim. The source in general is - in all fairness to Bataille - not supposed to be a scholarly text on the subject of Gnosticism so much as it is a philosophical reflection which "bounces off of" certain notions the author has about Gnosticism as its starting point. Such an essay is a perfectly appropriate citation in a section on responses to or philosophical interpretations of Gnosticism - it is not however a reliable source for making general claims about Gnosticism. It was not a strong source of factual information on the topic at its time of writing in 1930; it certainly isn't now. The fact that Bataille alone might associate the Demiurge with Yahweh is insufficient to warrant the mention of a such an association in the opening statements of the article.

I don't take much issue with the actual statement or its phrasing here - but to my mind it requires a citation from a better quality and more contemporary source.

--Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

- see The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, pp. 33-35. She cites "Hypostasis of the Archons," "On the Origin of the World," and the "Secret Book of John." While these texts do not mention Yahwey by name, they characterize him as "I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me," clearly a reference to the God of the Old Testament. - Epinoia (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I was aware that the references to said figure were there in the primary texts; it was just the quality of the citation used I was taking issue with. The Pagels citation you provide works, and of course she's a much more authoritative source. I've swapped out the citation just now. Thanks for the help. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Sophia in Jewish Gnosticism?

Regarding the line "Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 A.D." under the subheading "Sophia", I'm having a very difficult time finding a source to verify this information-- I'm considering removing it until such a time as a suitable citation can be found. Though there is a potential string of connections through The Wisdom of Soloman, it was likely written around 50 B.C., so the timing doesn't quite fit. Am I missing anything obvious? I will admit this is not my area of expertise. TempusAstra042 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise either. I myself wouldn't go fussing around with little details like that about which I don't know much to begin with. Why not leave it for someone with knowledge, or at leat enough interest to research the detail? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The following sentence was just added to that same section by Ctschroeder: "She is occasionally referred to by the Hebrew equivalent of Achamoth." As far as I know this must be some confusion by someone who does not know Hebrew. The word as written above and in the article is not a known/existing Hebrew word, as far as I know. warshy ^(¥¥) 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sex and Gender in Early Christianities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Todd Andrea (article contribs). Peer reviewers: StrawwberryShortcake, Lancelotsdaughter.

— Assignment last updated by Ctschroeder (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Gnostic Christianity

In a supposedly FACTUAL page about Gnostic Christianity, why has it not been mentioned (in ANY way) that Gnostic Christianity was the ORIGINAL Christianity? Nor is it mentioned that the reason most Gnostic information was destroyed (and Gnostic people killed) was because the Literalists didn't want people to know the truth: that THEY were lying! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo666Daemon666 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

@Shane O'Sullivan the 1, please self-revert and workshop your changes here instead. Like I said several times, it is not acceptable for the live article, as it is poorly written and contains numerous style errors. You are required to gain consensus for contested additions regardless of whether they are verifiable. Remsense ‥ 论 15:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well what is wrong with my current edit that I did what can be done to keep the source that I added since it's academic one. how can we improve the page together Just asking as newbie, since you have concerns with it thank you.Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Self-revert first, and then post your version here. I'm tired of repeating myself. Remsense ‥ 论 16:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I did this is what I want to put. The Gnostic emphasis on an inherent difference between flesh and spirit represented a significant departure from proto-orthodox teachings of Christianity[3] Gnosticism was a mix of Jewish and early Christian religious ideas.[4][5] Some scholars say some gnostic information contains information about the historical Jesus.[6] what do you think?Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sorry for losing my temper a bit. I'll take a copyediting sweep on this and update the article ASAP. Remsense ‥ 论 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I accept your apology it's all good thanks for hearing me out page is all yours now, thanks for keeping my source when you edit it.Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Gnostics committed sexual assault"

This needs to be supported by reliable sources and without any synthesis between statements. For instance, saying that Carpocratians sexually assaulted women would be WP:SYNTH when the source simply says that Carpocrates thought wives should be held in common. We have no ability, with the source presented, to gauge what Carpocratian women thought about that state of affairs. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact this source pointedly distinguishes Carpocratianism from Gnosticism, saying While some modern scholars have written briefly on Carpocrates or the Carpocratians (about two dozen scholars since George Salmon’s 1877 entry on Carpocrates in the Dictionary of Christian Biography), almost all have allowed the ancient heresiological categories found in Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria to go unchallenged. Other so-called “heresies,” like Marcionism and Gnosticism, have benefited from studies that do not take the heresiologists at face value. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)