|
| |
Platonist Traditions
The first usage of the term ‘gnostikoi’, that is, 'those capable of knowing',
was by Plato in the Politicus (258e-267a), in which he compares the gnostike
episteme ('understanding connected with knowledge') which denotes knowledge
based on mathematical understanding or abstraction knowledge (see Kant), to the
praktike episteme ('understanding connected with practice'). Plato describes the
ideal politician as the practitioner par excellence of the former, and his
success is to be considered only in the light of his ability toward this ‘art of
knowing’, irrespective of social rank. Hence any man, be he ruler or otherwise
may thus become, as Plato puts it, ‘royal’. Here, gnostikos makes reference to
an ability to possess certain knowledge, not the condition of possessing
knowledge per se or the knowledge that is itself possessed, nor even, it might
be further noted, to the individual who possesses it.
In ‘The History of the Term Gnostikos’ in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (E.J.
Brill, Leiden, 1981, 798–800) Morton Smith lists users of ‘gnostikos’ in this
manner as being Aristotle, Strato of Lampsacus, ‘a series of Pythagoreans"’,
Philo Judaeus and Plutarch, amongst others. Christoph Markschies notes in
Gnosis: An Introduction (trans. John Bowden, T & T Clark, London, 2001) that the
term was used extensively only within the Platonist tradition, and would not
have had much relevance outside it.
Despite this, Plato's usage of the descriptive phrase 'royal' to denote the
elevated position of the able gnostikoi, and the availability of such a position
to all members of society regardless of rank, would have been greatly appealing
to such early Christians as Clement (Titus Flavius Clementis) of Alexandria, who
happily described gnosis as the central goal of Christian faith. Despite this,
Clement is not however typically considered a Gnostic in the modern sense.
Aristotle, who was a student of Plato and later a teacher at Plato's academy,
described the ideal life of success as being the one which is spent in
theoretical contemplation (bios theoretikos). Thus, as with Clement, gnosis as
such becomes the central goal of life, extending through the mode of morality
into the realms of politics and religion. Philosophy, according to Aristotle, is
a methodically ordered form of attaining this gnosis: 'Philosophy promises
knowledge of being' (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on the Metaphysics of
Aristotle, ca. 200 CE).
The ancient Gnosticism related to the texts found at Nag Hammadi and the various
ancient reports on such Gnostics, therefore, could be described as but one of
many ancient traditions which are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, and
which supply teachings and methodologies that are supposed to aid in such a
pursuit. The groups are often identified by a founder or teacher in the various
ancient reports about Gnostics.
As with both the Platonist and the Aristotelian traditions, the pursuit of
gnosis is the central occupation of life, and involves a measure of dedicated
contemplation to attain. As with Clement, it may be surmised that the
description of the gnostike episteme by Plato was appealing to early Gnostic
formulators. Some early Gnostic movements emphasize the rarity of such
knowledge, for example, some texts and reports associated with the Sethian
gnostic tradition (see below).
Despite the above, the problem remains that the term 'Gnosticism' was rarely if
ever self-applied by any group in antiquity; even if the suitability of the term
might be argued from the discussion above, it remains for the most part a modern
typological construction. As a result, the term may be said to draw attention to
the doctrine of gnosis out of proportion to its actual importance to 'Gnostics'
themselves.[citation needed]
In ancient times, Irenaeus and Plotinus both referred to the various sects as
diverging from the Hellenistic Greek philosophical understanding. Hence Irenaeus
and Plotinus refer to what they saw as distinctive among the various groups of
gnostics.[citation needed]
On the other hand, 'Gnosticism' is still adjectivally applied to systems of
belief which do not afford knowledge the special significance that is logically
implied by the term. Such uses of the term 'Gnosticism' rely on other
similarities, such as structural parallels in various texts and visions. This
tactic could be said to stretch the category's usefulness in meaningful
discussion in a broader context. In certain cases, such broad usage has also
lead to confusion between various ancient and modern usages of the term, even
among scholars
| |
|