My interpretation of gnostic writings is grounded in my historical studies. I'm a historian and an anthropologist. As it happens, it's my job.
Indeed I read and studied the ecclesiastical writers who wrote against gnosticism or simply quoted gnostic writers. Just as I read and studied the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. I also read litt…
My interpretation of gnostic writings is grounded in my historical studies. I'm a historian and an anthropologist. As it happens, it's my job.
Indeed I read and studied the ecclesiastical writers who wrote against gnosticism or simply quoted gnostic writers. Just as I read and studied the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. I also read little known gnostic writings such as the Acts of John for instance. Furthermore I've studied Greek philosophy, especially that of Plato and his disciples (the Neo-Platonists). I also spent a lot of time reading secondary literature on the subject.
It was also important for me to study ancient Christian history and most of the early Christian writers...
To understand ancient authors it is of the utmost importance to place them back in their historical context. By whom were they influenced? To whom did they write? These are the questions I'm struggling with. It is also crucial to read them without any kind of prejudice. Whether negative or positive.
The danger is always to project our own modern ideas on these authors. If we do this, we will only find what suits us...
As for me, I do not have any dogmatic belief regarding the writings considered today as belonging to gnosticism. Bit by bit I came to the conclusions that I hold now.
All the best
PS The Roman pope had nothing to do with the decline of gnosticism which started at the end of the third century when the bishop of Rome was not a yet considered as a "pope"... Besides, the Roman Church as such couldn't do much about Gnosticism since the latter was much more popular in the East. Out of reach thus.
Dear Cyd,
My interpretation of gnostic writings is grounded in my historical studies. I'm a historian and an anthropologist. As it happens, it's my job.
Indeed I read and studied the ecclesiastical writers who wrote against gnosticism or simply quoted gnostic writers. Just as I read and studied the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. I also read little known gnostic writings such as the Acts of John for instance. Furthermore I've studied Greek philosophy, especially that of Plato and his disciples (the Neo-Platonists). I also spent a lot of time reading secondary literature on the subject.
It was also important for me to study ancient Christian history and most of the early Christian writers...
To understand ancient authors it is of the utmost importance to place them back in their historical context. By whom were they influenced? To whom did they write? These are the questions I'm struggling with. It is also crucial to read them without any kind of prejudice. Whether negative or positive.
The danger is always to project our own modern ideas on these authors. If we do this, we will only find what suits us...
As for me, I do not have any dogmatic belief regarding the writings considered today as belonging to gnosticism. Bit by bit I came to the conclusions that I hold now.
All the best
PS The Roman pope had nothing to do with the decline of gnosticism which started at the end of the third century when the bishop of Rome was not a yet considered as a "pope"... Besides, the Roman Church as such couldn't do much about Gnosticism since the latter was much more popular in the East. Out of reach thus.