Keynes: Influencias de Henry Sidgwick, Alfred Marshall y George Moore

oaimot pz'operly be called Gnostic have striking lea- tweo in ooi-mon with Gnoetlolsm# Adjeotlvea ouch as "Gnoetiolelng" or "pre-Gnostio" liave bean apx^lleci to suoh teaohinge,'^ but it may be questioned whether they are really helpful* To deeorlbe an earlier idea by referring to what later developed from it oreatee a falee ii^ipreeeion; no one would refer to Auguetlne'e teaohingo ae "pre-Oalvinlet»" An adjeotivo such ae "Gnootioialng" may imply a relatlonehip that does not nooeaearily exist* When a non-Gnostic syetem has sig­ nificant traite In oonmon with Gnostioiom, it is better to state that fact and to indicate the probable rela­ tionship than to apply an adjective that le at least ambiguous and may be misleading*

The New Testament apocrypha contain a number of Ideas also found within Gnostic systems. Many of the almilaritios probably result from a oommon oultural

( Etoioh,^195U. Oodes and its

Slgnlfloanee," P. L. Oross, ed.» The Jun% Oodex (London, 1955)# P» 63; Goppelt# cit.. p.^251 n.l; Bolioeps# op. pit.. p. 45; Wilson# elt. $ p. 255 n. 327# ^ paasimi Cornells# og# cit., p/To.

27 background# but nomo may Indicate a closer relationship. Before dependence of an apocryphal wi'itei' upon Gnos-

tioism la assumed# however, the question of chronology must be examined in order to determine whether or not

the Gnostic use of an idea preceded its use in an

apocryphal book. This question la often insoluble, for many apocrypha are of uncertain date, and there is wide disagreement ac to when Gnosticism arose. Some of that disagreement results from imprecision in the use of the term Gnoetiolem, but disagreement about dating ie pos­ sible even with an agreed definition*

Irenaeus and Hippolytus gave no indication of the existence of any Gnostic system before the rise of Christianity. Gnostic systems could have existed

earlier than that, but there is no conclusive evidence I

that they did. ' Supposed demonstrations of the exist­ ence of pre-Ghristian Gnosticism have depended upon a non-rigorous use of the term Gnosticism, upon documents from the Ohristian era supposed to contain earlier

Cf, Sagnard, o», SM* » PP* 612f.; Qulspel, Again,” ¥0 11 (195?), 93ff.

28 tradition# or upon an ability to read more into the

I

evidence than ie demonsbrably present." If a pre-

Christian Gnostic system did exist# it is Impossible to determine what form it took until direct evidence la available.

At the same time, Gnostic systems demonstrably prooeded the composition of many apocryphal books and could have influenced their writers. Gnostics often

Those writing from the reli|<!|ipnsp:eschiohtliohe point of view generally used tlie term'lln %17ide'^8%is™ and sometimes tended to give uiu-mrrantcd prominence to Hermetic and Mandaean literature; of. W. Ans#

naoh dem Ursprimg jd^ Gnostisismua (Leipzig# 1897);

Bousaet, o_g. cA . ; iTo^nas# "Gnosis" mid s^patantiker 0-eist ;

Bultmana, 'Primitive, F bibliog-

raphy in o'erfauxT^arTi^^pi]^# %ls. 665-70; Bagnard# on.

oit., pp. 27-29. ™

M# Priedlandei*# Per vorohristlicho jüdische Gnosticismus (GôttingenT%9^7 strie t"^ln his underatemding of Gnosticism, and he depended more upon Philo than upon later literature; but he tended to find evidence to support his theories in passages that could easily be given other l-uterpretatious. Of. also A. Adam, M e faalmen dgj

[aonohen, "Gab es eine (1952), 316-49.

For a auMary of various points of view con- earning the origin of Gnosticiem, of. Gei-f&iux# art. cit., cols. 660-70, to which should be added referenocB to Quispel ; tooBia ale M ql tproligion ; idem > " Ore prang e der Gnosis#" 8tudium"'Gene^leT 11*T195BT7 759-62;

Wilson, "Gnostic Ôrïgii^" VO 9 (1955), 193-211; idem, "Gnostic Origine Again," VO 11 (1957), 93-110; idem% The Gnostio Prf^b]^; Grant, pit.

29 used and developed older traditions; auoh traditions should not bo called Gnoetlo until they beoome %mrt of a Gnoetie eyetem, But if an idea is demonstrably part of a Gnoatic ayatem that exieted before the oompoaition of an apocryphal book oontalnlng the Idea, it la quite poealble that the apocryphon reflects Gnostic influence.

The question of the ultimate origin of Gnoetlciam la not of primary importanoe for the study of the New Testament apoorypha# The apocryphal books all origi­ nated within the church, co traces of Gnoetloiem that could have influenced them muat be sought there too. The Gnoetioiem oiapoeed by the early fathers woz^ked within Ohristianity and it must have been there some

time before it was reoognieed as a threat to accepted Ghrletian teaching# In fact# while the definition of Gnoetioiem does not praolude the existenoe of a wholly non-Ohrietlan Gnostic system, nothing is known of any such system wholly uninfluenced by Ohrletlanlty.^ Borne

1The Hermetic writings preeent a wholly non-

Christian system closely related to Gnootlclem# but they are not trifly Gnostic wbz-ke. For the Rermetioa see A. D. Nook and A.-J. Peetuglëre, Corpus (Paris,

1945)' On the relation between Gnostioiam and the ilermetioa of. G. van Moorael, The Mysteriee of Hermes

30 minor shreds of evidence may point to the existence of a wholly non-Ghrietian Gnosticism, and the writings from Hag Hammadi may, when published, provide stronger

evidence. But at present one can only guess what kind of Gnosticism may have existed before the appearance of Christian OnoBticB•

Since the only known Gnostics were Christian Gnostics, some ideas found in known Gnostic systems may have developed within Christian circles before the rise of Christian Gnosticism; Gnostics may later have

incorporated thorn into their Gnostic systems. If so# the apocrypha may reflect some of these ideas in their formative stages, before tholr final incorporation into Gnosticism# This possibility makes precarious any

assumption that because an apocryphal work oontaine ideas found in Gnostic systems it presupposes an entiz'o Gnostic mythology.

^Llpsius did this in die cussing the prayer of ATho 27 and elsewhere; cf. Lipaiue, Die

ApcmtelgesqMj^t^ und I, 311-17. A

number of writers have apparently assumed that the entire Valentinian system lies behind Evfr; of. L. Ocrfaux, "Do saint Paul à *1/évangile de la vérité,'" HTB 5 (1956-59), 11If. (he is cautious on this point); K, A* Kariiuo, review of IL M* Wilson, g w Gnostic

31 The question of a possible relationship between Judaism and Gnosticism is especially relevant in a study attempting to distinguish Jewish-Ohristian and Gnostic influences. A number of writers have recently

emphasized the possibility of a Jewish origin of Gnos- 1

ticism and others have noticed striking similarities

p

between Jewish and Gnostic thought*

Religion* p* 190# ^ passim; and note especially Jonas' review of M* Malinine, H.-Oh* Pueoh, and G. Quispel, eds*# Evangelium Veritatis* Gnomon* 32 (I960), 327-35* Much of what is wrltteh about the logla in EvTho assumes a Gnostic background for each of the sayings; of. R. M. Grant and D* ÏÏ* Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus

(London, I960); E* M* Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London, I960); B* Gartner, The Theology of the Goa?)el of Thomas (London, 1961 )*

1_{Friedlànder, cit.; B* Peterson, "Urohris-} tentwfi und Mandaismus," 27 (1928), 84; A- D. Nock, review of H* Jonas, Gnosis und epatantiker Geist*

Gnombn* 12 (1936), 606ff.; G. Qulspel, "Bar gnoBtische AnthropoB und die jüdisohe Tradition," Branos Jahrbuoh*

22 (1953), 195-234; idem, "Christliohe Gnosis und judisohe Heterodoxie," Bvan^eliache Théologie, 14

(1954), 474-84; idem, "Meue funds sur valentinianischon Gnosis," 2EGG 6 (1954), 302ff*; idem. "The Jung Oodex and its Significanee," f . L* Gross, ed*, The Juna

Codex, B* 78; Wilson, "Gnostic Origins," VO 9 (Ï955), 2Q9ff* ; idem, "Gnostic Origins Again," VC 11 (1957), 110; idem# The Gnostic Problem; R* M* Grant, "Gnostic Origins and the Basilidiane of Irenaeue," VO 13 (1959), 121-25; idem. Gnosticism and'Early■Christianity*

^Of* Bousset, cit., pp. 324ff. (of. pp. 194- 201); Goppelt, op. ' Pit, p p . 135f. ; Oornélis, op. git*, p, 8; Doresse, op* oit.* pp.

32 Although M* Friedlânder's Der vorohristliche

JudiBche GnoBticismuB (Gottingen, 1898) had some grave 1

defects and was often unconvincing, it should have had a greater impact than it did. Friedlander was somewhat uncritical in his use of sources and often attempted to demonstrate the existence of Gnosticism with citations

p

that were not Gnostic at all*" But he did notice a number of important points that had been neglected in discussions of Gnosticism. Ho noted the existence

within the Diaspora of Jews who had completely given up literal observance of the law and who allegorized the whole of it to make it fit their own ideas. Ha pointed out that the Ophites and Cainites depended largely upon Jewish ideas and had almost no trace of Christian

teaching. He showed that ideas within the Talmud and midrashim, as well as in Philo, often closely paralleled Gnostic teachings. And he demonstrated that the

references to the minim in rabbinic literature did not always apply to Jewish Christians. These points should

1_{Of. E. Sohurer, review of Frledlander, op. oit.#}

ÏL2 24 (1899), 167-70. P

He was not unaware of this tendency, however. See the preface in Priedl&nder, op. cit., p. viii.

33 havo been followed up»

But It wao not until aftor the discovery of the Dead 8e& Scrolls that scholars began aerlouely to

investigate the possibility of pre-Obi"ietian Jewieh Gnoetlciem#^ Since then G* Quispel, baaing hie con-

cluBione largely*" upon evidence from the Gnostic library found at Nag Hammadi# has postulated heterodox Judaism

2 as the basis from which Gnosticism developed* R» Wilson indicated a number of parallels between Gnostic thought and that of Eeilenlstio Judaism# but he

^This is not to say that Friedlhnder's work went entirely unheeded; of# K# Kohler, The Origine of /

Bynagognq and the Ohurch (New York, l9! _ . ,

Bv^en befoM FrTe&hnder Harnack had ooKmented, "Daas es einen jüdisohen Gnosticismus gegeben hat# bevor es einen ohrlstllohen und judenohristliohen, 1st unaweifelheft" ; A# Harnack and B. Preusohen, Gesohlohto der 0^^tohri8;t-

M s M a i W s l T i #

For disoussiona about supposed Gnosticism in the Dead 8ea Borolls of# K. G* Kuhn, "Die Sektensohrift und die iranisohe Religion," 2TK 49 (1952), 313-16; Bo

Reicke, "Traces of Gnosticism in the Dead 8ea Scrolls?" m a 1 (1954-55), 137-41; M% Burrows, gie D ^ 8ea

Boroll^.. PP# 252-59; F# NOtsoher, ^

A m (Bonn, 1956), pp# 38-79; R, Marcus, "The Qimran Scrolls and Early Judaism,"

Biblioal Research# 1 (Amsterdam, 1957), 31-40; Wilson, "Gnostic Origins Again," VO 11 (1957), 8Sff#; M#

Mansoor, "Studies in the New Eodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns)," Biblical ReGearoh, 5~l0hiôâgo, I960), 12-21#

pOf* the refs# cited above, p* 31 n* 1# ^Wilsoa, »»P3lilo Zrgklffi*

34 took little notioe of the Jews who had abandoned all literal obeervanoe of the law# R# M, Grant obeerved that 8ome patrietlo teatlmonlee imply a Jowieh origin of Gnoatioism, as Friedlander had noted aome sixty years

1

before.' Grant felt that the deetruotion of the temple and the failure of Jewish apooalyptio expeetatione

oaused a disillusionment from which Gnosticism devel­ oped, and he drew a number of parallels between apoo- alyptio and Gnostic thought#' But he overlooked the fact that long before A. D# 70 some Jews had begun a radical reinterpretation of Judaism"^ and that the devel­ opment of apocalyptic thought itself resulted from a

4 virtual rejection of hietory#

The evidence for a striotly Jewish form of

Gnostioiem has apparently inoreaeed with the dieoovery 1_{Grant, Gnoeticiem and Early Ohrletianity# p. 14;} Friedlander, o^# dit,# p. 12# ^

2_{Other8 have also noted such parallels# Of. B.} Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom im ^eitalter Jeau Ghrlati# p# 47) k. Bdhubert, The DeadT Sea OoimSunlty Tlondon^ 1959), PP# 71ff.

% e e Prledlàndei', og:» pit# $ pp. 4ff. ; Philo, De

Ab# 16. ^ ^

^Of. M. Bouss«t, Die Religion dea £MgSteffi§ H Bpathellenisti^ehen Zeltalter, ed. H. Gressraann

35