Michael McClymond on Universalism

[alecforbes]

That is really helpful, Dick. I haven’t seen that sort of historical analysis before and it makes total sense, so thanks.

[Sobornost]

Thanks Steve

But again, I rushed through reading and have not looked at other sources. Perhaps elsewhere the heresiologists condemn the universal scope of salvation in the relevant gnostics. Although, this would be odd, since isn’t there a good chance that Irenaeus was a universalist for humans? And, of course, Clement, the other main source we have describing and attacking Carpocrates, was close if not an actual universalist, right?
User avatar

Well Arlenite - good point about Dr McClymond reading Irenaeus (at the very least). However, as you say according to Dr Ramelli Clement was a universalist and Irenaeus was nearly one (but believed in the annihilation of the devil) - and it seems that for the moment Dr Ramelli is the only person to have seriously researched this stuff. Regarding the cope of Dr McClymond’s assertions - we do know that the Valentians were not universalists and that the Apocryphon of John is not a universalist text (I’ve read it) and that the teachings of Basilides although perhaps less stark than the Valentians - assigned a special place for thee elect Gnostics in the eschaton and a far inferior status to the rest. But fair point - he’s not necessarily ben consulting nineteenth century histories.

I actually wonder whether Irenaeus is suggesting that Carpocrates is speaking of universalism in this extract btw. The normal gnostic typology/anthropology is that the pneumatics take the direst path to liberation because they are already spiritual and merely need to realise this, there is another class of beings - the psychics - who have hope of becoming truly spiritual instead of remaining souls trapped in bodies, and there so a final class of human beings who are the hylicals - that is the majority - who don’t actually have souls. Therefore to say that all souls are sacred is not necessarily a universalist statement. And we’d need to know more about Carpocrates to substantiate this.

It’s good to do some ‘bouncing off’

[arlenite]

I actually wonder whether Irenaeus is suggesting that Carpocrates is speaking of universalism in this extract btw. The normal gnostic typology/anthropology is that the pneumatics take the direst path to liberation because they are already spiritual and merely need to realise this, there is another class of beings - the psychics - who have hope of becoming truly spiritual instead of remaining souls trapped in bodies, and there so a final class of human beings who are the hylicals - that is the majority - who don’t actually have souls. Therefore to say that all souls are sacred is not necessarily a universalist statement. And we’d need to know more about Carpocrates to substantiate this.

It’s good to do some ‘bouncing off’

An interesting possibility! That tri-class system would definitely seem to map onto Irenaeus’s description.

[Sobornost]

I think it’s a genuine hypothesis Arlenite - ‘all souls’ very probably means ‘all people who have souls’ (that is the psychics) rather than ‘all people’ (presumably the word Irenaeus is using for’ souls’ is ‘psychikos’ or something like that ). The Gnostics reinterpreted Paul’s doctrine of election to mean not elect peoples but elect individuals. In the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ the good shepherd leaves the ninety nine to find the largest sheep and when he finds this sheep says ‘You mean far more to me than the ninety nine’. In the Valentinian Gospel of Truth it is spelt out clearly that the hylicals (somatics - bodily people) are without hope, the psychics (mental/emotional people) can go either way - and it will be gratifying to the pneumatics to know that they have brought many of these back from error - and the pneumatics (spiritual people) are already saved and simply need to waken to this.

Perhaps the Carpocratians were simply a little more optimistic about the psychics than the Valentinians were. (Irenaeus wrote in exasperation at Valentinus ‘Iu, Iu, PHeu, Pheu’ - which must be Greek for ‘bollocks!’)

According to Epiphanius, (admittedly normally an unreliable source because of his salivating stories about sexual rites, but still interesting in the following respect) Basilides was asked if the hylicals are human and replied ‘We (Gnostics) are men. All the others are pigs and dogs’ (charming ). So the elitism of Gnosticism was always problematic to orthodox Christians (and there seems room to doubt that even the followers of Basilides envisaged the hylicals having a place in the eschaton - even a very lowly place).

If you or Jason would like to follow this up I can send you the references.

P.S.It has just hit me that the Gnostic ‘metalepsis’ (transgressive/distorting exegesis) of Paul is structured around –

1. Reinterpreting Pauls’ doctrine of election which is about Jews and Gentiles to mean God’s election of some individuals (and rejection of many others)

2. Reinterpreting Pau’ls doctrine of each human being consisting of body (soma) soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma) as categories for different types of human beings

3. And reinterpreting ‘soma’ (a positive term in Paul meaning ‘living body’) as a synonym of ‘sarx’ another term used by Paul to denote dead, rotting and corrupted and polluting flesh – used as a metaphor for life in all its three aspects lived in separation from God)

[Sobornost]

One last note –

The somatics/hylicals in Gnosticism – those whose only place is in the cosmic dustbin – are actually the poor or at least they include the poor. They are the people who spend their lives, working, eating sleeping defecating, having children etc… and in the classical world these people would include most slaves and all peasants. (I would be a mistake of historical imagination to equate the hylicals with modern day slaves to consumerism I think). It is important to grasp this aspect of Gnostic elitism.

Contrary to this spirit Origen told the pagan Celsus – you cook for refined palettes, we (Christians) cook for the masses. I’ll grant that Celsus was a Neoplatonist, and that Plotinus the main man of the New Platonism accused the Gnostics of thinking very highly of themselves and very poorly of the creation. However Celsus and the Gnostics shared a high handed elitism – and we can see that in his memorable rejoinder to Celsus that Origen completely and utterly disapproved of this.

I don’t think I’ve come up with any startling insight here regarding the salvation of all ‘souls’ in Gnosticism. I’m sure a real scholar of the Gnostic texts has looked at this issue before (and it’s a matter that I can’t follow up since I don’t have the scholarly knowledge of the texts/languages and am reliant on good secondary sources and translations here - Robinson and Quispel). However, I know a couple of people here have some correspondence with Dr Ramelli and it would be good if someone could run the hypothesis past her for an opinion (no need to mention me) because this would help us (and it’s probably something that she would know the answer to without any problems). I think it’s a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved rather than just an idea (in other words it is actually coherent enough and evidence based enough to be tested by someone who knows the field well).

[Sobornost]

Sources for previous 2 posts

See James Robinson Nag Hammadi Library from p. 128 onwards for Gospel Thomas (I give some relevant examples now) -

Logia 49; Jesus said: ‘Blessed are the solitary and the elect for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return’.

Logia 56 Jesus said ‘Whoever has come to understand the world has found (only) a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world’

Logia 107 Jesus said, ‘’The Kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for that one until he found it. When he had gone to such trouble he said to the sheep, ‘I care for you more than the ninety nine’ ‘’.

See Robinson pages 42- 43 for the Gnostic typology of the three classes of human beings and their eschatological fates in the ‘Gospel of Truth’.

The quotation from Epiphanius regarding Basilides is from ‘Panarion’ 24:5, and is cited in Giles Quispel, Gnostic Studies 1, p.119

[Sobornost]

And a very important note from Gilles Quispel (one of the most authoritative scholars of Gnosticism):-

It is most significant that Valentinus and Basilides, who wished to be Christians, who were well acquainted with the Bible and in particular with the Gospel of John, never said that God is Love’

Quispel, Gnostic Studies 1, p.133

For a brief wiki article on Quispel’s academic credentials see here -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Quispel

[Sobornost]

An interesting exception to the stark eschatological dualism of Gnosticism – it seems – may have been the Docetae who seem to have combined the Valentinian system with Manichaeism. According to the Philosophumena (viii. 8-11) once attributed to Origen but now thought more likely to be by Hippolytus, they taught that the distinctions between the classes of humanity made in the classic systems of Gnosis were too hard and fast and that that no Christian (at least) will be excluded from redemption and knowledge of the redeemer (although there will be a hierarchy/gradation in this participation (some will have the fullness of redemption, others will have a moderate measure, others still will only have a very small amount). See the following article for the two paragraphs that I give in quotation next -

earlychristianwritings.com/i … -wace.html

Finally, we have a quite peculiar transformation of the Valentinian system in the doctrine of the so-called Docetae, as preserved in the Philosophumena (viii. 8-11). From the xxxxxxxx, who is small as the seed of a fig-tree but infinite in power, proceed first of all three Aeons, which by the perfect number ten enlarge themselves to thirty Aeons; from these proceed innumerable other bisexual Aeons, and from these an infinite multiplicity of Ideas, of which those of the third Aeon are expressed and shapen in the lower world of darkness as xxxxxx.

The Platonic foundation of the Valentinian system is very perceptible in this its last offshoot, though mixed up in a peculiar way with Oriental Dualism. At the same time these Docetae endeavour to reduce the metaphysical distinctions which they maintain to merely gradual ones. No part of Christendom therefore is entirely excluded from the knowledge of the Redeemer, and participation in His Redemption: all, even those of the lower grades of the spirit-world, participate at least xxxxxx in the Truth. The way in which all, and each according to his measure, attain knowledge of the truth, is, as in the doctrine of the church, Faith. Since the Redeemer’s advent–so we read expressly–“Faith is announced for the forgiveness of sins.”

(the xxxxx text is my addition – these stand for Greek words reproduced in the original that I do not know how to translate and which do not transliterate to EU).

I draw attention to this fragment about the Docetae to underline that in testing out the hypothesis bits of evidence - like the above - may come up which seem to go against it. But this evidence is of one element in Gnosticism and actually it doesn’t go against the hypothesis; it merely suggests (if Epiphanius is right) that in one later sect of Gnosticism the elitist eschatology characteristic of the classic schools was attenuated but not abolished.

[Sobornost]

Here is what the Valentinian Gospel of Truth has to say -

Of the pneumatics

Those whose name he knew in advance were called at the end, so that one who has knowledge is the one whose name the Father has uttered. For he whose name has not been spoken is ignorant.

Of the hyllicals/somatics

Indeed, how is one to hear, if his name has not been called? For he who is ignorant until the end is a creature of oblivion, and he will vanish along with it. If not, how is it that these miserable ones have no name, (that) they do not have the call?

Of the psychics and their evangelisation by the true pneumatic

He has brought many back from error. He has gone before them to their places, from which they had moved away, since it was on account of the depth that they received error, the depth of the one who encircles all spaces, while there is none that encircles him. It was a great wonder that they were in the Father, not knowing him, and (that) they were able to come forth by themselves, since they were unable to comprehend or to know the one in whom they were. For if his will had not thus emerged from him - for he revealed it in view of a knowledge in which all its emanations concur.

See

earlychristianwritings.com/t … ridge.html

Here is what Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae have to say about the dating of the Gospel of Truth (The Nag Hammadi Library in English, p. 38):
A Valentinian work entitled the “Gospel of Truth” is attested in the Adversus Haereses (3.11.9) of Irenaeus. Unfortunately the heresiologist reveals little about the content of the work, except that it differed significantly from the canonical gospels. Given the general Valentinian affinities of the text of Codex I, it is quite possible that it is identical with the work known to Irenaeus.

[Sobornost]

Has anyone got any views on this?

[Sobornost]

I’ll take that as a ‘No’ then

[anon12438761]

Hey wait a gol-durn minute here - I don’t have anything to add.

[corpselight]

You’re a tough act to follow, Dick

[Sobornost]

In other words this is just so obscure that I’m not getting any offers of discussion . Och well - I would think that was the case with Dr McClymond’s audience too - they were lapping it up because he was he expert talking ‘de haute en bas’.

Mind you I’d still like someone to run the thought about ‘all souls’ in Carpocrates meaning ‘all psychics’ past Dr Ramelli sometime. She is, after all writing about non-Christian views of apocatastasis in the classical world at the moment so she will almost certainly have a highly informed answer. She does have correspondents from EU and I don’t want bother her with another unfamiliar one - so offers are appreciated by PM.

[corpselight]

I just don’t think i have the knowledge to take this farther…i have been learning with each post.

[anon12438761]

Same here - this is an area of new learning for me - very interesting, I for one really like ‘obscure’ subjects being brought into the light where their obscurity goes away.

[Sobornost]

space saving

[corpselight]

That seems fair. Those have a huge number of problems, so it’d be good to ensure we include any premises that aren’t as problematic, but honestly i don’t remember any others. To me the whole thing sounded as if it was based on very dodgy premises that have nothing to do with the universalism i have seen promoted on this site, as a large example. It doesn’t bear any resemblance to Tentmaker either from memory.

[Sobornost]

Hi James - I’ve polished these one up and added one last point about first century Judaism that is made. I think the points about universalism and the early church are the very worst part of his argument. Most of them are just plain wrong through and through. Only a couple have a grain of truth, but this is covered with other half truths and untruths. On a good day when I feel cheery about all of this I would say ‘untruths’ rather than ‘falsehoods’; they are different things.

I’m not saying his argument against early modern and modern universalism are nay better - but at least here the arguments become less clear cut in some instances (although the trajectory of his argument is IMHO plain wrong again). But I’m jumping the gun

[Melchizedek]

Dick; Regarding # 4: I often hold to a “lager” hope, although I generally prefer a good dark beer…