Common accounts of Gnosticism see its main characteristic to be a very “dualistic” doctrine, contrasting the “bad” material world with a “good” spiritual world. Christian scholars see this as an obviously pernicious doctrine, contrasted with the Judeo-Christian tradition which sees the material world as a basically good creation of the good Creator God.
I think this interpretation is the result of a still dominant approach to ancient religious writings, extracting from each writings a set of “doctrines” or “beliefs”. In the case of gnosticism, gnostics are supposed to have believed in the above doctrines as matters of faith.
Essays on this website advocate a different approach to understanding ancient religious writings in general, and gnostic writings in particular. The gnostic writing included here in abbreviated form, called The Nature of the Rulers, is a good example to reflect on in this respect. We need to ask ourselves, not about the beliefs reflected in this writing, but about an ancient audience who would have greatly liked this writing. We should ask about their motives for this liking, and about what effect it might have had on their everyday lives.
One reason that this writing is valuable in this context is that this writing is obviously a case of inventing some myths. We often think of myths, like Greek myths, as traditional stories familiar to most people in a given culture, presumably existing and familiar for a good bit of time. But myths are not just “beliefs” appearing from nowhere and believed on the basis of completely unfounded “faith” Every myth had some historical origin, created by some person or group for some purpose. And there must be some reason why a given myth was accepted by the general public in some given culture. It fulfilled some function in their lives which for some reason needed fulfilling. In the case of The Nature of the Rulers we seem to be witnessing the creative origin of a myth that had wide enough appeal to be included in a kind of primitive “library” in 2nd or 3rd century Egypt.
So I think we have not really fully understood this writing until we can make some educated guesses, not about the “doctrines” or “supernatural beliefs” that it teaches, but about the purpose of this writing. It is after all not presented in the form of a catechism teaching doctrines to be believed in, but in the form of a narrative involving obviously made up supernatural beings. Who would be an ideal audience for this narrative, an audience who would like this narrative and would possibly have their life changed by it? What issues of importance to them would it address? What answer does it give to important questions this audience might be interested in? If a person is moved by the narrative in some intended way, why would they be moved, and what changes might be brought about in the way they view their lives if they were moved?
All this might require imagination on our part. Maybe the mythical narratives here do not immediately appeal to you at all. If so, this is a sign that the original authors and audience of this writing were considerably different from you. They existed in a mental “box” different from your box. Your task is then to temporarily try to step outside your box, try to reconstruct their box, then temporarily get inside their box to see the world as they saw it.
Here are some of my suggestions:
The main question addressed here can be put in terms of identity or self-image: Who am I? In particular, what is my relation to the world I live in, that I see around me? How should I see this world and my relation to it?
Mythical imagery serves mainly as a kind of language to talk about issues of vital concern to a particular audience. One way of putting this is in terms of an “evaluative context,” an overall context for self-evaluation. There is the ordinary “worldly” context, consisting of standards of success in a given society: roughly what we call “materialistic” standards, which includes not only wealth but also reputation, status, influence. These generally have great power to influence a person’s own sense of self-worth. Myths and mythical language serve as an alternate evaluative context, fundamentally different and “higher” than this ordinary worldly context.
One set of assumptions is important here, concerning the difference between our mentality today and the mentality of premodern peoples generally. Modern physical sciences have taught us to regard the material world around us–studied by physics–as quite different from the social world made up of human communities. For this we have “Sociology” and “Political Science.” So when The Nature of the Rulers speaks of “Matter” we tend to assume it is talking about the material world, not the social world of human communities. So when this writing pictures “Matter” in a very negative light, we tend to think this expresses a negative view only of what we regard as the material world, and perhaps our own material bodies. But this ascribes to them an interest in physics, what we would call the nature of “matter” or the material world. I think ancient peoples in general conflated what we think of as the material world and the social world. Thus “the Rulers” in his writing are better understood as the forces governing the environment in which people live in general, including both the physical world and the social world.
Seen in this way, The Nature of the Rulers appeals to an audience we would call “alienated.” They don’t feel at home in the world they live in. They are subjected to the great power that this world exerts over their lives, both in the form of physical conditions as well as what we would call “social pressure.” But they don’t think this world deserves the power that it wields over their lives. They don’t think their identity or self-image should be governed by their success/failure judged in “worldly” terms. Worldly power is illegitimate power.
This point is expressed in mythological language by personifying the forces that rule the material/social world as “the Rulers,” and making “the nature of the rulers” the main topic of this writing.
Another feature of mythical language in this writing is the use of “origin” imagery to talk about identity and self image. This comes into play in the final section of this writing when “Norea” asks “But am I from their Matter”? The answer: “You… are from above. From Above, out of the imperishable Light, [your soul] has come.” The message: You should not see yourself as belonging to this world. Your true identity has to do with your superior origin, in a spiritual world different from and superior to the present world. This bears some resemblance to Plato’s “spiritual soul” which he says is “kin” to the heavenly Virtue-Forms.
Leave a Reply