Friedlander Revisited: Alexandrian Judaism and Gnostic Origins

Friedlander Revisited: Alexandrian Judaism and Gnostic Origins
Pearson, Birger 1990 Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity
Fortress Press, Minneapolis ISBN 0-8006-3104-8

Friedlander Revisited: Alexandrian Judaism and Gnostic Origins

entire article available at: http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/gnos/jgnos.htm

In many fields of human endeavor it sometimes happens that a person sets forth seemingly outlandish theories; the work is dismissed lightly, or perhaps ponderously refuted, and then lies unnoticed by the next generation. At last, however, someone takes notice of what had been proposed many years before, and the earlier work tums out to be exceedingly useful when looked at with new evidence and by a different generation. For example, Alfred Wegener, in a book entitled The Origin of Continents and Oceans, published in 1915, put forward the thesis that South America once lay alongside Africa, but that in a process of many aeons the two continents drifted far away from each other, having been split apart by forces generated beneath the earth's crust. He went on to observe that all of the earth's continents have shifted and broken apart over vast spaces of fime, and are still in the process of drifting. Wegener was laughed out of court by the geologists of his day, and died in 1930 surrounded by incredulity and derision. Now, as we all know, the theory of continental drift has become almost an orthodoxy.' The field of the history of religions also has its Wegeners, and scholars whose interests lie in the complex history of the religions of the Hellenistic-Roman world are well advised to look into the work of bygone eras of scholarship for 'new' light on current areas of interest. Much is currently being written on the question of the origins of Gnosticism and the relationship of Gnosticism to Judaism. It seems to me useful, for the purpose of further discussion, to exhume from the dust of many decades some interesting and provocative ideas set forth by Moritz Friedlander, whose theses did not meet with the approval of his contemporaries, but which may very well be taken more seriously now. In a book entitled Der vorchristliche jiidische Gnosticismus, Friedldnder put forth the thesis that Gnosticism is a pre-Christian phenomenon which originated in antinomian circles in the Jewish community of Alexandria. This Gnosticism, against which Philo polemicizes, came early to Palestine; and the rabbinic polemics against the Minim are directed specifically at such Gnostics. Christian Gnosticism is simply a secondary version of the older Gnosticism' which attached itself to the emergent Christian sect and appropriated for itself the figure of Jesus Christ.



FRIEDLANDER'S ARGUMENTS

Friedlander's thesis is worth considering in some detail. In this article I first want to set forth his main arguments, concentrating especially on what he derives from his reading of Philo. Then I shall comment briefly on the issues he raised from the vantage point of modern scholarship and on the basis of materials unknown to Friedlander and his generation that we now have at our disposal.

It should be mentioned that Friedlander did not write in a vacuum; others had for many years and even decades written on Gnosticism, and specifically on the relationship of Gnosticism to Judaism. Two of the most important of these are H. Graetz and M. Joel. But Friedladnder was the first, to my knowledge, to suggest that Gnosticism originated in Judaism.

Friedlander begins his discussion by referring to the cultural and religious situation in the Jewish Diaspora prior to the time of Jesus. It was a situation in which the 'new wine' of Hellenistic culture and philosophy was being put into the 'old wineskins' of Jewish religion. The allegorical method of scripture interpretation was one of the manifestations of this trend. The Mosaic law was being interpreted allegorically by Jews who had imbibed of Greek philosophy, and the Law was taken to be a 'revelation' of 'divine philosophy.' Indeed, since Moses was more ancient than the Greek philosophers, it was natural to suggest that the latter had learned from the former. Philo is a good example of this trend, but he had forerunners, such as Aristobulus, Pseudo-Aristeas, and Pseudo-Solomon.

The allegorical interpretation of the Law must have led to divisions in Diaspora Judaism between 'conservative' Jews who observed the letter of the Law and 'philosophizers' who regarded the letter of the Law as peripheral. Such a division is not merely a hypothetical reconstruction, but is well documented in historical sources. Eusebius specifically speaks of two parties in Diaspora Judaism whose differences are precisely delineated along the lines here suggested . Philo himself provides clear evidence of such divisions. A key text in Friedlander's argument is On the Migration of Abraham 86-93, which Friedlander quotes in full. In this text, wherein Philo polemicizes against allegorists who neglect the letter of the Law and derive from it only spiritual truths, we have reflected a full-blown schism in the Diaspora. An 'antinomian' party of Jews is referred to here. They differ from the Therapeutae, the Palestinian Essenes, and Philo himself not so much in their use of allegory, but precisely in their antinon-dan tendencies.

A number of Jewish sects are known to us from antiquity whose views were suspect in the eyes of law-abiding Jews, Friedlander continues. Among these are the 'Sibyllists' known to Origen, probably identical to the 'pious ones' referred to in the Sibylline Oracles, book 4. Justin Martyr refers to some pre-Christian sects among the Jews , at least one of which, the 'Hellenians,' is surely a reference to a Diaspora group. Hegesippus derives all Christian heresies from pre-Christian Jewish heresies. According to him the Gnostic heresy reared its ugly head in the church soon after the death of the apostles. The implication of Hegesippus's statement is that 'false' gnosis was already extant in apostolic times, but the powerful influence of the apostles kept it from blosson-dng in the church. The origin of this 'false gnosis,' if we consider the testimony of Hegesippus, is found in pre-Christian Judaism. The view of some later fathers that heresy is necessarily later than orthodoxy is obviously tendentious (9-17).

Friedlander goes on to set forth the daring hypothesis that such 'Christian' heresies as those of the Ophites, the Cainites, and the Sethians, as well as the Melchizedekians, are the progeny of the radical antinomians against whom Philo had polemicized. According to the oldest patristic accounts, the Ophites-who according to some accounts are closely associated with the Sethians -were antinomian and venerated the serpent as the revealer of gnosis and as an incamation of the divine Wisdom. Reflected in these ideas is the Alexandrian-Jewish doctrine of the divine dynamis. Philo and other Alexandrian Jews regarded Sophia as a divine dynamis. The Ophites simply took up this doctrine and interpreted it in a heretical fashion.

The Cainites venerated Cain as the divine power, rejected all moral conventions, and rejected the Law along with its God. And what, asks Friedlander, is 'Christian' about that? The Alexandrian school provides the most plausible link for the origin of this heresy. Indeed, the Cainite sect was already well known to Philo. Friedlander quotes in this connection On the Posterity and Exile of Cain. In this text 'Cain' is a symbol of heresy, and the specifics of the heresy represented by him are such that one can only conclude that Philo is arguing against a philosophizing sect characterized not only by construcfing myths contrary to the truth, but by gross antinomianism. Philo speaks against these heretics precisely as Irenaeus speaks against the Gnostics. There can be no doubt that the heretics combated by Philo are the forerunners of the Christian Gnostics later combated by the church fathers.

The Sethians shared in the errors of the Ophites and Cainites, teaching that the world was created by angels and not by the highest God. The dynamis from on high came down into Seth after Abel's death, according to the Sethians, and many held Seth to be the Messiah.

Ophites, Cainites, and Sethians all derive from the Jewish Diaspore. Their members were recruited from the Jewish radicals known to us from Philo, and from philosophically oriented proselytes who had attached themselves to the synagogues. Indeed, Filastrius numbers the Ophites, Cainites, and Sethians among the sects that flourished in Judaism 'before the advent of Jesus." It is obvious that these sects could not have originated from within Christianity, from the very fact that their chief doctrines are derived from the Old Testament rather than from the New. The divine power was seen by them to reside in the Old Testament figures of the serpent, Cain, and other such biblical personages as were not fied to the Law. These Old Testament figures were adhered to even after the Gnosfics came into contact with Christianity. Their origin, in short, is traceable to the situafion in Alexandrian Judaism wherein allegorical exposifion of the Law flourished, and wherein antinomianism also developed. Friedldnder tums next to the Melchizedekians. This group held Melchizedek to be a 'great Power', a being higher than the Messiah, a 'Son of God' who occupied a place among the heavenly angels. Such a belief cannot have originated in Chrisfianity. The figure of Melchizedek, of course, is derived from the Old Testament, and becomes for antinomian Alexandrian Jews a powerful symbol of Law-free religion. When the Melchizedekians came into contact with Christianity, Jesus was incorporated into their system, but his position was below that of Melchizedek. As Jesus is an advocate for humans, so also is Melchizedek an advocate for the angels.

The Alexandrian origin of Melchizedekianism is also demonstrated with reference to Philo himself, for whom Melchizedek is not only a heavenly being but identified with the Logos. Philo nevertheless stresses in his version of the Melchizedek mystery that there is no other God beside God Most High, and he is One. That in this passage a polemic is directed against antinomian heretics is shown also with reference to the 'Ammonites' and 'Moabites' who are excluded from the divine congregation.

The Alexandrian author of the Epistle to the Hebrews obviously knew of the Melchizedek mystery, Friedlander continues, and indeed presents a modified Melchizedekianism to his erstwhile coreligionists, trying to prove to them that Jesus is indeed superior to Melchizedek. In Heb. 7:3 the Melchizedek mystery is qualified with the phrase [greek].

Friedlander distinguishes the Melchizedekians from the Ophites and Cainites, suggesting that the former were not so aggressive in their antinon-danism as the latter. He even suggests that Melchizedekianism is the one form of pre-Christian Gnosticism that qualifies best as the point of departure for Christian Gnosticism.

On the origin of pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism, Friedlander summarizes his position by stating that it began with the 'Hellenization of Judaism in the Diaspora."o Gnosficism served as the medium by which Judaism should become a world religion. It remained orthodox so long as the Law was observed, as is the case with Philo, and became heretical when the letter of the Law was rejected, as was the case with the radicals' combated by Philo.

In the second half of the monograph Friedlander discusses further the content of gnosis and its propagation among the Jews of Palestine. The chief content of the oldest gnosis consists of cosmogonical and theosophical speculation; the means by which an amalgamation of the old religion with newer philosophical ideas was achieved was allegory. This characteristic of Gnosis-evident in the oldest known Gnostic sect, the Ophites-is found also among the most ancient Mishnah teachers under the designations maseh bresit (the 'work of Creation') and maseh merkabah (the work of the Chariot).

That cosmogonic and theosophical speculations had taken a heretical turn very early in Palestine is demonstrated, according to Friedlander, by the following Mishnah, which is referred to as a tradition of the sages by the first-century rabbi, Yohanan ben Zakkai:

The laws of incest may not be expounded to three persons, nor the Story of Creation before two persons, nor the subject of the Chariot before one person alone unless he be a Sage and comprehends of his own knowledge. Whoever puts his mind to these four matters it were better for him if he had not come into the world-what is above? What is below? What is beyond? What is in the opposite beyond? And whosoever has no regard for the honour of his Creator it were better for him had he not come into the world.

Clearly reflected in this Mishnah, and severely condemned, is the antinomian Gnostic differentiation between the highest God and an inferior Creator. But one finds a polen-dc against such obscene esoterica, Friedlander suggests, already in the second half of the second pre-Christian century in Sir. 3:21-24, a passage actually quoted in the Talmud later in an anti-Gnostic polemic. Heretical gnosis reached Palestine at least by the early first century. 'Gnostic' mystical doctrines were tolerated and fostered by some in orthodox circles, so long as 'the honor of the Father in Heaven' was served and the unity of God maintained. Thus a distinction was made between 'true' gnosis and 'false' gnosis, the latter characterized by arrogance over against God.