The Great Divide
“For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. Acts 17:23 NASB
Unknown – Perhaps we haven’t really understood Paul’s conversation with the Greeks, or perhaps Paul didn’t really understand his audience. In either case, we need to dig a little deeper into the phrase agnosto theo. This phrase is rendered “to the unknown God,” but actually the inscription read only “unknown God.” There isn’t any preposition in the Greek. When we read this (as apparently Paul also did), we think this is a monument to some god whom the Greeks had not been able to identify, as if they were simply covering all the bases by putting up an altar for a god they missed. But that might be anachronistic on our behalf. You see, in the Greek world there actually was a god called The Unknown, and if this altar is for him, then it isn’t just some god they were ignorant of, it is an actual god they knew whose description was “unknown.”
Gnosticism “holds that the divine has no part in the concerns of the physical universe: that the true God, strictly transmundane, is not revealed or even indicated by the world, and is therefore the Unknown, the totally Other, unknowable in terms of any worldly analogies.”[1]
According to Gnosticism, this creation is the result of either a mistake or deliberate evil intent on behalf of other deities opposing the Transcendent Unknown God. There is an absolute, unbridgeable gap between this world and God. Worship of this God can occur only with divine enlightenment since the only means available for men to experience a God who transcends all Creation was by divine intervention. This was something akin to a mystical insight, leaving the believer in the quandary of living in a corrupted, evil, material universe while sensing the call of the supreme being beyond all physical matter. The sensation of alienation in the world, that underlying angst that things aren’t right, is the indication that the true God has nothing to do with this fallen creation.
Gnosticism was a powerful force in the first century; so powerful that John addressed it directly in his letters, as did many of the early Church fathers. It was certainly a well-known religious point of view during Paul’s time. Perhaps Paul mistook the actual intent of the altar, and like us, thought it was simply a catch-all. But I doubt it.
Paul was an astute observer of culture. He was quite aware of the intellectual and religious environment of the Hellenized world. He certainly knew about the Gnostics. It seems far more likely that Paul deliberately misreads this inscription, taking advantage of the ambiguity present in agnosto theo to sidestep Gnosticism and introduce YHVH. In other words, Paul takes advantage of an opportunity knowing full-well that the altar’s inscription is valid. Which brings us to our lesson. We usually read this verse without knowing the culture of Hellenism in the first century. Therefore, we import our evangelical ideas into Paul’s message. And if we do this with a verse that is so clearly situated in the Greek world, we must wonder how many other verses are misread because we thought the historical context didn’t matter.
Oh, one more thing. Paul’s expression, “What you worship in ignorance” is thoroughly at home in Gnosticism. It isn’t about lacking knowledge. Ignorance is a gnostic description of the state of this world. Any Gnostic who worshipped the Transcendental God would necessarily worship Him in ignorance. But you knew that, right?
Topical Index: Gnosticism, agnosto theo, Unknown God, Acts 17:23
[1] Han Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, p. 257.
A REMINDER:
** DIsregard** Tried to delete but couldn’t. I did receive. **FYI in case I’m not the only one. I didn’t receive this morning TW in my email.
Gnosticism is certainly still alive and well today. Like a snake, it twists and distorts itself into whatever shape aligns with the current milieu. “Unknown” covers a lot of ground!
We are mesmerized by the exotic; the novel; the unknown. We seek identity, but as the self-focused, disconnected flesh has to accept itself in a state of amorphousness, it is drawn to whatever seems to legitimize its own state of unconsciousness. We seek trance states because we are unable to connect with reality on our own: trances allow us the sweet delusions of the unconsciousness: of the unknown. Addictions abound because they serve up these essential states where we seek relief from a reality we are not in synch with: a reality we CANNOT “know” (experience) – at least directly by ourselves ‘on our own’, that is. To be truly connected to reality is only possible through our connection with the God of it, because I think that is how we have been designed. The “unknown god” is a god of this inability to experience reality in our naked flesh. Gnosticism represents the natural state of those who are “dead in trespasses and sins” and thus are separated from the life that is found only in the present of that reality.
I think gnosticism is not a brave excursion into the Great Unknown out there: no, it is a flag of defeat. Gnosticism is the essential surrender of the self to the fact that we have NO ACCESS to the direct experience (knowledge) of reality without a connection with the God of that reality. It acquiesces the field and lives on the dregs of that unconsciousness.
Truly, all natural, sinful flesh is sleeping the drugged sleep of unconscious death to the life reality embodies. Gnosticism erects a pavilion in the graveyard of our failure to access the present and sells peanuts and show tickets to entertainments designed to ‘protect’ us from ever being able to wake to our true condition: one of those shows I believe being the occult. (I have seen that people I have known who are attracted to the call of gnosticism are also attracted to the occult, too.) I think gnosticism is a siren call to the nowhere of oblivion, and all those who seek relief from their disconnect with reality by reinforcing it will be attracted to the calls of these “paths unto the dead” (Prov. 2:18).
Just a note for all TW readers: as someone else did recently, I accidentally hit the “thumbs down” icon on my touch screen while reaching for the “Read more” option, because they were close together. Hitting the “thumbs up” cancelled the accidental “thumbs down”… Laurita is not being fed to the lions 🙂 Hurray! And now we know!
Laurita, this is deep, and I will be contemplating…
Skip, wise observation, as usual… and yet another “kudo” to Paul for knowing how to speak, that his audience might contemplate, as you help us to…
Leslee, perhaps an example may help.
I recently got a quote (see below) from a precious person in my world and I basically had a fit. It took some doing to get this person to agree to why this is not representative of reality. He really wanted it to be because he is tired, apparently, of negative thinking. It’s just another example, I told him, of shooting the messenger instead of listening to the message because we don’t want to take responsibility for our thoughts. If we do ever try that, of course, we will fail, of course (which is why most folks don’t even want to try, and so follow after anything that tells them they don’t have to), but I say we at least need to recognize the fail points first because that is what motivates us to go looking for something that does work.
The lure of gnosticism (as well as the occult) seems to be that we just decide to adapt to where we already find ourselves; thus ‘freeing’ us from the necessity of admitting that where we are is our true problem in the first place. Occultic thought ‘hides’, or occludes, the problem (with the below quote being a good representative of how it goes about that). The lure of the occult is that it ‘allows’ us to keep from having to see the real problem. The occult is broadly defined, of course, as anything that covers over the truth by offering itself as the ‘truth’, instead. This stuff is a constant headache in my life with the precious people who inhabit it with me. Some days I just want to tear out my hair!
Here is the offending quote: “Once we recognize that thoughts are empty, the mind will no longer have the power to deceive us. But as long as we take our deluded thoughts as real, they will continue to torment us mercilessly.” Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Thank you for not feeding me to the lions! I can see that touch screens in general require very very slender fingers to use well. Mine are a general disaster on the things!
I’m with you on this sister! Very well articulated. Living in real time, the present tense “reality ” takes courage, perseverance and faith. As you say with such clarity “We seek trance states because we are unable to connect with reality on our own: trances allow us the sweet delusions of the unconsciousness: of the unknown. Addictions abound because they serve up these essential states where we seek relief from a reality we are not in synch with: …a reality we CANNOT “know” …ourselves ‘on our own’,…(outside ) our connection with the God of it, because I think that is how we have been designed”. Gnosticism like all other forms of lies supports rebellion from reality and truth because it intethstizes us from the raw state of being real and fully alive. Only knowing intimately the author of life prepares one to face it’s unknowns. .
…”face it’s unknowns”: nail on the head! I think we fear (worship) the unknown. Thus the lure of the worship of gnosis: of knowledge: as a ‘fence’ against what we fear so much. We succumb to the fear of the unknown because we have no protection from it. I think all false gods are “gods of forces”: gods that forcefully overwhelm us with our weaknesses, our lusts and our fears. The god of the unknown counts on our fear of that unknown to provide its worshipers.
The true God, however, waits and calls and asks permission to enter: he invites our trust, not our fear. He is not the god of promotion on one hand, nor of demotion on the other: He is the God of attraction. He seeks common ground – “Immanuel” – the known (as opposed to the unknown) – with us. We should seek to be like Him.
2001 A space odyssey comes to mind… the meaning point is a no where-place at the end of a journey to no-where. All the ‘art house’ films that are so deep the meaning is only known by those who like dark places to consume others in a trek of pointlessness, truly the snake eating its tail. That busy alone-ness misery enjoys company & traps many not just Intellectuals those who can’ actually reason to a fruitful goal because of pride in rejecting God’s simplicity for us. Shalom to all. FJ
Reading Oswald Chambers this morning. Seemed a fitting share for todays word “No one ever united with Jesus Christ until he is willing to relinquish not sin only, but his whole way of looking at things. To be born from above of the spirit means we must let go of what we lay hold of…” For some of us it’s what we belive we know about life in Christ already, for others it’s the traditions of men and the pressures to conform. For all of us it’s that easy and that hard…
It is very difficult for me not to see Gnosticism planted firmly within the Church, and in many respects, in my own life through my own prior assimilation of Church dogma. Well, maybe that’s a little extreme. Maybe more like vestiges or appendages. Maybe not. But the mantra of “it’s a divine mystery” used to describe certain doctrines smacks of Gnosticism, does it not? And this whole notion of Gnosticism being an escape from reality [thanks, Laurita], doesn’t this describe many church doctrines, or at least the corporate belief in these doctrines? As long as you believe the doctrines, “You’re In.” If you don’t, “You’re Lost!” What this means is that I can merely attend church/torah fellowship and listen to the preaching of the word, and–Eureka!–I’m blessed and “I’m OK, you’re OK.” I’m part of the church/Torah club. At least for the Roman Catholic, they understand there has to be some deeds associated with one’s faith. Unfortunately for them, the deeds are inapposite to Torah.
What about “Just believe in Jesus” or “Accept Jesus into your heart”. Is this not mysticism? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that TRUSTING Jesus is not important. But WHAT JESUS? The one that makes us feel good on the inside OR the one who rules as King of earth? Certainly our sin required a remedy. But what is sin? What is its converse? Merely not sinning? That is what I used to believe as a Christian. Not sinning was doing nothing, because if I [as a sin-soaked human being] did anything, I would be sinning. Which is part of the reason I believe there is so much immorality in the church. It is the same dilemma with Gnosticism. Either live in total abstraction or total licentiousness. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because this world is 100% completely evil, useless, and mundane. NO, doing justice and righteousness is the opposite of sinning. Doing what God wants is the opposite of sin. So what did Jesus come to do? Set us on the right path of doing what God wants. Anyway, who wants to hear/think about going to heaven and playing harps all day for all eternity. That sounds pretty mundane to me!
By the way, Skip, today’s Today’s Word was stellar!
With all due respect, I need to correct two very important points. First, regarding the grammar, agnōstō̧ theō̧ is in the dative (the nominative would be agnōstos theos [the final “o” in agnōstos and the “o” in theos being omicrons, as opposed to omegas {ω, transliterated ō} as found in the dative form in Acts 17:23]), which literally translates “to [an] U/unknown god”. In other words, the dative does not require a preposition before the word/s in order to be properly translated “to…”. The second point is that it’s very unlikely that gnostic thought of a transcendent god, wholly other/unknowable was evident mid-first century.
Quoting from I. Howard Marshall’s TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980):
I don’t have time now to provide the citations, but Hans Jonas’ book, The Gnostic Religion, shows that the origins of Gnosticism are as early as the late Alexandrian period (3rd C BCE) and were well known by the 1st C CE in Israel and beyond. See especially the first two chapters followed by extensive review of the extant literature.
If by “origins of Gnosticism” you mean ideas which eventually led to Gnosticism, e.g. Platonism, then I’d not disagree. However, my point is that an entity known [no pun intended] as ‘The Unknown’ (which would require that the inscription be in the nominative and with the article ho) that is unknowable, as is found in 2nd century AD Gnosticism, was not in evidence in Paul’s time. Do you have a specific work by a contemporary writer you can cite to support this specific position?
Do you not consider Hans Jonas a contemporary writer? And do you mean that only contemporary writers can be correct?
I meant a Greek writer, contemporary with Paul. Certainly I’d welcome a citation from Jonas (or anyone else) evidencing such a contemporaneous (with Paul) source.
OK, sorry. Misread your comment. I assume we both agree that Gnosticism presented a serious challenge to the early Church fathers, as they constantly refer to it. That means it was certainly well established by the 2nd C. Jonas argues that the roots of Gnosticism appear in the Mandaeans which predate the 1st C. He also mentions the Coptic material (Pistis Sophia, Books of Jeu, Apocryphon of John, etc.). He reviews all these plus works like Hermes Trismegistus. You might argue that some of this material post-dates Paul, but the point is that the ideas were circulating during the 1st C and Paul would have encountered them in Athens. The real point is that the Athenians were familiar with the ideas long before Paul arrived (obviously) and therefore, the “unknown god” was already in play via Gnostic influences before Paul came to Greece. It isn’t NECESSARY to assume that the inscription was a “catch-all” if Gnostic influence was already in the intellectual environment. Acts of Thomas and Odes of Solomon serve as examples of the Christian development here. I’ll try to add a bit more before I leave.
Yes, Gnosticism was a threat to Christianity in the 2nd century. Gnosticism was well-established in the 2nd c., but how well established was it in the 1st? That is the main question. Yes, the Mandaeans likely predate 1st c. But, was their notion of “the unknown god” part of their ideology in the 1st c.; and, if so, and more importantly, was this well-known—or even known at all—in Athens? What evidence do we have in favor of this, i.e. Greek writings contemporary with Paul?
From my understanding, all the works you cite post-date Paul, the Odes of Solomon being the one closest in time; however, even it does not evidence “the unknown god” doctrine, as far as I recall.
The inscription, as quoted by Paul, does not support your notion, for it would require the Greek article. Not only that, there is no direct literary support for your position, only syllogistic arguments based on presuppositions.
Not ready to concede the point yet, but I am in MIA airport and a bit busy. I will get back to you.
here are some additional sources (not that I have checked them all)
http://www.astudyofdenominations.com/history/gnosticism/
https://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/telestics/GnosticOrigins.php
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583880?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
and Jonas work – a review of most of the extant documents.
I believe you are asking a loaded question. You see, if Gnostic thought was in circulation in the first century (and it certainly appears that it was, even if not in the developed form of the later period), then the intellectual environment of Athens and other important cities would probably know its teachings, especially since they were thematically connected to Plato, et. al. Since the ideas originated in the East and moved West, it seems reasonable to view Pauline material that uses particular phrases and concepts in the Gentile world as references to Gnostic thought (see above links) even if there is little written material dated from the same period as Paul. Frankly, other than the NT fragments, there isn’t much material at all from this period, but there are later references to material from this period and earlier (e.g., Aristotle’s history of previous philosophers). So maybe the question should not be, “Who are the other contemporary writers” but rather “what are the intellectual trends that we find” since those treads built on prior foundations.
Anyway, I’m not convinced that Paul doesn’t capitalize on these trends. Jonas seems to think so and he makes a good case that the ideas were brewing long before the Christian era.
In this particular TW, the foundation upon which your position rests is the grammar, and with that foundation shown to be faulty, the rest is not sufficient to make your point. We both agree there was ‘gnostic thought’ in the 1st c., but we cannot be sure (1) to what extent it was formed, as, all we know for sure is the evidence of the fully-formed versions found in the literature of the 2nd c.; (2) more importantly, if this specific doctrine of “the unknown god” (unknowable) was found in the 1st c. And, even if it were known (from the Mandaeans), how can we be sure the Athenians would have adopted it?
One of your links references Colossians. There is some debate as to the origin of the ‘Colossian heresy’ (or, if Paul’s actually doing apologetics against a specific heresy). From what I’ve read, it seems best to just take the individual points Paul is refuting and not think of them as one ‘system’ he’s refuting. There’s ceremonialism, angel worship (which is not part of any Gnostic system of which I’m aware), asceticism, and secret knowledge. While the latter is certainly part of Gnosticism, it was also part of the mystery religions, and Paul seems to purposely use mysterion as a way of redefining this term for apologetic purposes, with the ‘mystery’ already revealed in Christ/Messiah (2:2; 4:3).
In that same link, the author references John’s Gospel. I’ve stated on here before my belief that John was implicitly refuting proto-gnostic dualism. Since my opinion—in line with most scholars—is that the Gospel of John was written late 1st c., it makes sense that proto-gnosticism was more fully developed at this stage (ca. 95 AD), as compared to Paul’s time.
Importantly, 2nd c. Gnosticism can best be viewed as a reaction to Christianity, adopting some of its elements, while rejecting others. Hence, with this in mind, why would we think there was some sort of fully developed form in the 1st c. that was subsequently reshaped with ‘Christian’ elements? Why would they feel the need to do so if they already had their own fully-formed religion?
Why would we suppose that others’ adaptations of Plato’s ideas would find their way to Athens and, even if they had, why would they be adopted by the Athenians? Wouldn’t it be more likely that, had the Athenians known about these novel adaptations, they would reject rather than embrace such ideas? And, if they rejected these ideas, Paul would have no need to refute them. This paragraph is a string of syllogisms that go in an opposite direction from your syllogisms. This is the main problem with suppositions. The best we can do is pose questions rather than make assertions or presumptions.
I am traveling today, but I will try to find time to offer examples over the next few days. Maybe when I have some time in Virginia