-
Much of 'Christian' gnosticism developed in Alexandria, DU - and that place had been a melting pot of religious ideas since its' foundation, and the syncretism of Hellenic beliefs with native Egyptian religion in an attempt to codify the existing plethora of deitires (A bit like herding cats with a hamster).
Add the Greek philosophies into the mix, stir in some stoicism, and the pre-Christian 'gnostics' were well established.
As soon as Christian material began to emerge, the assimilation begun with the Egyptian religion simply continued apace. That's why the 'Christian' gnostics were able to find a comfortable acceptance in the already convoluted mess of Alexandrine thought.
Anchorman
Yes, that's a very credible explanation of the origins of all types of 'Gnosticism'. There are of course maverick dissenting voices (not all of them quite barking
), who would suggest that the 'true Christian' texts are not quite as unique and pure as some might like to think. I don't doubt that you would concede that there had been
some external influence on the classic Christian texts?
Two chaps who would claim that the influences from 'pagan' sources were considerable are:
1) Dennis R. MacDonald, in his 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark' in which he claimed that Mark was steeped in the atmosphere of the Homeric epics and had deliberately inverted the qualities of the Homeric heroes in his depiction of Jesus.
2)Prof Alvar Ellegard in his 'Jesus, 100 years before Christ', in which he argues that John's gospel, regarded by many scholars as a composite document, was originally mostly a Gnostic dualist text deliberately transformed to promote the idea of Christ as God
incarnate (an idea anathema to most of the Gnostics of the 2nd century, certainly).
And while we're on the subject of 'authentic' Christian texts, what on earth has the fire-breathing monster Christ of the Book of Revelation got to do with the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount?
