In the second century; Platonist and Judeo-Christian thought were sufficiently friendly that a Greek philosopher could declare; "What is Plato but Moses speaking Greek?" Four hundred years later; a Christian emperor had ended the public teaching of subversive Platonic thought. When and how did this philosophical rupture occur? Dylan M. Burns argues that the fundamental break occurred in Rome; ca. 263; in the circle of the great mystic Plotinus; author of the Enneads. Groups of controversial Christian metaphysicians called Gnostics ("knowers") frequented his seminars; disputed his views; and then disappeared from the history of philosophy—until the 1945 discovery; at Nag Hammadi; Egypt; of codices containing Gnostic literature; including versions of the books circulated by Plotinus's Christian opponents. Blending state-of-the-art Greek metaphysics and ecstatic Jewish mysticism; these texts describe techniques for entering celestial realms; participating in the angelic liturgy; confronting the transcendent God; and even becoming a divine being oneself. They also describe the revelation of an alien God to his elect; a race of "foreigners" under the protection of the patriarch Seth; whose interventions will ultimately culminate in the end of the world.Apocalypse of the Alien God proposes a radical interpretation of these long-lost apocalypses; placing them firmly in the context of Judeo-Christian authorship rather than ascribing them to a pagan offshoot of Gnosticism. According to Burns; this Sethian literature emerged along the fault lines between Judaism and Christianity; drew on traditions known to scholars from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Enochic texts; and ultimately catalyzed the rivalry of Platonism with Christianity. Plunging the reader into the culture wars and classrooms of the high Empire; Apocalypse of the Alien God offers the most concrete social and historical description available of any group of Gnostic Christians as it explores the intersections of ancient Judaism; Christianity; Hellenism; myth; and philosophy.
#331577 in Books University of Pennsylvania Press 2008-12-09Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.02 x .56 x 5.98l; .82 #File Name: 0812220730248 pages
Review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. A Great Work about Women in the Early Republic!By RDDRosemarie Zagarri’s Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic examines women’s role in politics during the first fifty years of the American Republic. Zagarri draws upon the fields of women’s history and gender history as well as legal history in her analysis.Zagarri seeks to understand women’s political involvement following the American Revolution and what led to their removal to separate spheres. Additionally; Zagarri wants to know what methods were used to define inclusion and exclusion in American politics.Zagarri argues that women were politically active following the American Revolution and that men’s fears of their political activism led to the end of their overt role in traditional partisan politics. Following the American Revolution; “many American women and men did understand the notion of women’s rights in political terms.†Women actively engaged in partisan politics and; “through their very presence; women eased men’s guilt about the ruptures caused by partisanship and provided a visible symbol of unity; linking the mythical patriotic consensus of the revolutionary era with a factionless era that lay in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future.†Despite this hope; women played an active role in party conflict. Changing social mores; however; led to calls for women to act as mediators; calming partisan clashes. Zagarri claims that this eventually resulted in women’s forced exit from party politics and the expectation that they would “exercise their political role indirectly;†a part of the discourse of separate spheres. According to Zagarri; the concept of separate spheres was not used to prevent women’s political activity; rather; “separate spheres ideology…may actually have been a reaction against women’s more extensive involvement in politics; a convenient way to explain and justify excluding women from party politics and electoral activities.†In the end; Zagarri argues that the triumph of the Republican party after the Federalist’s downfall left little room for women’s political activism. The creation of a racial and gender-based hierarchy finally justified women’s exclusion from American politics.Zagarri works within a framework developed by Joan Scott and Mary Kelley to broaden the definition of political actions. She argues against Mary Beth Norton and Linda K. Kerber to suggest that women voting in New Jersey were not outliers; but part of a larger pattern of women’s political involvement in American society. In her epilogue; Zagarri builds upon the foundation of political historian Louis Hartz to suggest that white masculinity stood as a bulwark against “the excesses of unfettered individualism†and reinforced a hierarchical structure to American life.Zagarri uses “traditional sources of male political history; including newspapers; legislative records; political pamphlets; and correspondence among political elites.†She also expands her source base to include “popular periodicals and ladies’ magazines; Fourth of July orations; fiction; satire; and the writings of women contained in letters to their husbands; friends; and relatives.†This balance of sources enables Zagarri to contrast the role of women in politics as men understood it and as women themselves understood it.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. BrilliantBy fanofhistoryThis is an excellent piece of historical scholarship. It's well-written and accessible (for upper-division undergrads on up); yet painstakingly research and full of nuanced arguments. More importantly; and unlike so many other similar books; it does not separate women's history from the mainstream into its own quaint narrative. Rather the author interjects the experiences and roles of women into the mainstream; revealing their roles and responses in American history. Well worth the effort of scholars and grad students to read; but also potentially useful in an advanced undergrad class.0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. A Couple of Fair WarningsBy A CookI bought this book because I was looking for one that might have original source material on what women of the Revolutionary War Era actually said or wrote. I am still in the midst of reading it; and while there is a lot of narrative (as one might expect); it also has some material of the type for which I was looking. So; overall I am very happy with this title.The reason I am giving this title only 4 stars is that it is written largely in academia-speak. It is almost as if this were a thesis that might have been tweaked a bit for wider publication. Some academics are gifted in being able to write for the general public. Others are not; or just cannot be bothered. Where this author falls on that spectrum is difficult to say. But the book would have been better if it had been written with the general public in mind instead of seemingly largely for fellow academics. If you don't mind reading this style of writing; you will probably enjoy the book. But if that is not your preference or you have difficulty understanding such writing; then perhaps this book is not for you.The excellent part of this having such an academic flare is that the book is very well researched and amply noted with source material. So I will be able to find other sources for original material on this subject. Had the author been less academically inclined; so much rich source material might not have been provided. Thus; I am very grateful for her endeavor.Also; fair warning; it is from a highly feminist perspective. One could write about this topic easily without alienating a reader who is just not into the feminist movement. It is not particularly bothersome to me; but it might be to others--and they should be aware of the perspective from which it is written.
