'''Gnosticism''' is a historical term for various mystical initiatory [[religion]]s, [[sect]]s and knowledge schools which were most active in the first few centuries of the commonera, around the Mediterranean and extending into central Asia. These systems typically recommend the pursuit of special knowledge (''[[gnosis]]'') as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a [[mythopoetic]] struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, which is typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces, and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided. As a result of these common traits, allegations of [[dualism]], [[acosmism|anticosmism]] and body-hatred are often raised against gnosticism as a whole; this, however, fails to acknowledge the variety, subtlety and complexity of the traditions involved.
'''Gnosticism''' is a historical term for various mystical initiatory [[religion]]s, [[sect]]s and knowledge schools which were most active in the first few centuries of the [[Common Era]], around the [[Mediterranean]] and extending into central [[Asia]]. These systems typically recommend the pursuit of special knowledge (''[[gnosis]]'') as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a [[mythopoetic]] struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, which is typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces, and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided. As a result of these common traits, allegations of [[dualism]], [[acosmism|anticosmism]] and body-hatred are often raised against Gnosticism as a whole; this, however, fails to acknowledge the variety, subtlety and complexity of the traditions involved.
It should be noted that the term 'gnosticism' is also applied to modern revivals of these groups and, sometimes, its inappropriate extension to include ''any and all'' religious movements incorporating a doctrine of secret or special, initiatory knowledge can lead to categorical confusion; this has recently lead to the usefulness of the term being called into question.
It should be noted that the term 'Gnosticism' and the adjectival form 'gnostic' are also applied to modern revivals of these groups and, sometimes, its inappropriate extension to include ''any and all'' religious movements incorporating a doctrine of secret or special, initiatory knowledge can lead to categorical confusion; this has recently lead to the usefulness of the term being called into question.
==Overview==
==Overview==
The complex nature of gnostic teaching and the fact that much of the material relating to the schools comprising Gnosticism has traditionally come from critiques by orthodox [[Christianity|Christians]] make it difficult to be precise about early Christian gnostic systems. [[Irenaeus]] (''Adversus Haereses'') described several different schools of 2nd century gnosticism in disparaging and often sarcastic detail while contrasting them with Christianity to their detriment. Despite this modern discussion of gnosticism at first relied heavily on Irenaeus and other heresiologists, which arguably has led to an 'infiltration' of heresiological agendas into modern scholarship; in fairness to the first investigators this was not by choice, but because of a simple lack of alternative sources.
The complex nature of Gnostic teaching and the fact that much of the material relating to the schools comprising Gnosticism has traditionally come from critiques by orthodox [[Christianity|Christians]] make it difficult to be precise about early Christian gnostic systems. [[Irenaeus]] in his ''[[Adversus Haereses]]'' described several different schools of 2nd century gnosticism in disparaging and often sarcastic detail while contrasting them with Christianity to their detriment. Despite this problems scholarly discussion of Gnosticism at first relied heavily on Irenaeus and other heresiologists, which arguably has led to an 'infiltration' of heresiological agendas into modern scholarship; in fairness to the first investigators this was not by choice, but because of a simple lack of alternative sources.
This state of affairs continued from antiquity through to modern times; in [[1945]], however, there was a chance discovery of a cache of 4th-century gnostic manuscripts near [[Nag Hammadi]], [[Egypt]]. The texts, which had been sealed inside earthen jars, were discovered by a local man called Mohammed Ali, and are now known as the ''[[Nag Hammadi library]]''; these allowed for the modern study of undiluted 'gnostic scripture' for the first time. The translation of the texts from [[Coptic]], their language of composition, into [[English language|English]] and other modern languages took place in the years approaching [[1977]], when the full Nag Hammadi library was published in English translation. This has immensely clarified more recent discussions of gnosticism in [[Classical antiquity|antiquity]], though many would agree that the topic still remains fraught with difficulties.
This state of affairs continued through to modern times; in [[1945]], however, there was a chance discovery of a cache of 4th century Gnostic manuscripts near [[Nag Hammadi]], [[Egypt]]. The texts, which had been sealed inside earthen jars, were discovered by a local man called Mohammed Ali, and are now known as the ''[[Nag Hammadi library]]''; these allowed for the modern study of undiluted 'Gnostic scripture' for the first time. The translation of the texts from [[Coptic]], their language of composition, into [[English language|English]] and other modern languages took place in the years approaching [[1977]], when the full Nag Hammadi library was published in English translation. This has immensely clarified more recent discussions of gnosticism in [[Classical antiquity|antiquity]], though many would agree that the topic still remains fraught with difficulties.
At the same time, modern movements referencing ancient gnosticism have continued to develop, from origins in the popular [[Occultism|occultic movements]] of the 19th century. Thus 'gnosticism' is often erroneously ascribed to many modern sects where only initiates have access to certain [[arcana]]. However, the strict usage of the term remains a historical one, to specifically indicate a set of related ancient religious movements; the application of the antiquated term to these distinctly modern movements, far from being a clarification of the nature of gnosticism, further occludes its true nature.
At the same time, modern movements referencing ancient gnosticism have continued to develop, from origins in the popular [[Occultism|occultic movements]] of the 19th century. Thus 'Gnosticism' is often erroneously ascribed to many modern sects where only initiates have access to certain [[arcana]]. However, the strict usage of the term remains a historical one, to specifically indicate a set of related ancient religious movements; the application of the antiquated term to these distinctly modern movements, far from being a clarification of the nature of Gnosticism, further occludes its true nature.
==Etymology and philosophical context==
==Etymology and philosophical context==
===The meaning of 'gnosis'===
===The meaning of 'gnosis'===
The word '''gnosticism''' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression; it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''[[gnosis]]'' (γνώσις). However, '''gnosis''' itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonist philosophy.
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''[[gnosis]]'' (γνώσις). However, '''gnosis''' itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in [[Plato|Platonist]] [[philosophy]].
Unlike modern [[English language|English]], ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being "propositional knowledge", as being indicative of knowledge acquired ''indirectly'' through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know ''of'' Wikipedia" or "I know Berlin ''is in'' Germany"), and knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know Wikipedia well" or "I know Berlin, having visited").
Unlike modern [[English language|English]], ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being "propositional knowledge", being indicative of knowledge acquired ''indirectly'' through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know ''of'' Wikipedia" or "I know Berlin ''is in'' Germany"), and knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know Wikipedia well" or "I know Berlin, having visited").
''Gnosis'' (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on [[knowledge]] in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to ''mystical'' or ''esoteric experiences of direct participation'' with the divine. Indeed, in most gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by [[Plotinus]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' [[205]]–[[270]] [[Common Era|CE]]). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.
''Gnosis'' (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on [[knowledge]] in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to ''mystical'' or ''esoteric experiences of direct participation'' with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by [[Plotinus]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' [[205]]–[[270]] [[Common Era|CE]]). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.
===The Platonist and Aristotelian traditions===
===The Platonist and Aristotelian traditions===
The first usage of the term ‘''gnostikoi''’, that is, 'those capable of knowing', was by [[Plato]] in the ''[[Politicus]]'' (258e-267a), in which he compares the ''gnostike episteme'' ('understanding connected with knowledge') which denotes knowledge based on mathematical understanding, to the ''praktike episteme'' ('understanding connected with practice'). He describes the ideal [[politician]] as the practitioner ''par excellence'' of the former, and his success is to be considered ''only'' in the light of his ability toward this ‘art of knowing’, irrespective of social rank. Hence ''any'' man, be he ruler or otherwise may thus become, as Plato puts it, ‘royal’. Here, ''gnostikos'' makes reference to an ''ability'' to possess certain knowledge, not the ''condition'' of possessing knowledge ''per se'' or the knowledge that is itself possessed, nor even, it might be further noted, to the individual who possesses it.
The first usage of the term ‘''gnostikoi''’, that is, 'those capable of knowing', was by [[Plato]] in the ''[[Politicus]]'' (258e-267a), in which he compares the ''gnostike episteme'' ('understanding connected with knowledge') which denotes knowledge based on mathematical understanding, to the ''praktike episteme'' ('understanding connected with practice'). Plato describes the ideal [[politician]] as the practitioner ''par excellence'' of the former, and his success is to be considered ''only'' in the light of his ability toward this ‘art of knowing’, irrespective of social rank. Hence ''any'' man, be he ruler or otherwise may thus become, as Plato puts it, ‘royal’. Here, ''gnostikos'' makes reference to an ''ability'' to possess certain knowledge, not the ''condition'' of possessing knowledge ''per se'' or the knowledge that is itself possessed, nor even, it might be further noted, to the individual who possesses it.
In ‘The History of the Term ''Gnostikos''’ in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism'' (E.J. Brill, [[Leiden]], [[1981]], 798-800) Morton Smith lists users of ‘''gnostikos''’ in this manner as being [[Aristotle]], [[Strato of Lapsacus]], ‘a series of [[Pythagoras|Pythagoreans"]]’, [[Philo Judaeus]] and [[Plutarch]], amongst others. Christoph Markschies notes in ''Gnosis: An Introduction'' (trans. John Bowden, T & T Clark, [[London]], [[2001]]) that the term was used extensively only within the Platonist tradition, and would not have had much relevence outside it.
In ‘The History of the Term ''Gnostikos''’ in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism'' (E.J. Brill, [[Leiden]], [[1981]], 798–800) Morton Smith lists users of ‘''gnostikos''’ in this manner as being [[Aristotle]], [[Strato of Lapsacus]], ‘a series of [[Pythagoras|Pythagoreans"]]’, [[Philo Judaeus]] and [[Plutarch]], amongst others. Christoph Markschies notes in ''Gnosis: An Introduction'' (trans. John Bowden, T & T Clark, [[London]], [[2001]]) that the term was used extensively only within the Platonist tradition, and would not have had much relevence outside it.
Despite this, Plato's usage of the descriptive phrase 'royal' to denote the elevated position of the able ''gnostikoi'', and the availibility of such a position to ''all'' members of society regardless of rank, would have been greatly appealing to such early Christians as Clement ([[Clement of Alexandria|Titus Flavius Clementis]]) of Alexandria, who happily described ''gnosis'' as the central goal of Christian faith. Despite this, Clement is not typically considered a gnostic in the modern sense. It is worth noting that this lack of cohesion between understandings of such terms contemporary to gnosticism's greatest flourishings and modern understandings as shown through usage can sometimes lead to misunderstandings concerning gnosticism's true nature and development and, as in the case of Plotinus, the identity of its opponents.
Despite this, Plato's usage of the descriptive phrase 'royal' to denote the elevated position of the able ''gnostikoi'', and the availibility of such a position to ''all'' members of society regardless of rank, would have been greatly appealing to such early Christians as Clement ([[Clement of Alexandria|Titus Flavius Clementis]]) of Alexandria, who happily described ''gnosis'' as the central goal of Christian faith. Despite this, Clement is not typically considered a Gnostic in the modern sense. It is worth noting that this lack of cohesion between understandings of such terms contemporary to Gnosticism's greatest flourishings and modern understandings as shown through usage can sometimes lead to misunderstandings concerning Gnosticism's true nature and development.
Of course, several ancient traditions of 'knowing' existed outside the Platonist tradition: [[Aristotle]] described the ideal life of success as being the one which is spent in theoretical contemplation (''bios theoretikos''). Thus, as with Clement, ''gnosis'' as such becomes the central goal of life, extending through the mode of morality into the realms of politics and religion. Philosophy, according to Aristotle, is a methodically ordered form of attaining this ''gnosis'': 'Philosophy promises knowledge of being' ([[Alexander of Aphrodisias]], ''Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle'', ''[[Circa|ca]]''. [[200]] [[Common Era|CE]]).
Of course, several ancient traditions of 'knowing' existed outside the Platonist tradition: [[Aristotle]] described the ideal life of success as being the one which is spent in theoretical contemplation (''bios theoretikos''). Thus, as with Clement, ''gnosis'' as such becomes the central goal of life, extending through the mode of morality into the realms of [[politics]] and [[religion]]. Philosophy, according to Aristotle, is a methodically ordered form of attaining this ''gnosis'': 'Philosophy promises knowledge of being' ([[Alexander of Aphrodisias]], ''Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle'', ''[[Circa|ca]]''. [[200]] [[Common Era|CE]]).
Gnosticism, therefore, is but one of many ancient traditions which are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, and which supply disciplinary systems that are supposed to aid in such a pursuit. As with both the Platonic and the Aristotelian traditions, the pursuit of ''gnosis'' is the central occupation of life, and involves a measure of dedicated contemplation to attain. As with Clement, it may be surmised that the description of the ''gnostike episteme'' by Plato was appealing to early gnostic formulators; however, early gnosticgroups typically do not depict Plato's capacity for knowing as being extended to all mankind, but restrict it to a select group. This is especially true in the [[Seth|Sethian]] gnostic tradition (see [[#Major gnostic schools and their texts|below]]).
Gnosticism, therefore, is but one of many ancient traditions which are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, and which supply disciplinary systems that are supposed to aid in such a pursuit. As with both the Platonist and the Aristotelian traditions, the pursuit of ''gnosis'' is the central occupation of life, and involves a measure of dedicated contemplation to attain. As with Clement, it may be surmised that the description of the ''gnostike episteme'' by Plato was appealing to early Gnostic formulators; however, early Gnostic movements typically do not depict Plato's capacity for knowing as being extended to all mankind, but restrict it to a select group. This is especially true in the [[Seth|Sethian]] gnostic tradition (see [[#Major gnostic schools and their texts|below]]).
Despite the above, the problem remains that the term 'gnosticism' was rarely if ever self-applied by any group in antiquity; even if the suitability of the term might be argued from the discussion above, it remains for the most part a modern typographical construction. As a result, the term may be said to draw attention to the doctrine of ''gnosis'' out of proportion to its actual importance to 'gnostics' themselves. On the other hand, 'gnosticism' is still adjectivally applied to systems of belief which do not afford knowledge the special significance that is the foundation of the term, but which merely relate to those that ''do'' by dint of other similarities, such as structural parallels. This tactic could be said to stretch the category's usefulness in meaningful discussion. In certain cases, scholars have been led to erroneously assume an exact correspondence of meaning between the ancient and modern usages of the term, as may be seen in the example of [[Plotinus]]' famous address in ''[[Enneads|The Enneads]]''.
Despite the above, the problem remains that the term 'Gnosticism' was rarely if ever self-applied by any group in antiquity; even if the suitability of the term might be argued from the discussion above, it remains for the most part a modern typographical construction. As a result, the term may be said to draw attention to the doctrine of ''gnosis'' out of proportion to its actual importance to 'Gnostics' themselves. On the other hand, 'Gnosticism' is still adjectivally applied to systems of belief which do not afford knowledge the special significance that is the foundation of the term, but which merely relate to those that ''do'' by dint of other similarities, such as structural parallels. This tactic could be said to stretch the category's usefulness in meaningful discussion. In certain cases, scholars have been led to erroneously assume an exact correspondence of meaning between the ancient and modern usages of the term, as may be seen in the example of [[Plotinus]]' famous address in ''[[Enneads|The Enneads]]''.
===Neoplatonism and Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics'===
===Neoplatonism and Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics'===
The text which has come to be known as Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics' or 'Against the Gnostics' is more properly known as 'Against those that affirm the creator of the [[cosmos|kosmos]] and the kosmos itself to be evil'. The text appears in the ninth tractate of the second ''[[Enneads|Ennead]]'', the works of Plotinus as collated and edited by [[Porphyry]], his disciple. It is known that Plotinus' writing was poor, and that he detested revising and correcting his work, preferring to leave that to others such as Porphyry. Thus the correct title is not one of Plotinus' devising, but is one of Porphyry's emendations to the text.
The text which has come to be known as Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics' or 'Against the Gnostics' is more properly known as 'Against those that affirm the creator of the ''[[cosmos|kosmos]]'' and the ''kosmos'' itself to be evil'. The text appears in the ninth tractate of the second ''[[Enneads|Ennead]]'', the ''Enneads'' being the works of Plotinus as collated and edited by [[Porphyry]], his disciple. It is known that Plotinus' writing was poor, and that he detested revising and correcting his work, preferring to leave such tasks to others. Thus the correct title is not one of Plotinus' devising, but is one of Porphyry's emendations to the text.
The formation of the text is as an address against a gnostic sect as delivered by Plotinus to a number of his students, who had been corrupted by theformer'sideas. As such, the tract takes the form of an extended address by Plotinus, and he occasionally acknowledges the audience as intimates.
The formation of the text is as an address delivered by Plotinus to a number of his students, who have apparently been corrupted by ideas other than Plotinus' own. As such, the tract takes the form of an extended address by the philosopher, and he occasionally acknowledges the audience as intimates.
The general tendency to view the text much as its titles - both modern abbreviations and Porphyry's original -advertize it have recently come under challenge, as to do so makes several assumptions. Doubts concerning the accuracy of moderntitles in reflecting the text's central intentions might arise, especially when it is considered that the word 'gnostic' occurs very seldom in the tractate itself. For example, in [[A.H. Armstrong]]'s translation of ''The Enneads'', 'gnostic' occurs only 11 times in the tractate in question, often as editorial emendations for neutral phrases such as 'they' (''αύτούς'') or 'the others' (''των αλων''). Thus, it is only through a historical assumption that Porphyry's description of the title becomes directed against any gnostic sect.
The general tendency to view the text much as its titles – both modern abbreviations and Porphyry's original – summarize it has recently come under challenge, as to do so makes several assumptions. Doubts concerning the accuracy of the abbreviated title in reflecting the text's central intentions might arise, especially when it is considered that the word 'Gnostic' is very seldom encountered in the text itself. For example, in [[A.H. Armstrong]]'s translation of ''The Enneads'', 'Gnostic' occurs only eleven times in the tractate in question, often as editorial emendations for neutral phrases such as 'they' (''αύτούς'') or 'the others' (''των αλων''). Thus, it is only through a historical assumption that Porphyry's description of the title becomes directed against any gnostic sect.
Questions may also arise concerning Porphyry's own title. Morton Smith has hypothesized that Porphyry was influenced by the success of [[Irenaeus]]' ''[[Adversus Haereses]]'', which was well known in [[Rome]] at the time; Porphyry thus appropriated the form of the title to describe a schismatic group, though recalling the [[#The Platonist and Aristotelian traditions|discussion above]], it would be likely that Porphyry would understand 'gnostic' in a Platonist context, rather than a Christian one. In any case, it is less and less certain that Plotinus was addressing a group recognizable as gnostic by modern standards, and more likely that an alternative target is intended. The description of his opponent's libertinism, for example, do not sit well with the overwhelming evidence of gnosticism being a predominantly [[ascetism|ascetic]] tradition (see [[#Moral and ritual practise|below]]).
Morton Smith has hypothesized that Porphyry was influenced in his chosen title by the success of [[Irenaeus]]' ''[[Adversus Haereses]]'', which was well known in [[Rome]] at the time; Porphyry thus appropriated the form of the title to describe a schismatic group, though recalling the [[#The Platonist and Aristotelian traditions|discussion above]], it would be likely that Porphyry would understand 'Gnostic' in a Platonist context, rather than a Christian one. In any case, it is less and less certain that Plotinus was addressing a group recognizable as Gnostic by modern standards, and more likely that an alternative target is intended. The description of his opponent's libertinism, for example, do not sit well with the overwhelming evidence of Gnosticism being a predominantly [[ascetism|ascetic]] tradition (see [[#Moral and ritual practise|below]]).
It may be noted that several of Plotinus' criticisms of his opponents are as applicable to orthodox Christianity as they are to gnosticism; for example, several of the ideas criticized by Plotinus may be discerned in the theoretic of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (whom, it might be remembered, referred to Christian faith in general as 'gnostic' in his ''[[Stromateis]]'', VII.xli). Previously, this has been taken as a matter of coincidence, inevitable given the close relationship of the traditions in question. Yet with the calling into doubt of the intended recipients of the tractate, and the gradual recognition of the essential ''fluidity'' of the boundaries between early orthodoxy and gnosticism, this too has been brought into question.
It may be noted that several of Plotinus' criticisms of his opponents are as applicable to orthodox Christianity as they are to Gnosticism (Introductory Note to ‘Against the Gnostics’ in Plotinus, ''Enneads'', trans. A.H. Armstrong, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, 221); for example, several of the ideas criticized by Plotinus may be discerned in the theoretic of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (whom, it might be remembered, referred to Christian faith in general as 'Gnostic' in his ''[[Stromateis]]'', VII.xli). Previously, this has been taken as a matter of coincidence, inevitable given the close relationship of the traditions in question. Yet with the calling into doubt of the intended recipients of the tractate, and the gradual recognition of the essential ''fluidity'' of the boundaries between early orthodoxy and Gnosticism, this too has been brought into question.
==Sources==
==Sources==
[[Image:NagHammadi_1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Nag Hammadi library]] codices remain the primary source of a gnostic texts and [[cosmologies]].]]
[[Image:NagHammadi_1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Nag Hammadi library]] codices remain the primary source of a Gnostic texts and [[cosmologies]].]]
===Heresiologists and gnostic detractors===
===Heresiologists and Gnostic detractors===
Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in [[1945]] (arguably until its translation and eventual publication in [[1977]]), gnosticism was known primarily only through the works of [[heresiologist|heresiologists]], [[Church Fathers]] who worked to chronicle those movements perceived to be deviating from the developing [[orthodox]] church, and to refute their teachings as they did so, with the ultimate aim of demonstrating their moral inferiority. The problems with such sources are immediately apparent: given the avowed antagonism of such writers to that which they reported, could they be trusted to maintain accuracy, despite their [[bias]]. Despite such concerns, and the tendency of heresiologists to summarize rather than reproduce gnostic sources, they remained almost the only material available for analysis.
Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in [[1945]] (arguably until its translation and eventual publication in [[1977]]), Gnosticism was known primarily only through the works of [[heresiologist|heresiologists]], [[Church Fathers]] who worked to chronicle those movements perceived to be deviating from the developing [[orthodox]] church, and to refute their teachings as they did so, with the ultimate aim of demonstrating their moral inferiority. The problems with such sources are immediately apparent: given the avowed antagonism of such writers to that which they reported, could they be trusted to maintain accuracy, despite their [[bias]]. Despite such concerns, and the tendency of heresiologists to summarize rather than reproduce Gnostic sources, they remained almost the only material available for analysis.
The list below briefly details the works of several of the more significant of the heresiologists; however, the list could be expanded to contain [[Origen]], [[Clement of Alexandria]], [[Epiphanius]] of [[Salamis]], and others. The analytical tactics employed by each heresiologist will also be given, where possible.
The list below briefly details the works of several of the more significant of the heresiologists; however, the list could be expanded to contain [[Origen]], [[Clement of Alexandria]], [[Epiphanius]] of [[Salamis]], and others. The analytical tactics employed by each heresiologist will also be given, where possible.
====Justin====
====Justin====
[[Justin Martyr]] (''[[circa|ca.]]'' [[100]]/[[114]] – ''[[circa|ca.]]'' [[162]]/[[168]]), the early Christian [[apologist]], wrote the ''First Apology to [[Roman Emperor]] [[Antonius Pius]]'', which mentions his lost 'Compendium Against the Heretics', a work which reputedly reports on the activities of [[Simon Magus ]], [[Menander]] and [[Marcion]]; since this time, both Simon and Menander have been considered as 'proto-gnostic' (Markschies, ''Gnosis'', 37). Despite this paucity of surviving texts Justin Martyr remains a useful historical figure, as he allows us to determine the time and context in which the first gnostic systems arose.
[[Justin Martyr]] (''[[circa|ca.]]'' [[100]]/[[114]] – ''[[circa|ca.]]'' [[162]]/[[168]]), the early Christian [[apologist]], wrote the ''First Apology to [[Roman Emperor]] [[Antonius Pius]]'', which mentions his lost 'Compendium Against the Heretics', a work which reputedly reports on the activities of [[Simon Magus ]], [[Menander]] and [[Marcion]]; since this time, both Simon and Menander have been considered as 'proto-Gnostic' (Markschies, ''Gnosis'', 37). Despite this paucity of surviving texts Justin Martyr remains a useful historical figure, as he allows us to determine the time and context in which the first gnostic systems arose.
====Irenaeus====
====Irenaeus====
Irenaeus' central work, which was written ''[[circa|ca.]]'' [[180]]-[[185]] [[Common Era|CE]], is commonly known by the [[Latin]] title ''[[Adversus Haereses]]'' ('Against the Heretics'). The full title is ''Conviction and Refutation of Knowledge So-Called'', and it is collected in five volumes. The work is apparently a reaction against Greek merchants who were apparently conducting an oratorial campaign concerning a quest for knowledge amongst Irenaeus' [[Gaul|Gaulish]] [[bishopric]].
Irenaeus' central work, which was written ''[[circa|ca.]]'' [[180]]-[[185]] [[Common Era|CE]], is commonly known by the [[Latin]] title ''[[Adversus Haereses]]'' ('Against the Heretics'). The full title is ''Conviction and Refutation of Knowledge So-Called'', and it is collected in five volumes. The work is apparently a reaction against Greek merchants who were apparently conducting an oratorial campaign concerning a quest for knowledge within Irenaeus' [[Gaul|Gaulish]] [[bishopric]].
Irenaeus' general approach in ''Adversus Haereses'' was to identify [[Simon Magus]] from [[Flavia Neapolis]] in [[Samaria]] (modern-day [[Palestine]]) as the inceptor of gnosticism, 'its source and root' (''Adversus Haereses'', I.22.2). From there he charted an apparent spread of the teachings of Simon through the ancient 'knowers', as he calls them, into the teachings of Valentinus and other, contemporary gnostic sects. This understanding of the transmission of gnostic ideas, despite Irenaeus' certain antagonistic bias, is often utilized today, though it has been criticized.
Irenaeus' general approach in ''Adversus Haereses'' was to identify [[Simon Magus]] from [[Flavia Neapolis]] in [[Samaria]] (modern-day [[Palestine]]) as the inceptor of Gnosticism, 'its source and root' (''Adversus Haereses'', I.22.2). From there he charted an apparent spread of the teachings of Simon through the ancient 'knowers', as he calls them, into the teachings of Valentinus and other, contemporary Gnostic sects. This understanding of the transmission of Gnostic ideas, despite Irenaeus' certain antagonistic bias, is often utilized today, though it has been criticized.
Against the teachings of his opponents, which Irenaeus presented as confused and ill-organized, Irenaeus recommended a simple faith that all could follow, 'oriented on the criterion of truth that had come down in the church from the apostles to those in positions of responsibility' (Markschies, ''Gnosis'', 30-31). Therefore Irenaeus' work might justifiably seen as an early attempt by a Christian writer to posit the idea of a fully-formed orthodoxy transmitted from the apostles directly after Christ's death and which in support possesses a rigourously-defined hierarchical authority. From such a stable and superior authority heresies according divide by deviation from the norm it maintains, rather than developing alongside it by alterate yet related lines.
Against the teachings of his opponents, which Irenaeus presented as confused and ill-organized, Irenaeus recommended a simple faith that all could follow, 'oriented on the criterion of truth that had come down in the church from the apostles to those in positions of responsibility' (Markschies, ''Gnosis'', 30-31). Therefore Irenaeus' work might justifiably seen as an early attempt by a Christian writer to posit the idea of a fully-formed orthodoxy transmitted from the apostles directly after Christ's death and which in support possesses a rigourously-defined hierarchical authority. From such a stable and superior authority heresies according divide by deviation from the norm it maintains, rather than developing alongside it by alterate yet related lines.
Line 64:
Line 64:
Of all the groups reported upon by Hippolytus, 33 are considered gnostic by modern scholars, including 'the foreigners' and 'the [[Seth]] people'. As well as this, he presents individual teachers such as Simon, [[Valentinus]], [[Secundus]], [[Ptolemy]], [[Heracleon]], [[Marcus]] and [[Colorbasus]]; however, Hippolytus rarely reproduces sources, instead tending only to report titles. Of greater interest, a sect known to Hippolytus as the '[[Naasenes]]' frequently ''called themselves'' 'knowers': 'They take [their] name from the Hebrew word snake. Later they called themselves knowers, since they claimed that they alone knew the depths of wisdom' (''Refutatio'', V.6.3f).
Of all the groups reported upon by Hippolytus, 33 are considered gnostic by modern scholars, including 'the foreigners' and 'the [[Seth]] people'. As well as this, he presents individual teachers such as Simon, [[Valentinus]], [[Secundus]], [[Ptolemy]], [[Heracleon]], [[Marcus]] and [[Colorbasus]]; however, Hippolytus rarely reproduces sources, instead tending only to report titles. Of greater interest, a sect known to Hippolytus as the '[[Naasenes]]' frequently ''called themselves'' 'knowers': 'They take [their] name from the Hebrew word snake. Later they called themselves knowers, since they claimed that they alone knew the depths of wisdom' (''Refutatio'', V.6.3f).
Hippolytus considered the groups he surveyed to have become involved in Greek philosophy to their detriment; through its influence becoming hopelessly confused, having grievously misunderstood its foundations and arrived thus at illogical constructions (Markschies, ''Gnosis'', 33).
Hippolytus considered the groups he surveyed to have become involved in Greek philosophy to their detriment, having grievously misunderstood its foundations and thus arriving at illogical constructions and thus through its influence becoming hopelessly confused (Markschies, ''Gnosis'', 33).
====Tertullian====
====Tertullian====
Line 70:
Line 70:
===Gnostic texts preserved before 1945===
===Gnostic texts preserved before 1945===
Prior to the discovery at Nag Hammadi, only the following texts were availible to students of gnosticism. Reconstructions were attempted from the records of the heresiologists, but these were necessarily coloured by the motivation behind the source accounts (see [[#Heresiologists and gnostic detractors|above]]).
Prior to the discovery at Nag Hammadi, only the following texts were availible to students of gnosticism. Reconstructions were attempted from the records of the heresiologists, but these were necessarily coloured by the motivation behind the source accounts (see [[#Heresiologists and Gnostic detractors|above]]).
*Works preserved by the Church:
*Works preserved by the Church:
Line 89:
Line 89:
===The Nag Hammadi library===
===The Nag Hammadi library===
[[Image:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The [[Nag Hammadi library]] is a collection of [[Early Christianity|early Christian]] [[Gnostic]] texts discovered in the [[Egypt|Egyptian]] town of [[Nag Hammadi]] in [[1945]].]]For a complete list of the texts found at Nag Hammadi, please see the [[Nag Hammadi library#Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi|Nag Hammadi article]]; to see a list showing which texts were attached to the different gnostic schools, see [[#Major gnostic schools and their texts|below]].
[[Image:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The [[Nag Hammadi library]] is a collection of [[Early Christianity|early Christian]] [[Gnostic]] texts discovered in the [[Egypt|Egyptian]] town of [[Nag Hammadi]] in [[1945]].]]For a complete list of the texts found at Nag Hammadi, please see the [[Nag Hammadi library#Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi|Nag Hammadi article]]; to see a list showing which texts were attached to the different Gnostic schools, see [[#Major Gnostic schools and their texts|below]].
====Discovery at Nag Hammadi====
====Discovery at Nag Hammadi====
Line 172:
Line 172:
On the whole, it would seem that gnostic behaviour tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, ''Gnosis: The Nature and Structure of Gnosticism'', 262).
On the whole, it would seem that gnostic behaviour tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, ''Gnosis: The Nature and Structure of Gnosticism'', 262).
===Major gnostic schools and their texts===
===Major Gnostic schools and their texts===
Typically, schools of gnosticism are defined as being a member of one of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern' or 'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies; their myths display a more definitive division between light and darkness; creation is typically witnessed as being the result of an interaction between the realms of light and darkness; finally, though the two competing forces are seen somewhat as equivalent in capacity, the ultimate object of the process of creation is to assure the victory of the forces of light.
Typically, schools of gnosticism are defined as being a member of one of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern' or 'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies; their myths display a more definitive division between light and darkness; creation is typically witnessed as being the result of an interaction between the realms of light and darkness; finally, though the two competing forces are seen somewhat as equivalent in capacity, the ultimate object of the process of creation is to assure the victory of the forces of light.
Revision as of 14:44, 16 February 2006
Gnosticism is a historical term for various mystical initiatory religions, sects and knowledge schools which were most active in the first few centuries of the Common Era, around the Mediterranean and extending into central Asia. These systems typically recommend the pursuit of special knowledge (gnosis) as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a mythopoetic struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, which is typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces, and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided. As a result of these common traits, allegations of dualism, anticosmism and body-hatred are often raised against Gnosticism as a whole; this, however, fails to acknowledge the variety, subtlety and complexity of the traditions involved.
It should be noted that the term 'Gnosticism' and the adjectival form 'gnostic' are also applied to modern revivals of these groups and, sometimes, its inappropriate extension to include any and all religious movements incorporating a doctrine of secret or special, initiatory knowledge can lead to categorical confusion; this has recently lead to the usefulness of the term being called into question.
Overview
The complex nature of Gnostic teaching and the fact that much of the material relating to the schools comprising Gnosticism has traditionally come from critiques by orthodox Christians make it difficult to be precise about early Christian gnostic systems. Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses described several different schools of 2nd century gnosticism in disparaging and often sarcastic detail while contrasting them with Christianity to their detriment. Despite this problems scholarly discussion of Gnosticism at first relied heavily on Irenaeus and other heresiologists, which arguably has led to an 'infiltration' of heresiological agendas into modern scholarship; in fairness to the first investigators this was not by choice, but because of a simple lack of alternative sources.
This state of affairs continued through to modern times; in 1945, however, there was a chance discovery of a cache of 4th century Gnostic manuscripts near Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The texts, which had been sealed inside earthen jars, were discovered by a local man called Mohammed Ali, and are now known as the Nag Hammadi library; these allowed for the modern study of undiluted 'Gnostic scripture' for the first time. The translation of the texts from Coptic, their language of composition, into English and other modern languages took place in the years approaching 1977, when the full Nag Hammadi library was published in English translation. This has immensely clarified more recent discussions of gnosticism in antiquity, though many would agree that the topic still remains fraught with difficulties.
At the same time, modern movements referencing ancient gnosticism have continued to develop, from origins in the popular occultic movements of the 19th century. Thus 'Gnosticism' is often erroneously ascribed to many modern sects where only initiates have access to certain arcana. However, the strict usage of the term remains a historical one, to specifically indicate a set of related ancient religious movements; the application of the antiquated term to these distinctly modern movements, far from being a clarification of the nature of Gnosticism, further occludes its true nature.
Etymology and philosophical context
The meaning of 'gnosis'
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the Greek word meaning 'knowledge', gnosis (γνώσις). However, gnosis itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonistphilosophy.
Unlike modern English, ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being "propositional knowledge", being indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of Wikipedia" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know Wikipedia well" or "I know Berlin, having visited").
Gnosis (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (ca.205–270CE). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient philosophical traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.
The Platonist and Aristotelian traditions
The first usage of the term ‘gnostikoi’, that is, 'those capable of knowing', was by Plato in the Politicus (258e-267a), in which he compares the gnostike episteme ('understanding connected with knowledge') which denotes knowledge based on mathematical understanding, to the praktike episteme ('understanding connected with practice'). Plato describes the ideal politician as the practitioner par excellence of the former, and his success is to be considered only in the light of his ability toward this ‘art of knowing’, irrespective of social rank. Hence any man, be he ruler or otherwise may thus become, as Plato puts it, ‘royal’. Here, gnostikos makes reference to an ability to possess certain knowledge, not the condition of possessing knowledge per se or the knowledge that is itself possessed, nor even, it might be further noted, to the individual who possesses it.
In ‘The History of the Term Gnostikos’ in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1981, 798–800) Morton Smith lists users of ‘gnostikos’ in this manner as being Aristotle, Strato of Lapsacus, ‘a series of Pythagoreans"’, Philo Judaeus and Plutarch, amongst others. Christoph Markschies notes in Gnosis: An Introduction (trans. John Bowden, T & T Clark, London, 2001) that the term was used extensively only within the Platonist tradition, and would not have had much relevence outside it.
Despite this, Plato's usage of the descriptive phrase 'royal' to denote the elevated position of the able gnostikoi, and the availibility of such a position to all members of society regardless of rank, would have been greatly appealing to such early Christians as Clement (Titus Flavius Clementis) of Alexandria, who happily described gnosis as the central goal of Christian faith. Despite this, Clement is not typically considered a Gnostic in the modern sense. It is worth noting that this lack of cohesion between understandings of such terms contemporary to Gnosticism's greatest flourishings and modern understandings as shown through usage can sometimes lead to misunderstandings concerning Gnosticism's true nature and development.
Of course, several ancient traditions of 'knowing' existed outside the Platonist tradition: Aristotle described the ideal life of success as being the one which is spent in theoretical contemplation (bios theoretikos). Thus, as with Clement, gnosis as such becomes the central goal of life, extending through the mode of morality into the realms of politics and religion. Philosophy, according to Aristotle, is a methodically ordered form of attaining this gnosis: 'Philosophy promises knowledge of being' (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, ca. 200CE).
Gnosticism, therefore, is but one of many ancient traditions which are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, and which supply disciplinary systems that are supposed to aid in such a pursuit. As with both the Platonist and the Aristotelian traditions, the pursuit of gnosis is the central occupation of life, and involves a measure of dedicated contemplation to attain. As with Clement, it may be surmised that the description of the gnostike episteme by Plato was appealing to early Gnostic formulators; however, early Gnostic movements typically do not depict Plato's capacity for knowing as being extended to all mankind, but restrict it to a select group. This is especially true in the Sethian gnostic tradition (see below).
Despite the above, the problem remains that the term 'Gnosticism' was rarely if ever self-applied by any group in antiquity; even if the suitability of the term might be argued from the discussion above, it remains for the most part a modern typographical construction. As a result, the term may be said to draw attention to the doctrine of gnosis out of proportion to its actual importance to 'Gnostics' themselves. On the other hand, 'Gnosticism' is still adjectivally applied to systems of belief which do not afford knowledge the special significance that is the foundation of the term, but which merely relate to those that do by dint of other similarities, such as structural parallels. This tactic could be said to stretch the category's usefulness in meaningful discussion. In certain cases, scholars have been led to erroneously assume an exact correspondence of meaning between the ancient and modern usages of the term, as may be seen in the example of Plotinus' famous address in The Enneads.
Neoplatonism and Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics'
The text which has come to be known as Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics' or 'Against the Gnostics' is more properly known as 'Against those that affirm the creator of the kosmos and the kosmos itself to be evil'. The text appears in the ninth tractate of the second Ennead, the Enneads being the works of Plotinus as collated and edited by Porphyry, his disciple. It is known that Plotinus' writing was poor, and that he detested revising and correcting his work, preferring to leave such tasks to others. Thus the correct title is not one of Plotinus' devising, but is one of Porphyry's emendations to the text.
The formation of the text is as an address delivered by Plotinus to a number of his students, who have apparently been corrupted by ideas other than Plotinus' own. As such, the tract takes the form of an extended address by the philosopher, and he occasionally acknowledges the audience as intimates.
The general tendency to view the text much as its titles – both modern abbreviations and Porphyry's original – summarize it has recently come under challenge, as to do so makes several assumptions. Doubts concerning the accuracy of the abbreviated title in reflecting the text's central intentions might arise, especially when it is considered that the word 'Gnostic' is very seldom encountered in the text itself. For example, in A.H. Armstrong's translation of The Enneads, 'Gnostic' occurs only eleven times in the tractate in question, often as editorial emendations for neutral phrases such as 'they' (αύτούς) or 'the others' (των αλων). Thus, it is only through a historical assumption that Porphyry's description of the title becomes directed against any gnostic sect.
Morton Smith has hypothesized that Porphyry was influenced in his chosen title by the success of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses, which was well known in Rome at the time; Porphyry thus appropriated the form of the title to describe a schismatic group, though recalling the discussion above, it would be likely that Porphyry would understand 'Gnostic' in a Platonist context, rather than a Christian one. In any case, it is less and less certain that Plotinus was addressing a group recognizable as Gnostic by modern standards, and more likely that an alternative target is intended. The description of his opponent's libertinism, for example, do not sit well with the overwhelming evidence of Gnosticism being a predominantly ascetic tradition (see below).
It may be noted that several of Plotinus' criticisms of his opponents are as applicable to orthodox Christianity as they are to Gnosticism (Introductory Note to ‘Against the Gnostics’ in Plotinus, Enneads, trans. A.H. Armstrong, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, 221); for example, several of the ideas criticized by Plotinus may be discerned in the theoretic of Clement of Alexandria (whom, it might be remembered, referred to Christian faith in general as 'Gnostic' in his Stromateis, VII.xli). Previously, this has been taken as a matter of coincidence, inevitable given the close relationship of the traditions in question. Yet with the calling into doubt of the intended recipients of the tractate, and the gradual recognition of the essential fluidity of the boundaries between early orthodoxy and Gnosticism, this too has been brought into question.
Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 (arguably until its translation and eventual publication in 1977), Gnosticism was known primarily only through the works of heresiologists, Church Fathers who worked to chronicle those movements perceived to be deviating from the developing orthodox church, and to refute their teachings as they did so, with the ultimate aim of demonstrating their moral inferiority. The problems with such sources are immediately apparent: given the avowed antagonism of such writers to that which they reported, could they be trusted to maintain accuracy, despite their bias. Despite such concerns, and the tendency of heresiologists to summarize rather than reproduce Gnostic sources, they remained almost the only material available for analysis.
The list below briefly details the works of several of the more significant of the heresiologists; however, the list could be expanded to contain Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, and others. The analytical tactics employed by each heresiologist will also be given, where possible.
Justin
Justin Martyr (ca.100/114 – ca.162/168), the early Christian apologist, wrote the First Apology to Roman EmperorAntonius Pius, which mentions his lost 'Compendium Against the Heretics', a work which reputedly reports on the activities of Simon Magus , Menander and Marcion; since this time, both Simon and Menander have been considered as 'proto-Gnostic' (Markschies, Gnosis, 37). Despite this paucity of surviving texts Justin Martyr remains a useful historical figure, as he allows us to determine the time and context in which the first gnostic systems arose.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus' central work, which was written ca.180-185CE, is commonly known by the Latin title Adversus Haereses ('Against the Heretics'). The full title is Conviction and Refutation of Knowledge So-Called, and it is collected in five volumes. The work is apparently a reaction against Greek merchants who were apparently conducting an oratorial campaign concerning a quest for knowledge within Irenaeus' Gaulishbishopric.
Irenaeus' general approach in Adversus Haereses was to identify Simon Magus from Flavia Neapolis in Samaria (modern-day Palestine) as the inceptor of Gnosticism, 'its source and root' (Adversus Haereses, I.22.2). From there he charted an apparent spread of the teachings of Simon through the ancient 'knowers', as he calls them, into the teachings of Valentinus and other, contemporary Gnostic sects. This understanding of the transmission of Gnostic ideas, despite Irenaeus' certain antagonistic bias, is often utilized today, though it has been criticized.
Against the teachings of his opponents, which Irenaeus presented as confused and ill-organized, Irenaeus recommended a simple faith that all could follow, 'oriented on the criterion of truth that had come down in the church from the apostles to those in positions of responsibility' (Markschies, Gnosis, 30-31). Therefore Irenaeus' work might justifiably seen as an early attempt by a Christian writer to posit the idea of a fully-formed orthodoxy transmitted from the apostles directly after Christ's death and which in support possesses a rigourously-defined hierarchical authority. From such a stable and superior authority heresies according divide by deviation from the norm it maintains, rather than developing alongside it by alterate yet related lines.
Hippolytus
Hippolytus was an early Christian writer elected as the first Antipope in 217. He died as a martyr in 235. He was known for his polemical works against the Jews, pagans and heretics; the most important of these being the seven-volume Refutatio Omnium Haeresium ('Refutation Against all Heresies'), of which only fragments are known.
Of all the groups reported upon by Hippolytus, 33 are considered gnostic by modern scholars, including 'the foreigners' and 'the Seth people'. As well as this, he presents individual teachers such as Simon, Valentinus, Secundus, Ptolemy, Heracleon, Marcus and Colorbasus; however, Hippolytus rarely reproduces sources, instead tending only to report titles. Of greater interest, a sect known to Hippolytus as the 'Naasenes' frequently called themselves 'knowers': 'They take [their] name from the Hebrew word snake. Later they called themselves knowers, since they claimed that they alone knew the depths of wisdom' (Refutatio, V.6.3f).
Hippolytus considered the groups he surveyed to have become involved in Greek philosophy to their detriment, having grievously misunderstood its foundations and thus arriving at illogical constructions and thus through its influence becoming hopelessly confused (Markschies, Gnosis, 33).
Tertullian
Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, ca.155–230) was a prolific writer from Carthage, the region that is now modern Tunisia. He wrote a text entitled Adversus Valentinianos ('Against the Valentinians'), ca.206, as well as five books around 207-208 chronicling and refuting the teachings of Marcion.
Gnostic texts preserved before 1945
Prior to the discovery at Nag Hammadi, only the following texts were availible to students of gnosticism. Reconstructions were attempted from the records of the heresiologists, but these were necessarily coloured by the motivation behind the source accounts (see above).
For a complete list of the texts found at Nag Hammadi, please see the Nag Hammadi article; to see a list showing which texts were attached to the different Gnostic schools, see below.
Discovery at Nag Hammadi
The story of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 has been described as 'exciting as the contents of the find itself' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 48). In December of that year, two Egyptian brothers found several papyri in a large earthernware vessel while digging for fertilizer around limestone caves near present-day Habra Dom in Upper Egypt. The find was not initially reported by either of the brothers, who sought to make money from the manuscripts by selling them individually at intervals. It is also reported that the brothers' mother burned several of the manuscripts, worried, apparently, that the papers might have 'dangerous effects' (Markschies, Gnosis, 48). As a result, what came to be known as the Nag Hammadi library (owing to the proximity of the find to Nag Hammadi, the nearest major settlement) appeared only gradually, and its significance went unacknowledged until some time after its initial uncovering.
In 1946, the brothers became involved in a feud, and left the manuscripts with a Copticpriest, whose brother-in-law in October that year sold a codex to the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo (this tract is today numbered Codex III in the collection). The resident Coptologist and religious historian Jean Dorese, realising the significance of the artifact, published the first reference to it in 1948. Over the years, most of the tracts were passed by the priest to a Cypriot antiques dealer in Cairo, thereafter being retained by the Department of Antiquities, for fear that they would be sold out of the country. After the revolution in 1956, these texts were handed to the Coptic Musuem in Cairo, and declared national property.
Meanwhile, a single codex had been sold in Cairo to a Belgianantique dealer. After an attempt was made to sell the codex in both New York and Paris, it was acquired by the Carl Gustav Jung Institute in Zurich in 1951, through the mediation of Gilles Quispel. There it was intended as a birthday present to the famous psychologist; for this reason, this codex is typically known as the Jung Codex, being Codex I in the collection.
Jung's death in 1961 caused a quarrel over the ownership of the Jung Codex, with the result that the pages were not given to the Coptic Musuem in Cairo until 1975, after a first edition of the text had been published. Thus the papyri were finally brought together in Cairo: of the 1945 find, eleven complete books and fragments of two others, 'amounting to well over 1000 written pages' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 49) are preserved there.
Translation
The first edition of a text found at Nag Hammadi was from the Jung Codex, a partial translation of which appeared in Cairo in 1956, and a single extensive facsimile edition was planned. Due to the difficult political circumstances in Egypt, individual tracts followed from the Cairo and Zurich collections only slowly.
This state of affairs changed only in 1966, with the holding of the Messina Congress in Italy. At this conference, intended to allow scholars to arrive at a group concensus concerning the definition of gnosticism, James M. Robinson, an expert on religion, assembled a group of editors and translators whose express task was to publish a bilingual edition of the Nag Hammadi codices in English, in collaboration with the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont, California. Robinson had been elected secretary of the International Committee for the Nag Hammadi Codices, which had been formed in 1970 by UNESCO and the Egyptian Ministry of Culture; it was in this capacity that he oversaw the project. In the meantime, a facsimile edition in twelve volumes did appear between 1972 and 1977, with subsequent additions in 1979 and 1984 from publisher E.J. Brill in Leiden, called The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, making the whole find available for all interested parties to study in some form.
The James M. Robinson translation was first published in 1977, with the name The Nag Hammadi Library in English, in collaboration between E.J. Brill and Harper & Row. The single-volume publication, according to Robinson, 'marked the end of one stage of Nag Hammadi scholarship and the beginning of another' (from the Preface to the third revised edition). Paperback editions followed in 1981 and 1984, from E.J. Brill and Harper respectively. This marks the final stage in the gradual dispersal of gnostic texts into the wider public arena - the full compliment of codices was final available in unadulterated form to people around the world, in a variety of languages.
A further English edition was published in 1987, by Harvard scholar Bentley Layton, called The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1987). The volume unified new translations from the Nag Hammadi Library with extracts from the heresiological writers, and other gnostic material. It remains, along with The Nag Hammadi Library in English one of the more accessible volumes translating the Nag Hammadi find, with extensive historical introductions to individual gnostic groups, notes on translation, annotations to the text and the organisation of tracts into clearly defined movements.
Significance of the Nag Hammadi library
Prior to the publication of the translations of Nag Hammadi the only available sources for gnostic material were, as has been noted, heresiological writings. These suffered from a number of difficulties, not least the antagonistic bias the writers held towards gnostic teachings. Several heresiological writers, such as Hippolytus, made little effort to exactly record the nature of the sects they reported on, or transcribe their sacred texts, but instead gave us only titles and extended commentaries on their perceived heretical mistakes. Reconstructions were attempted from the available evidence, but the resulting portraits of gnosticism and its central texts were necessarily crude, and deeply suspect. The ability to overcome such problems provided by the Nag Hammadi codices need hardly be noted.
Of greatest difficulty was the fact that, prior to the publication of the codices, theological investigators, in order to proceed, could not help but to subscribe at least in part to the view of the heresiologists that gnosticism marked a heretical deviation from a fully-formed orthodox Christianity in the three centuries immediately following Christ's death. The availability of original texts not only allowed an unsullied transmission of gnostic ideas, but also demonstrated the fluidity of early Christian scripture and, by extension, Christianity itself. As Layton notes 'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Chrisitian religion' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, xviii).
Thus, although it is still correct to speak of early Christianity as a single tradition, it is also a complex network of competing sects and individual parties, which express their contrasting natures through differences in their scriptural interests. These differences may have arisen as much from differences in cultural, linguistic and social milieus, the coexistence of essentially different theological conceptions of Jesus, as well as the differences in the philosophical or symbolic systems in which early Christian writers might express themselves. As such, the Nag Hammadi libary offers a glimpse of the set of circulating texts that would have been of interest to a Christian in a gnostic milieu (rather than as a gnostic canon in and of itself) and thus potentially provides an insight into the gnostic mind itself.
It was only with the advent of emperor Constantine (272–337) and the Council of Nicaea in 325 and (after his death) the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397, which cemented the growing acceptance of Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion of the Roman Empire, that a structurally coherent and crystallized form of orthdox Christianity began to emerge. The Nag Hammadi library offers an intriguing source of texts whose intended exclusion as much drived the formation of an orthodox scriptural canon as did the desire to include certain other texts, now well known. 'Orthodox Christian doctrine of the ancient world - and thus of the modern church - was partly conceived of as being what gnostic scripture was not' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures; emphasis writer's own). Thus a study of gnostic scripture might also obliquely increase our knowledge of both early Christianity, the intentions of the orthodox formulators, the effect of social setting on early Christian expression, and the Judaic foundations it rests upon.
History
The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school
Though the notion of a direct inheritance between the schools described above is disputed, Bentley Layton has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to The Gnostic Scriptures (SCM Press, London, 1987). In this model, Classical Gnosticism and The School of Thomas antedated, and influenced the development of, Valentinus (whom Layton called 'the great [gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of gnostic development), who was to found his own school of gnosticism in both Alexandria and Rome. While in Alexandria (where he was born) Valentinus probably would have had contact with the gnostic teacher Basilides, and may have been influenced by him.
Valentinianism might thus be described as the most elaborate and philosopically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that other schools found some success: Basilides' own school survived in Egypt until the 4th century. In any case, Valentinianism flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ca. 100-175 C.E., a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in 388 C.E., against whom the emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors). The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through Ptolemy.
Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in Sogdian. Manuscript from Khocho, Tarim Basin.
The development of the Persian school
An alternate heritage is offered by Kurt Rudolph in his book Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism (Koehler and Amelang, Leipzig, 1977), to explain the lineage of Persian gnostic schools. The decline of Manicheism that occured in Persia in the 5th century C.E. was too late to prevent the spread of the teachings of the school into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings spread into Syria, Northern Arabia, Egypt and North Africa (where Augustine was a member of school from 373-382); from Syria it moved farther, into Palestine, Asia Minor and Armenia. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and Dalmatia in the 4th century, and also in Gaul and Spain. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathari in the middle ages.
In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the monopoly position previously held by Christianity and Zoroastrianism had been broken by nascent Islam. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in Central Asia, to which it spread through Iran. Here, in 762, Manicheism became the state religion of the Uigar Empire. From here Manichean influence spread further into Central Asia, and according to Rudolph its influence may be detected in Tibet and China, where it was strongly opposed to Confucianism, and its followers were subject to a number of bloody repressions; Rudolph reports that despite this Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of Portugese sailors).
Nature and Structure of Gnosticism
A typological model: the main features of gnosticism
Though difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of gnosticism (see below), various strategies have been employed in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to offer a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called gnostic; the model offered is adapted from Christoph Markschies' version, as described in Gnosis: An Introduction:
The notion of a remote, supreme and unknowable monadic divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including 'Pleroma' and 'Bythos' (Gr. 'deep');
The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
The subsequent identification of the fall as an occurence within divinity itself, rather than as occuring entirely through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the typical gnostic figure of Sophia (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of gnostic texts is indicative of her central importance;
The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the Platonist tradition demiurgos. Evidence exists that the conception of the demiurge has derivation from figures in Plato's Timaeus and Republic. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in Socrates' model of the psyche bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion. Elsewhere this figure is called 'Ialdabaoth', 'Samael' (Aramaic sæmʕa-ʔel, 'blind god') or 'Saklas' (Syriac sækla, 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes malevolent, and thus opposed to it. The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named 'Archons', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow, or in certain cases as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening. It may be noted that the salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrently restoration of the divine nature; a central gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure (Christ, or, in other cases, Seth or Sophia).
It may be noted that the model limits itself to describing characteristics of the Syrian-Egyptian school of gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the Persian gnostic school - Manicheanism and Mandaeanism - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right (extensive articles exist for both on Wikipedia); indeed, the general usage of 'gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.
Dualism and monism
Typically, gnostic systems are loosly described as being 'dualistic' in nature. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manichaenism to the 'weak' or 'mediated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably work more towards a form of monism expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.
Radical dualism - Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, several elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. It likely inherits this dualistic mythology from Zoroastrianism, in which the eternal spirit Ahura Mazda is opposed by his antithesis Angra Mainyu; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of Ptahil, the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm.
Mediated dualism - such classic gnostic movements as the Sethians concieved of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.
Monism - certain elements of Valentinian versions of gnostic myth suggest that its understanding of the universe was a monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' (Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospel, 1978); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' ( William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus, edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, 1980). In these myths, the demiurge is a more sympathetic character; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any malevolence on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian gnostic. Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, but rather as attributable to an error of perception (one might compare Mahayana Buddhism); likewise, the physical universe is not characterised as being distinct from the Pleroma, but as being contained within it. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe is of a monistic one, in which all things within are aspects of the divine; our apprehension of a distinct material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge.
Moral and ritual practise
Evidence in the source texts indicates gnostic moral behaviour as being overwhelmingly ascetic in basis, typically restricted to sexual and dietary practise. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: as this mode of behaviour was one which they themselves favoured and supported, the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, the typical heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of libertinism, or to explain gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitious in nature. Epiphanius provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks' (Panarion, 40.1.4). It might thus be noted that moral asceticism provides a point of cohesion and co-development between orthodox Christianity and gnostic Christianity which the Church Fathers sought to downplay.
Other gnostic views were less rigourously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct moral behaviour. Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:
External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (logos), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.
This extract makes a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internal feeling of the individual takes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.
Charges of gnostic libertinism arguably find their source in the works of Irenaeus. According to this writer, Simon Magus (whom he has identified as the prototypic source of gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('amoralism'), using the following reasoning. Simon argued that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets and their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from Adversus Haereses, I.23.3).
It should be noted that Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the Testimony of Truth that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out. Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of it causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, such self-denial beomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes. Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of the Bridal Chamber, a ritualistic sacrament in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired syzygies that constitute the Valentinian Pleroma; though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.
Of the Carpocratians Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (Adversus Haereses, I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of gnosis; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.
On the whole, it would seem that gnostic behaviour tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and Structure of Gnosticism, 262).
Major Gnostic schools and their texts
Typically, schools of gnosticism are defined as being a member of one of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern' or 'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies; their myths display a more definitive division between light and darkness; creation is typically witnessed as being the result of an interaction between the realms of light and darkness; finally, though the two competing forces are seen somewhat as equivalent in capacity, the ultimate object of the process of creation is to assure the victory of the forces of light.
The Syrian-Egyptian school, by contrast, derives its nature from its platonist influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, resulting ultimately in the creation of matter and the material universe; as a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view material 'evil', rather than as a force equal to immaterial 'goodness', as something inferior to it, and as resulting specifically from its epistemological inferiority to goodness. Indeed, as may be derived from the above, these schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being relative descriptive terms, with the former indicating the extremes of distance from the principle of goodness, without necessitating its inherent negativity.
The latter school is that which is more usually associated with the term 'gnosticism', and the one known to include several Christian and Hebraic elements. A group referred to as the Ophites falls in between both of these strains.
It should be noted this method of division has recently been challenged by Michael Allen William's groundbreaking work 'Rethinking Gnosticism', which re-examines the common conception of 'Gnosticism', in an effort to demonstrate the somewhat nebulous nature of the term as a category (see below). Despite this, this mode of revision is in common usage, and retains at least some usefulness in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose gnosticism, even if its extent of that usefulness is in doubt.
Persian Gnostics
Mandaeanism which is still practiced in small numbers, in parts of southern Iraq and the Iranian province of Khuzestan;
Manichaeism which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now extinct. Both of these traditions differ from the Syrian-Egyptian schools in that they contain no overt Christian elements.
Syrian-Egyptic Gnostics
Classical Gnostic Scripture, sometimes referred to as Sethian gnosticism, for its common reference to Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, as being possessor and disseminator of special knowledge. Many texts have been attributed to this school, including those following:
The Valentinians, in reference to the Christian teacher Valentinius (c. 100 - c. 153), better known as 'Valentinus', who developed one of the complex cosmologies to be found in gnosticism, outside the Sethian tradition. Valentinus was, for a time, the most successful Christian gnostic thinker. Several texts are attributable to him, and to his followers (texts written by Valentinus himself are, in the main, fragmentory; here they are marked with an '*'):
The Basilidians, named for the founder of their school, Basiledes (132-? CE), are mainly known through the summaries of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses (see above), and through a series of fragments, found in the work of Clement of Alexandria:
The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
Reincarnation (Fragment F)
Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)
Other schools and related movements; these are presented in chronological order:File:Gnostic cross.pngThe circular, harmonic cross was an emblem used most notably by the Cathars, a medieval heresy that related to gnosticism
Simon Magus and Marcion of Sinope both had gnostic tendencies, but such familar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil Menander could potentially be included within this grouping.
Cerinthus, the leader of a late first century or early second century celt; though he believed in the existence of a lesser, creator deity who governs the world, Cerinthus apparently sets great store against observation of ceremonies as a redemptive observance, rather than the gnosis that is naturally the emphasis of gnostic schools.
The Ophites, so-named because they worshipped the serpent of Genesis as the bestower of knowledge.
The Cainites, as the term implies, worshipped Cain, as well as Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see libertinism).
The Cathars (Cathari, Albigenses or Albigensians) are typically seen as being imitative of gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, Satanic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevence upon knowledge (gnosis) as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier gnostic forms, see historical discussion above.
'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category
In 1966 in Messina, Italy, a conference was held concerning systems of gnosis. Among its several aims were the need to incept a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi libary (see above) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of gnosticism. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for contemporary philosophical and religious movements. Thus in 1835 New Testament scholar Ferdinand Baur constucts a developmental model of gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of Hegel; one might compare literary criticHarold Bloom's recent attempts to identify gnostic elements in contemporary American religion, or Eric Voegelin's analysis of totalitarian impulses through the interpretive lens of gnosticism.
The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning gnosticism has been described by Markschies:
In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'. (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 13)
In essence, it had been decided that 'gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite'. However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' was a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly constituted knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.
These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been challenged as well. Of note is the work of Michael Allen Williams in Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category, in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).
Williams argues throughout that the conceptual foundations on which the category of gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body- and matter-hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly tested. In essence, the interpretive definition of gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern sholarship and reflected in a categorical definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however to date his suggested replacement term 'the biblical demirugical tradition' has not become widely used.
Gnosticism in modern times
Scholars of gnosticism and those influenced by it
There follows a list of those figures who are known to have undertaken a study of gnosticism, and who have occasionally incorporated elements of gnostic systems into their own work, or whose own work subsequently contains recognizably gnostic traits.
Carl Jung and his associate G.R.S. Mead worked on trying to understand and explain the Gnostic faith from a psychological standpoint. Jung's "analytical psychology" in many ways schematically mirrors ancient Gnostic mythology, particularly those of Valentinus and the 'classic' Gnostic doctrine described in most detail in the Apocryphon of John (see gnostic schools). Jung understands the emergance of the demiurge out of the original, unified monadic source of the spiritual universe by gradual stages to be analogous to (and a symbolic depiction of) the emergence of the ego from the unconscious. However, it is uncertain as to whether the similarities between Jung's psychological teachings and those of the gnostics are due to their sharing a "perennial philosophy", or whether Jung was unwittingly influenced by the Gnostics in the formation of his theories; although Jung's own 'gnostic hymn', the Septem Sermones ad Mortuos ('The Seven Sermons to the Dead'), would tend to imply the latter, the issue remains unresolved. Uncertain too are Jung's claims that the gnostics were aware of and intended psychological meaning or significance within their myths. On the other hand, what is known is that Jung and his ancient forebears disagreed on the ultimate goal of the individual: whereas the gnostics clearly sought a return to a supreme, other-worldly Godhead, Robert Segal, in a study of Jung, claimed that the eminent psychologist would have found the psychological goal of gnosticism (that is, re-unification with the Pleroma, or the unknown God) to be psychically 'dangerous', as being a total identification with the unconscious. While Jungian individuation involves the addition of unconscious psychic tropes to consciousness in order to achieve a trans-conscious centre to the personality, this addition is not intended to take the from of a complete identification. Thus, to contend that there is at least some disagreement between Jung and gnosticism is at least supportable.
The philosopher Hans Jonas wrote extensively on gnosticism, interpreting it from an existentialist viewpoint. For some time, his study The Gnostic Religion was widely held to be a pivotal work, and it is as a result of his efforts that the Syrian-Egyptian/Persian division came to be widely used concerning the subject.
Eric Voegelin identified a number of similarities between ancient Gnosticism and those held by a number of modernist political theories, particularly Communism and Nazism. He identifies the root of the Gnostic impulse as alienation, that is, a sense of disconnectedness with society and a belief that this lack of concord with society is the result of the inherent disorderliness or even evil of the world. This alienation has two effects. The first is the belief that the disorder of the world can be transcended by extraordinary insight, learning, or knowledge, called a Gnostic Speculation by Voegelin. The second is the desire to implement a policy to actualize the speculation, or as Voegelin describes to "Immanentize the Eschaton", to create a sort of heaven on earth within history. The totalitarian impulse is derived from the alienation of the proponents of the policy from the rest of society. This leads to a desire to dominate (libido dominandi) which has its roots not just in the conviction of the imperative of the Gnostic's vision but also in his lack of concord with a large body of his society. As a result, there is very little regard for the welfare of those in society who are impacted by the resulting politics, which ranges from coercive to calamitous (cf. Stalin's nostrum: "You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet"). This totalitarian impulse in modernism has been noted by Catholic writers, particularly in Henri de Lubac's work "The Drama of Atheist Humanism", which explores the connection between the totalitarian impulses of political Communism, Fascism and Positivism with their philosophical progenitors Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Comte and Nietzsche. Indeed, Voegelin acknowledges his debt to this book in creating his seminal essay "Science, Politics, and Gnosticism". Evidence exists that later Voegelin came to regret the emphasis laid upon gnosticism in his work, at the expense of not acknoledging other, potentially negative influences on Western cultural and political developments. Voegelin's identification of Gnosticism as being best defined as opposition to the world (what he called "the gnostic attitude") made it very easy for him to find Gnosticism in almost anything. Voegelin saw Gnosticism as the preeminent western philosophy since the middle ages, and the greatest threat to decency on earth. In fact, it would seem that in seeing the boogeyman Gnosticism in everything, and so urgently suggesting a return to fundamentals, he too was guilty of the "gnostic attitude," and was indeed trying to build a Heaven on Earth, or "immanentize the eschaton" himself.
Aleister Crowley's Thelema system is influenced by and bears major features in common with gnosticism, especially in the requirement that adherants work to arrive at their own direct knowledge of the divine (this is referred to in the Thelemic system as the Great Work). There are several Thelemic Gnostic organizations, including Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica as an ecclesiastical body and Ordo Templi Orientis as an initiatory body.
There follows a list of those whose influence by gnosticism is contested, or otherwise as yet unproven conclusively either way.
William Blake, the nineteenth century Romantic poet and artist, was according to some sources well-versed in the doctrines of the Gnostics, and his own personal mythology contains many points of cohesion with several Gnostic myths (for example, the Blakean figure of Urizen bears many resemblances to the Gnostic Demiurge). However, efforts to dub Blake a "Gnostic" have been complicated by the complex nature and extent of Blake's own mythology, and the variety of myths and themes that may be referred to as "Gnostic"; thus, the exact relationship between Blake and the Gnostics remains a point of scholarly contention, though a comparison of the two often reveals intriguing points of cohesion.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche appears to echo Gnostic ideas in his concept of the "eternal return", in which a demon condemns human subjects to live out their lives in endless repeating cycles.
Modern gnostic 'revivals'
After a series of visions and archival finds of Cathar-related documents, Jules Doinel "re-established" the Gnostic Church in the modern era. Founded on extant Cathar documents with a heavy influence of Valentinian cosmology, the church, officially established in the autumn 1890 in Paris, France, consisted of modified Cathar rituals as sacraments, a clergy that was both male and female, and a close relationship with several esoteric initiatory orders (see link http://www.gnostique.net for more information). The church eventually split into two opposing groups that were later reconciled in the leadership of Joanny Bricaud. Another splinter church with more occult leanings was established by Robert Ambelain around 1957, from which several other schisms have produced a multitude of distantly-related occult-oriented marginal groups.
Samael Aun Weor commented extensively on the Pistis Sophia in his book The Pistis Sophia Unveiled, and founded International Gnostic Movement, one of the Occultist movements that claimed inheritance from ancient Gnosticism. A number of schisms in Samael Aun Weor's movement ensued shortly after his death which is discussed in the article The Gnostic Movement.
In the United States there are several gnostic churches with diverse lineages, one of which is the Ecclesia Gnostica, affiliated with an organization for studies of gnosticism called the Gnostic Society, primarily in Los Angeles. The current leader of both organizations is Stephan A. Hoeller who has also written extensively on Gnosticism and the occult. Parishes of the Ecclesia Gnostica and affiliated Gnostic Society educational organizations are active in Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Sedona, AZ, Salt Lake City, UT, and Oslo, Norway.
Mar Didymos I of the Thomasine Church has reinterpreted Gnosticism and the thomasine gospels from an Illuminist viewpoint. The method employed by clergy and initiates of the Thomasine Church involves the use of the scientific method and of critical thinking rather than dogmatism. Mar Didymos stresses the use of scientific theory or the use of a synthesis of well developed and verified hypotheses derived from empirical observation and deductive/indicative reasoning about factual data and tested through experimentation and peer review. The Thomasine Church describes this as antithetical in principle and method as compared to all of the existing modern Gnostic churches.
Mar Iohannes of the Apostolic Johannite Church is President of the North American College of Gnostic Bishops, a group dedicated not to dogmatic statements, but to working together to promote gnostic growth. The AJC is a bridge-building Church with traditionally-styled Rites, but Gnostic understanding of those Rites. 'Experiential Knowledge' of the Divine is the final arbiter of Gnosis.
Gnosticism in pop culture
Gnosticism has also seen something of a resurgence in popular culture in recent years. This may be related, certainly, to the sudden availibility of gnostic texts to the reading public, following the emergence of the Nag Hammadi library. Nevertheless, this dissemination of material has not necessarily resulted in a wider understanding of the intricacies of gnosticism; often the influence of gnosticism on modern culture dervies from an understandng of the movement largely subject to the influences of the ancient heresiologists, as being obsessively dualist, involving body-hatred (extending to anticosmism), libertinism and morbid alienation. Such one-sided, antagonistic assessments has recently been challenged by the efforts of modern scholars, who have used this recent availibilty of textual sources to test the assumptions and assurances of heresiological sources, rather than to accept them as definitive aids.
Literature
Anatole France's novel The Revolt of the Angels (La Revolte des Anges) weaves the story of an unhappy guardian angel and the doctrine of Yaldabaoth, to satiric effect.
The author and philospher Umberto Eco repeatedly references gnosticism, this being particularly evident in two novels: Foucault's Pendulum and Baudolino. In the latter, one character describes the Gnostic creation myth at length.
Harold Bloom explores Gnosticism in his novel The Flight to Lucifer: A Gnostic Fantasy, and, with William Golding, traces Gnosticism in American beliefs in The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation. Another work of Bloom's - Genius, in which he reviews 100 literary figures and identifies their own peculiar genius - makes introductory reference to Gnosticism as "the religion of literature".
In her book "The Secret Magdalene", the writer Ki Longfellow explores the birth of gnosticism in her novel treatment of the life of Mary Magdalene, as well as in the life of Jesus.
Alan Moore, acclaimed writer of From Hell, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Promethea, converted to Gnosticism in the late 1990s. His work, typically of gnostic interests, demonstrates a keen engagement with the often-ambivalent relationship between subject and reality, consciousness (especially altered and enlightened states of consciousness) and revolt against constrictive systems of control. In Watchmen, Moore appears to explore (or at least evoke) the concept of Voegelin's 'Immanentization of the Eschaton' through a central character in the series, who hatches a monstrous plot to save the world through the fabrication of an alien invasion. Promethea explores Gnostic issues even more directly, though the vehicle of Kabbalistic, alchemical and other esoteric framing devices.
The universe detailed in Neil Gaiman's Sandman series is broadly gnostic in cosmological structure, detailing the existences of seven archetypal figures that, at various times, control human action (their designated areas of power are reflected in their titles): Destiny, Death, Dream, Destruction, Desire, Despair, Delirium (who, at an unknown time in the past, was called Delight). These figures are likened to gods yet, being representative of human abstracts, ones that are not worshipped nor which are subject to the ebb and flow of belief; indeed, gods and goddesses from a wide variety of pantheons are demonstrated as their inferiors and, in some senses, subordinates. However, it is implied that the seven figures are intermediaries, acting on the behalf and at the behest of another; though the exact identity of the figure that presides over them is ultimately unknown, it is implied that it is a creative force, who seems to offer little deviation from the orthodox conception of God.
Grant Morrison's comic series The Invisibles draws on Gnostic mythemes, both in terms of overall structure and through occasional direct reference. Morrison's other works, such as Animal Man and The Filth, also possess frequent moments of structural cohesion with gnostic worldviews, though these make no direct reference.
In the Marvel Comics universe, the origins of the Earth are described using gnostic mythemes, including the notion of a subordinate creator of the universe. This view of the creation of the earth was expounded in the back-up features of the 1989 annual editions of their comics, all part of the Atlantis Attacks crossover.
Film and television
Such films as Dark City, Pleasantville, The Matrix, Thirteenth Floor, The Truman Show, Twelve Monkeys, Groundhog Day and Vanilla Sky can be compared to gnostic cosmological myth in the presentation of a world that is both illusory, that is created with the intention to deceive or restrict its inhabitants, and that is not configured to our benefit save through the illuminating realization of its falsehood. Ultimately, the key to unravelling the illusion and perceiving reality without obscuration (often this perception is concurrent to a 'return' to a material or extended reality that persists beyond the illusion) resides in a form of self-knowledge or enlightenment.
Hedwig and the Angry Inch makes reference to a pseudo-gnostic myth throughout; therein, the Gnostic reverence for the androgyne as symbolic of superior spiritual realities is contrasted with the protagonist's sexual and gender difficulties. Additionally, one of the main characters in the film is named 'Tommy Gnosis'.
In the anime (movie and series) and mangaRevolutionary Girl Utena, there are gnostic themes and visual symbolism. Much focus of the film's focus is directed to the dichotomy between light and dark and the interplay between the two though, at its heart, it is a passionately post-modern fairy tale. The operation of the color scheme and drives of the individual characters harkens towards the search for a "true will" similar to that presented in Aleister Crowley's Thelema doctrine.
The popular science fiction show Stargate SG1 arguably demonstrated gnostic elements in its later seasons, including the classical gnostic notion of evading or circumventing the constrictive material self in order to ascend to a higher state of existence. The parallels increased during the ninth season, with the introduction of the Ori, a race of ascended beings that, in order to prevent such an ascension, deceive and oppressing humanity; thus they fulfill much the same role as the archons, also present in much gnostic doctrine.
Music
In her book "Piece By Piece", the musician Tori Amos explores the influences and experiences in her life that have shaped her musical compositions. In the first two chapters she explores the gnostic belief that Mary Magdalene wrote the 4th Gospel of the apostles; this research would have a profound impact on her subsequent 2005 album The Beekeeper.
Musician Bill Nelson was interested in gnosticism in the mid-1980s and his album Chance Encounters in the Garden of Lights includes songs with titles evocative of gnostic concepts. The dedication of the album reads 'I offer this work to my fellow initiates as a testament to the Gnosis and a confirmation of The World Within'.
The pop group The Police recorded a hit song in the 80s which touched on the gnostic concept 'Spirits in a Material World'.
Art
The art of William Blake is arguably expressive of a world-view that finds several parallels with gnosticism. Though it would be incorrect to state that Blake consciously sought to depict gnostic themes, several of his mythic figures, such as Urizen (as he is presented in the famous Ancient of Days) find correspondents in gnostic myth; one might also note Blake's distrust of materialism, as expressed in such paintings as hs portrait of Newton and, less overtly, his illustrations to Dante's Divine Comedy.
Artist Alex Grey frequently references gnosticism in his work; he has, for example, painted a portrait of Sophia, a recurrent gnostic figure, as part of his Sacred Mirrors series.
The Legacy of Kain series of games has many gnostic elements, particularly in the character of the Elder God, as revealed in the most recent game in the series, Defiance.
The role-playing gameDungeons & Dragons makes references to gnostic concepts in its supplemental books, such as the Book of Exalted Deeds, which details Pistis Sophia, an archon and a patron of the game's martial-arts-wielding monks. The same is also true of the alternate role-playing system Kult.
The video game series Silent Hill presents several gnostic mythemes, including the concept of the material world as Hell, and a superior paradisal plane of existence.
