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 Christian/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 mythological 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 these 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 Platonist philosophy.

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 " or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know 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. 205–270 CE). 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 Lampsacus, ‘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 relevance outside it.

Despite this, Plato's usage of the descriptive phrase 'royal' to denote the elevated position of the able gnostikoi, and the availability 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. 200 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 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' well-known 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 Porphyry's titles – both the abbreviated and the lengthier versions – 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 of correspondence that Porphyry's description of the tract becomes evidence for its direction against any Gnostic sect, as they are understood by modern scholarship.

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 plausible that a wider category of opponents was intended (though this wider category itself might include Gnostic sects; they are simply not exclusively addressed). The description of his opponent's libertinism, for example, does not sit well with the overwhelming evidence of Gnosticism being a predominantly ascetic tradition (see below). Michael Williams has pointed out that Plotinus arrives at this conclusion of libertinism by a process of ‘rhetorical magic’, rather than ‘direct observation’ (Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Princeton, NJ, 1996), 178): observing that ultimately only two moral choices pertain – either dedicating oneself to bodily pleasure or to the pursuit of virtue – Plotinus reasons that, since his opponents appear uninterested in

It is useful to retain knowledge of Plotinus’ objectives in this treatise. He does not address the Gnostics at large, stating that such a thing would be futile ‘for we could make no further progress toward convincing them’ (Ennead II.9.x, 265), but rather directs his arguments to his ‘intimate pupils’. Thus the accusations of libertinism are not necessarily observations of Gnostic behaviour per se, but are rather hypotheses extrapolated from his opponent's apparently neglectful attitude to virtue. One might compare the ‘rhetorical subterfuge’ of Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses: he creates a dilemma upon the horns of which he claims his opponents are caught, forcing them to accept one of ‘two equally unacceptable alternatives’ (Denis Minns, Irenaeus, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1994, 26). Thus, by trapping his pupils within such a dilemma, Plotinus hopes to convince them of the inferiority of the learnings by which they have been corrupted.

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 as the pursuit of 'gnosis' 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. As such, a number of scholars, such as Christos Evangeliou, have forwarded the theory that Plotinus was not addressing the Gnostics alone, but that a much broader critique of early Christianity was his intention, the which critique naturally included Christian Gnostic sects.

Sources

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 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 Emperor Antoninus 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. 180-185 AD, 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' 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.

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 be 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 rigorously-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 alternate 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, thirty-three are considered Gnostic by modern scholars, including 'the foreigners' and 'the Seth people'. As well as this, Hippolytus presents individual teachers such as Simon, Valentinus, Secundus, Ptolemy, Heracleon, Marcus and Colorbasus; however, he rarely reproduces sources, instead tending only to report titles. Also of interest, a sect known to Hippolytus as the 'Naasenes' frequently called themselves 'knowers': 'They take 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. They had grievously misunderstood its foundations and thus had arrived at illogical constructions, 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 available 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).

• Works preserved by the Church:
  • Acts of Thomas (Especially The Hymn of the Pearl and The Hymn of the Robe of Glory)
  • The Acts of John (Especially The Hymn of Jesus)
• The Askew Codex (British Museum, bought in 1784):
  • Pistis Sophia: Books of the Savior
• The Bruce Codex (discovered by James Bruce):
  • The Gnosis of the Invisible God or The Books of Jeu
  • The Untitled Apocalypse or The Gnosis of the Light
• The Berlin Codex or The Akhmim Codex (found in Akhmim, Egypt):
  • The Gospel of Mary
  • The Acts of Peter
  • The Wisdom of Jesus Christ
• Unknown origin:
  • The Secret Gospel of Mark
  • The Hermetica

The Nag Hammadi library

The Nag Hammadi library is a collection of early Christian Gnostic texts discovered near the town of Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. The writings in these codices comprised fifty-two mostly Gnostic tractates; they also include three works belonging to the Corpus Hermeticum and a partial translation of Plato's Republic. The codices are currently housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Egypt.

Though the original language of composition was probably Greek, the various codices contained in the collection were written in Coptic. A 1st or 2nd century date of composition for the lost Greek originals has been proposed, though this is disputed; the manuscripts themselves date from the 3rd and 4th centuries.

For a full account of the discovery and translation of the Nag Hammadi library (which has been described as 'exciting as the contents of the find itself' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 48)) see the Nag Hammadi library article.

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 Christian 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 library offers a glimpse of the set of circulating texts that would have been of interest within a 'Gnostic' community (rather than as a gnostic canon in and of itself) and thus potentially provides an insight into the gnostic mind itself.

It was with the Council of Nicaea in 325 (convened during the reign of the Emperor Constantine; 272–337) and the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397, which progressively cemented Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion of the Roman Empire, that a structurally coherent and crystallized form of orthodox Christianity began to emerge. Central to the formation of orthodoxy was the creation of a binding and coherent scriptural 'canon', which was to be strictly observed by the adherents of that church. The Nag Hammadi library offers an intriguing source of texts whose intended exclusion as much drove the formation of the orthodox 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 nascent orthodoxy, 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

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, who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both Alexandria and Rome, whom Layton called 'the great reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. 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 flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ca. 100–175 CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in 388 CE, against whom 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

Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in Egypt until the 4th century.

Simone Petrement, in A Separate God, in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)

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 occurred in Persia in the 5th century CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into Syria, Northern Arabia, Egypt and North Africa (where Augustine was a member of school from 373-382); from Syria it progressed still 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 religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and Zoroastrianism had been broken by nascent Islam. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in Central Asia, to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in 762, Manicheanism became the state religion of the Uigar Empire. From this point Manichean influence spread even further into Central Asia, and according to Rudolph its influence may be detected in Tibet and China, where it was strongly opposed by Confucianism, and its followers were subject to a number of bloody repressions. Rudolph reports that despite this suppression Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of Portuguese 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.

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:

1. The notion of a remote, supreme and unknowable monadic divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including 'Pleroma' and 'Bythos' (Greek 'deep');
2. 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;
3. The subsequent identification of the fall as an occurrence within divinity itself, rather than as occurring entirely through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of Sophia (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of Gnostic texts is indicative of her central importance;
4. 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 creating the cosmos; 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 opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent.
   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;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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 ); indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

It should be noted also that the conception of Gnosticism offered above has recently been challenged by Michael Allen William's groundbreaking work 'Rethinking Gnosticism', which re-examines the common conception of categorical 'Gnosticism' in an effort to demonstrate the somewhat nebulous nature of the term (see below). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains in common usage, and retains at least some usefulness in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism, even if the extent of that usefulness is in doubt.

Dualism and monism

Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mediated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach 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, certain 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. Manicheanism 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 classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived 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 - 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 malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing 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, as attributable to an error of perception; 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 fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things 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's act of creation.

Moral and ritual practise

Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being overwhelmingly ascetic in basis, expressed most fluently in their 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, a common 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 duplicitous 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). Thus it might 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.

In other areas of morality Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct 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 marks 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 internalised inclination of the individual assumes 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 prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('amoralism'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or 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 its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes. Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of 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

As noted above, 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 (see Dualism and monism).

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, finally resulting in the creation of 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 markedly inferior to it. Indeed, 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 and source of goodness, without necessitating its inherent negativity.

• Persian Gnostics
  • Mandaeanism which is still practised 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 Secret Book According to John
    • The Revelation of Adam
    • The Reality of the Rulers
    • The Thunder-Perfect Intellect
    • First Thought in Three Forms
    • The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, or, the Egyptian Gospel
    • Zostrianos
    • The Foreigner
    • The Three Tablets of Seth
  • The Thomasines, or the School of St. Thomas the Apostle; once again, many gnostic texts are attributable to this school:
    • The Hymn of the Pearl, or, the Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians
    • The Gospel According to Thomas
    • The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect
  • The Valentinians, in reference to the Christian teacher Valentinius (ca. 100–ca. 153 CE), 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, fragmentary; here they are marked with an '*'):
    • The Divine Word Present in the Infant (Fragment A) *
    • On the Three Natures (Fragment B) *
    • Adam's Faculty of Speech (Fragment C) *
    • To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System (Fragment D) *
    • Annihilation of the Realm of Death (Fragment F) *
    • On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom (Fragment G) *
    • Epistle on Attachments (Fragment H) *
    • Summer Harvest*
    • The Gospel of Truth*
    • Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth
    • A Prayer of Paul the Apostle
    • Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora
    • Treatise on Ressurrection (Epistle to Rheginus)
    • The Gospel According to Philip
  • 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:
  • Simon Magus and Marcion of Sinope both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar 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 cult; 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 Carpocratians
  • The Borborites
  • The Bogomils
  • 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 relevance 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 library (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 constructs a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of Hegel; one might compare literary critic Harold 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 is 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" .. 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 questioned 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 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 scholarship 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

Many culturally significant movements and figures have been influenced by Gnosticism, including, for example, Carl Jung, William Blake and Eric Voegelin. This influence has apparently grown since the emergence and translation of the Nag Hammadi library (see above). See the article Gnosticism in modern times for a fuller treatment; readers are also recommended to The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by James M. Robinson, later editions of which contain an essay on 'The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism', by Richard Smith.

See also

• Antinomianism
• Apocrypha
• Agnosticism
• Christian theosophy
• Christian Meditation
• Esoteric Christianity
• First Council of Nicaea
• Gospel
• Gnosiology
• Gnosis
• Manicheanism
• Mandaeanism
• Ontology
• Valentinianism
• Valentinus
• Zoroastrianism

References

Books

Primary sources

Secondary sources

• , translated as
• Petrement, Simone (1990), A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim, Harper and Row ISBN 0060664215

Audio lectures

• - Offers an extensive collecton of downloadable MP3 lecture by Stephan A. Hoeller on Gnosticism.

Videos

• The Naked Truth - Exposing the Deceptions About the Origins of Modern Religions (1995). ASIN: 1568890060.

Gnostic blogs

Discussion groups and email lists

غنوصية Gnóze Gnosticisme Gnostizismus Γνωστικισμός Gnostikismo Gnosticismo Gnostilaisuus Gnosticisme גנוסיס Gnosticismo Gnosticismo グノーシス主義 그노시스 Gnosticisme Gnostisisme Gnostycyzm Gnosticismo Гностицизм Gnosticizem Gnosticism