 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
The doctrine ofsalvation byknowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge",gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. WhereasJudaism andChristianity, and almost allpagan systems, hold that thesoul attains its proper end by obedience ofmind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. byfaith andworks, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places thesalvation of thesoul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitiveknowledge of themysteries of theuniverse and of magic formulae indicative of thatknowledge. Gnostics were "people whoknew", and theirknowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did notknow. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:
A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying andpantheistic-idealisticsects, which flourished from sometime before theChristian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chiefreligions of the day, and especially ofChristianity, heldmatter to be a deterioration ofspirit, and the wholeuniverse a depravation of theDeity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness ofmatter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.
However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnosticsects is labour lost.
The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past.
Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption ofChristianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before theChristian Era. ItsEastern origin was already maintained by Gieseler and Neander; F. Ch. Bauer (1831) and Lassen (1858) sought toprove its relation to thereligions ofIndia;Lipsius (1860) pointed toSyria andPhoenicia as its home, and Hilgenfeld (1884) thought it was connected with later Mazdeism. Joel (1880),Weingarten (1881), Koffmane (1881), Anrich (1894), and Wobbermin (1896) sought to account for the rise of Gnosticism by the influence of GreekPlatonicphilosophy and the Greek mysteries, while Harnack described it as "acute Hellenization ofChristianity".
For the past twenty-five years, however, the trend of scholarship has steadily moved towardsproving the pre-Christian Oriental origins of Gnosticism. At the Fifth Congress of Orientalists (Berlin, 1882) Kessler brought out the connection between Gnosis and theBabylonian religion. By this latter name, however, he meant not the original religion ofBabylonia, but thesyncretistic religion which arose after the conquest of Cyrus. The sameidea is brought out in his "Mani" seven years later. In the same year F.W. Brandt published his "Mandiäische Religion". ThisMandaean religion is so unmistakably a form of Gnosticism that it seems beyonddoubt that Gnosticism existed independent of, and anterior to,Christianity.
In more recent years (1897) Wilhelm Anz pointed out the close similarity betweenBabylonianastrology and the Gnostic theories of the Hebdomad and Ogdoad. Though in many instances speculations on theBabylonianAstrallehre have gone beyond all sober scholarship, yet in this particular instance the inferences made by Anz seem sound and reliable. Researches in the same direction were continued and instituted on a wider scale by W. Bousset, in 1907, and led to carefully ascertained results. In 1898 the attempt was made by M. Friedländer to trace Gnosticism in pre-ChristianJudaism. His opinion that theRabbinic termMinnim designated notChristians, as was commonlybelieved, butAntinomian Gnostics, has not found universal acceptance. In fact, E. Schürer brought sufficientproof to show thatMinnim is the exact Armaean dialectic equivalent forethne. Nevertheless Friedländer's essay retains its value in tracing strongantinomian tendencies with Gnostic colouring onJewish soil.
Not a few scholars have laboured to find the source of Gnostic theories on Hellenistic and, specifically, Alexandrian soil. In 1880 Joel sought toprove that the germ of all Gnostic theories was to be found inPlato. Though this may be dismissed as an exaggeration, some Greek influence on the birth, but especially on the growth, of Gnosticism cannot be denied. In Trismegistic literature, as pointed out by Reitzenstein (Poimandres, 1904), we find much that is strangely akin to Gnosticism. ItsEgyptian origin was defended by E. Amélineau, in 1887, and illustrated by A. Dietrich, in 1891 (Abraxas Studien) and 1903 (Mithrasliturgie). The relation of Plotinus'sphilosophy to Gnosticism was brought out by C. Schmidt in 1901. That Alexandrian thought had some share at least in the development ofChristian Gnosticism is clear from the fact that the bulk of Gnostic literature which we possess comes to us fromEgyptian (Coptic) sources. That this share was not a predominant one is, however, acknowledged by O. Gruppe in his "Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte" (1902). It istrue that the Greek mysteries, as G. Anrich pointed out in 1894, had much in common with esoteric Gnosticism; but there remains the further question, in how far these Greek mysteries, as they areknown to us, were the genuine product of Greek thought, and not much rather due to the overpowering influence of Orientalism.
Although the origins of Gnosticism are still largely enveloped in obscurity, so much light has been shed on the problem by the combined labours of many scholars that it is possible to give the following tentative solution: Although Gnosticism may at first sight appear a mere thoughtlesssyncretism of well nigh all religious systems in antiquity, it has in reality one deep root-principle, which assimilated in every soil what is needed for its life and growth; this principle isphilosophical and religiouspessimism.
The Gnostics, it istrue, borrowed their terminology almost entirely from existingreligions, but they only used it to illustrate their greatidea of the essentialevil of this presentexistence and theduty to escape it by the help of magic spells and a superhuman Saviour. Whatever they borrowed, thispessimism they did not borrow — not from Greek thought, which was ajoyous acknowledgment of and homage to the beautiful and noble in this world, with a studied disregard of the element of sorrow; not fromEgyptian thought, which did not allow its elaborate speculations on retribution and judgment in the netherworld to cast a gloom on this presentexistence, but considered theuniversecreated or evolved under the presiding wisdom of Thoth; not from Iranian thought, which held to the absolute supremacy ofAhura Mazda and only allowedAhriman a subordinate share in thecreation, or rather counter-creation, of the world; not from IndianBrahminic thought, which wasPantheism pure and simple, orGod dwelling in, nay identified with, theuniverse, rather than the Universe existing as the contradictory ofGod; not, lastly, fromSemitic thought, forSemiticreligions were strangely reticent as to thefate of thesoul after death, and saw all practical wisdom in the worship ofBaal, or Marduk, or Assur, or Hadad, that they might live long on this earth.
This utterpessimism, bemoaning theexistence of the wholeuniverse as a corruption and a calamity, with a feverish craving to be freed from the body of this death and a mad hope that, if we onlyknew, we could by somemystic words undo thecursed spell of thisexistence — this is the foundation of all Gnostic thought. It has the same parent-soil asBuddhism; butBuddhism isethical, it endeavours to obtain its end by the extinction of all desire; Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual, and trusts exclusively to magicalknowledge. Moreover, Gnosticism, placed in other historical surroundings, developed from the first on other lines thanBuddhism.
When Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C., two great worlds of thought met, andsyncretism in religion, as far as weknow it, began. Iranian thought began to mix with the ancient civilization of Babylon. Theidea of thegreat struggle betweenevil andgood, ever continuing in thisuniverse, is the parentidea of Mazdeism, or Iraniandualism. This, and theimaginedexistence of numberless intermediatespirits,angels and devas, are the conviction which overcame the contentedness ofSemitism.
On the other hand, the unshakable trust inastrology, the persuasion that the planetary system had afatalistic influence on this world's affairs, stood its ground on the soil of Chaldea. The greatness of the Seven — the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn — the sacred Hebdomad, symbolized for millenniums by the staged towers ofBabylonia, remained undiminished. They ceased, indeed, to be worshipped as deities, but they remainedarchontes anddynameis, rules and powers whose almost irresistible force was dreaded byman. Practically, they were changed from gods to devas, orevil spirits. Thereligions of the invaders and of the invaded effected a compromise: the astralfaith of Babylon wastrue, but beyond the Hebodomad was theinfinite light in the Ogdoad, and everyhumansoul had to pass the adverse influence of the god or gods of the Hebdomad before it could ascend to the onlygoodGod beyond. This ascent of thesoul through the planetary spheres to theheaven beyond (anidea not unknown even to ancientBabylonian speculations) began to be conceived as a struggle with adverse powers, and became the first and predominantidea in Gnosticism.
The second great component of Gnostic thought is magic, properly so called, i.e. the powerex opere operato of weird names, sounds, gestures, and actions, as also the mixture of elements to produce effects totally disproportionate to thecause. These magic formulae, which caused laughter and disgust to outsiders, are not a later andaccidental corruption, but anessential part of Gnosticism, for they are found in all forms ofChristian Gnosticism and likewise in Mandaeism. No Gnosis was essentially complete without theknowledge of the formulae, which, once pronounced, were the undoing of the higher hostile powers. Magic is the original sin of Gnosticism, nor is it difficult to guess whence it is inherited. To a certain extent it formed part of everypagan religion, especially the ancient mysteries, yet the thousands of magic tablets unearthed isAssyria andBabylonia show us where the rankest growth of magic was to be found. Moreover, the terms and names of earliest of Gnosticism bear an unmistakable similarity toSemitic sounds and words.
Gnosticism came early into contact withJudaism, and it betrays aknowledge of theOld Testament, if only to reject it or borrow a few names from it. Considering the strong, well-organized, and highly-culturedJewish colonies in the Euphrates valley, this early contact withJudaism is perfectly natural. Perhaps the Gnosticidea of a Redeemer is not unconnected withJewishMessianic hopes. But from the first the Gnostic conception of a Saviour is more superhuman than that of popularJudaism; theirManda d'Haye, orSoter, is some immediate manifestation of theDeity, a Light-King, anÆon (Aion), and anemanation of thegoodGod.
When Gnosticism came in touch withChristianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity intoChristian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledgedJesus as Saviour of the world, simulated itssacraments, pretended to be an esotericrevelation ofChrist and HisApostles, flooded the world withapocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim. AsChristianity grew within and without the Roman Empire, Gnosticism spread as a fungus at its root, and claimed to be the onlytrue form ofChristianity, unfit, indeed, for the vulgar crowd, but set apart for the gifted and theelect. So rank was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stiflingChristianity altogether, and the earliest Fathers devoted their energies to uprooting it. Though in reality the spirit of Gnosticism is utterly alien to that ofChristianity, it then seemed to the unwary merely a modification or refinement thereof. When domiciled onGreek soil, Gnosticism, slightly changing its barbarous and Seminitic terminology and giving its "emanatons" and "syzygies" Greek names, sounded somewhat likeneo-Platonism, thought it was strongly repudiated by Plotinus. InEgypt the national worship left its mark more on Gnostic practice than on its theories.
In dealing with the origins of Gnosticism, one might be tempted to mentionManichaeism, as a number of Gnosticideas seem to be borrowed fromManichaeism, where they are obviously at home. This, however, would hardly be correct.Manichaeism, as historically connected with Mani, its founder, could not have arisen much earlier than A.D. 250, when Gnosticism was already in rapid decline.Manichaeism, however, in many of its elementsdates back far beyond its commonly accepted founder; but then it is a parallel development with the Gnosis, rather than one of its sources. SometimesManichaeism is even classed as a form of Gnosticism and styled Parsee Gnosis, as distinguished fromSyrian andEgyptian Gnosis. This classification, however, ignores the fact that the two systems, though they have thedoctrine of theevil ofmatter in common, start from different principles,Manichaeism fromdualism, while Gnosticism, as anidealisticPantheism, proceeds from the conception ofmatter as a gradual deterioration of theGodhead.
Owing to the multiplicity and divergence of Gnostic theories, a detailed exposition in this article would be unsatisfactory and confusing and to acertain extent even misleading, since Gnosticism never possessed a nucleus of stabledoctrine, or any sort ofdepositum fidei round which a number of varied developments andheresies orsects might be grouped; at most it had some leadingideas, which are more or less clearly traceable in different schools. Moreover, a fairidea of Gnostic doctrines can be obtained from the articles on leaders and phases of Gnostic thought (e.g.BASILIDES;VALENTINUS; MARCION;DOCETAE;DEMIURGE). We shall here only indicate some main phases of thought, which can be regarded as keys and which, though not fitting all systems, will unlock most of the mysteries of the Gnosis.
Gnosticism is thinly disguisedPantheism. In the beginning was the Depth; the Fulness of Being; the Not-Being God; the First Father, theMonad, the Man; the First Source, the unknown God (Bythos pleroma, ouk on theos, propator, monas, anthropos, proarche, hagnostos theos), or by whatever other name it might be called. This undefinedinfinite Something, though it might be addressed by the title of theGoodGod, was not apersonal Being, but, like Tad of Brahma of theHindus, the "Great Unknown" of modern thought. The Unknown God, however, was in the beginning pure spirituality;matter as yet was not.
This source of all being causes toemanate (proballei) from itself a number of purespirit forces. In the different systems theseemanations are differently named, classified, and described, but theemanation theory itself is common too all forms of Gnosticism. In the Basilidian Gnosis they are called sonships (uiotetes), in Valentinianism they form antithetic pairs or "syzygies" (syzygoi); Depth and Silence produceMind andTruth; these produceReason and Life, these againMan andState (ekklesia). According to Marcus, they are numbers and sounds.
These are the primary roots of theÆons. With bewildering fertility hierarchies ofÆons are thus produced, sometimes to the number of thirty. TheseÆons belong to the purely ideal, noumenal, intelligible, or supersensible world; they are immaterial, they are hypostaticideas. Together with the source from which theyemanate they form thepleroma.
The transition from the immaterial to the material, from the noumenal to the sensible, is brought about by a flaw, or a passion, or asin, in one of the Æons. According toBasilides, it is a flaw in the last sonship; according to others it is the passion of the femaleÆon Sophia; according to others thesin of the Great Archon, or Æon-Creator, of the Universe.
The ultimate end of all Gnosis ismetanoia, or repentance, the undoing of thesin of materialexistence and the return to the Pleroma.
In the greater number of Gnostic systems an important role is played by theÆon Wisdom — Sophia or Achamoth. In some sense she seems to represent the supremefemale principle, as for instance in the Ptolemaic system, in which the mother of the seven heavens is called Achamoth, in theValentinian system, in whichhe ano Sophia, the Wisdom above, is distinguished fromhe kato Sophia, or Achamoth, the former being thefemale principle of the noumenal world, and in the Archotian system, where we find a "Lightsome Mother" (he meter he photeine), and in which beyond the heavens of the Archons ishe meter ton panton and likewise in the Barbelognosis, where thefemale Barbelos is but the counterpart of the Unknown Father, which also occurs amongst the Ophites described byIrenaeus (Against Heresies III.7.4).
Moreover, theEucharistic prayer in theActs of Thomas (chapter 1) seems addressed to this supremefemale principle. W. Bousset's suggestion, that the Gnostic Sophia is nothing else than a disguise for the Dea Syra, the great goddess Istar, or Astarte, seems worthy of consideration. On the other hand, theÆon Sophia usually plays another role; she ishe Prouneikos or "the Lustful One", once a virginal goddess, who by her fall from original purity is thecause of thissinful material world.
One of the earliest forms of this myth is found inSimonian Gnosis, in which Simon, the Great Power, finds Helena, who during ten years had been a prostitute inTyre, but who is Simon'sennoia, or understanding, and whom his followers worshipped under theform of Athena, the goddess of wisdom.
According toValentinus's system, as described byHippolytus (Book VI, 25-26), Sophia is the youngest of the twenty-eightæons. Observing the multitude ofæons and the power of begetting them, she hurries back into the depth of the Father, and seeks to emulate him by producing offspring without conjugal intercourse, but only projects anabortion, a formlesssubstance. Upon this she is cast out of Pleroma. According to theValentinian system as described byIrenaeus (Against Heresies I) andTertullian (Against the Valentinians 9), Sophia conceives a passion for the First Father himself, or rather, under pretext oflove she seeks toknow him, the Unknowable, and to comprehend his greatness. She should have suffered the consequence of her audacity by ultimate dissolution into the immensity of the Father, but for the Boundary Spirit. According to the Pistis Sophia (ch. xxix) Sophia, daughter of Barbelos, originally dwelt in the highest, or thirteenthheaven, but she isseduced by thedemon Authades by means of a ray of light, which she mistook as anemanation from the First Father. Authades thus enticed her into Chaos below the twelveÆons, where she wasimprisoned byevil powers.
According to theseideas,matter is the fruit of thesin of Sophia; this, however, was but aValentinian development; in the older speculations theexistence ofmatter is tacitly presupposed aseternal with the Pleroma, and through hersin Sophia falls from the realm of light into Chaos or realm of darkness.
This originaldualism, however, was overcome by the predominant spirit of Gnosticism,pantheisticemanationism. The Sophia myth is completely absent from the Basilidian and kindred systems. It is suggested, with great verisimilitude, that theEgyptian myth of Isis was the original source of the Gnostic "lower wisdom". In many systems thisKato Sophia is sharply distinguished from the Higher Wisdom mentioned above; as, for instance, in the magic formula for the dead mentioned byIrenaeus (I.21.5), in which the departed has to address the hostile archons thus: "I am a vessel more precious than thefemale who made you. If your mother ignores the source whence she is, Iknow myself, and Iknown whence I am and invoke the incorruptible Sophia, whois in the Father, the mother of your mother, who has neither father nor husband. A man-woman, born from awoman, has made you, not knowing her mother, but thinking herself alone. But I invoke her mother." This agrees with the system minutely described byIrenaeus (I.4-5), where Sophia Achamoth, or Lower Wisdom, the daughter of Higher Wisdom, becomes the mother of theDemiurge; she being the Ogdoad, her son the Hebdomad, they form a counterpart of the heavenly Ogdoad in the Pleromata. This is evidently a clumsy attempt to fuse into one two systems radically different, the Basilidian and theValentinian; theignorance of the Great Archon, which is the centralidea ofBasilides, is here transferred to Sophia, and the hybrid system ends in bewildering confusion.
Gnosticsalvation is not merelyindividualredemption of eachhumansoul; it is a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to what they were before the flaw in the sphere of theÆons broughtmatter intoexistence and imprisoned some part of the Divine Light into theevil Hyle (Hyle). This setting free of the light sparks is the process ofsalvation; when all light shall have left Hyle, it will be burnt up, destroyed, or be a sort of everlastinghell for the Hylicoi.
In Basilidianism it is the Third Filiation that is captive inmatter, and is gradually being saved, now that theknowledge of itsexistence has been brought to the first Archon and then to the Second Archon, to each by his respective Son; and the news has been spread through the Hebdomad byJesus the son ofMary, who died toredeem the Third Filiation.
In Valentinianism the process is extraordinarily elaborate. When this world has been born from Sophia in consequence of hersin, Nous and Aletheia, twoÆons, by command of the Father, produce two newÆons,Christ and theHoly Ghost; these restore order in the Pleroma, and in consequence allÆons together produce a newÆon, Jesus Logos, Soter, or Christ, whom they offer to the Father. Christ, the Son of Nous and Aletheia, has pity on the abortivesubstance born of Sophia and gives itessence andform. Whereupon Sophia tries to rise again to the Father, but in vain. Now theÆon Jesus-Soter is sent as second Saviour, he unites himself to themanJesus, the son ofMary, at hisbaptism, and becomes the Saviour ofmen.Man is a creature of theDemiurge, a compound ofsoul, body, andspirit. Hissalvation consists in the return of hispneuma orspirit to the Pleroma; or if he be only a Psychicist, not a full Gnostic, hissoul (psyche) shall return to Achamoth. There is noresurrection of the body. (For further details and differences seeVALENTINUS.)
InMarcionism, the mostdualistic phase of Gnosticism,salvation consisted in the possession of theknowledge of theGoodGod and the rejection of theDemiurge. TheGoodGod revealed himself inJesus and appeared asman inJudea; toknow him, and to become entirely free from the yoke of the World-Creator orGod of theOld Testament, is the end of allsalvation.
The Gnostic Saviour, therefore, is entirely different from theChristian one. For the Gnostic Saviour does notsave. Gnosticism lacks theidea ofatonement. There is nosin to be atoned for, exceptignorance be thatsin. Nor does the Saviour in any sense benefit thehuman race by vicarious sufferings. Nor, finally, does he immediately and actively affect anyindividualhumansoul by the power of grace or draw it toGod. He was a teacher, he once brought into the world thetruth, which alone can save. As a flame sets naphtha on fire, so the Saviour's light ignites predisposedsouls moving down the stream oftime. Of a real Saviour who withlove human and Divine seeks outsinners tosave them, Gnosticism knows nothing.
The Gnostic Saviour has nohumannature, he is anæon, not aman; he onlyseemed aman, as the threeAngels who visitedAbraham seemed to bemen. (For a detailed exposition seeDOCETAE.) TheÆon Soter is brought into the strangest relation to Sophia: in some systems he is her brother, in others her son, in other again her spouse. He is sometimes identified with Christ, sometimes with Jesus; sometimes Christ and Jesus are the sameæon, sometimes they are different; sometimes Christ and theHoly Ghost are identified. Gnosticism did its best to utilize theChristian concept of theHoly Ghost, but never quite succeeded. She made him the Horos, or Methorion Pneuma (Horos, Metherion Pneuma), the Boundary-Spirit, the Sweet Odour of the Second Filiation, a companionæon with Christos, etc., etc. In some systems he is entirely left out.
It is the merit of recent scholarship to haveproved that Gnosticeschatology, consisting in thesoul's struggle with hostile archons in its attempt to reach the Pleroma, is simply thesoul's ascent, inBabylonianastrology, through the realms of the seven planets to Anu.
Origen (Against Celsus VI.31), referring to the Ophitic system, gives us the names of the seven archons as Jaldabaoth, Jao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Ailoaios, and Oraios, and tells us that Jaldabaoth is the planet Saturn. Astraphaios is beyonddoubt the planet Venus, as there are gnostic gems with afemale figure and the legendASTAPHE, which name is also used in magic spells as the name of a goddess. In theMandaean system Adonaios represents the Sun. Moreover,St. Irenæus tells us: "Sanctam Hebdomadem VII stellas, quas dictunt planetas, esse volunt." It is safe, therefore, to take the above seven Gnostic names as designating the seven stars, then considered planets,
In the hellenized form of Gnosticism either all or some of these names are replaced by personifiedvices. Authadia (Authades), or Audacity, is the obvious description of Jaldabaoth, the presumptuousDemiurge, who is lion-faced as the Archon Authadia. Of the Archons Kakia, Zelos, Phthonos, Errinnys, Epithymia, the last obviously represents Venus. The number seven is obtained by placing a proarchon or chief archon at the head. That these names are only a disguise for the Sancta Hebdomas is clear, for Sophia, the mother of them, retains the name of Ogdoas, Octonatio. Occasionally one meets with the ArchonEsaldaios, which is evidently the El Shaddai of theBible, and he is described as the Archon "number four" (harithmo tetartos) and must represent the Sun.
In the system of the Gnostics mentioned by Epiphanius we find, as the Seven Archons, Iao, Saklas, Seth, David, Eloiein, Elilaios, and Jaldabaoth (or no. 6 Jaldaboath, no. 7 Sabaoth). Of these, Saklas is the chiefdemon ofManichaeism; Elilaios is probably connected with En-lil, the Bel of Nippur, the ancient god ofBabylonia. In this, as in several other systems, the traces of the planetary seven have been obscured, but hardly in any have they become totally effaced. What tended most to obliterate the sevenfold distinction was the identification of theGod of theJews, the Lawgiver, with Jaldabaoth and his designation as World-creator, whereas formerly the seven planets together ruled the world. This confusion, however, was suggested by the very fact that at least five of the seven archons boreOld-Testament names forGod — El Shaddai,Adonai,Elohim,Jehovah,Sabaoth.
The speculations on Primeval Man (Protanthropos,Adam) occupy a prominent place in several Gnostic systems.
According toIrenaeus (I.29.3) theÆon Autogenes emits thetrue and perfect Anthrôpos, also called Adamas; he has a helpmate, "Perfect Knowledge", and receives an irresistible force, so that all things rest in him. Others say (Irenaeus,I.30) there is ablessed and incorruptible and endless light in the power of Bythos; this is the Father of all things who is invoked as the First Man, who, with his Ennœa, emits"the Son of Man", or Euteranthrôpos.
According toValentinus,Adam wascreated in the name of Anthrôpos and overawes thedemons by thefear of the pre-existent man (tou proontos anthropou). In theValentinian syzygies and in theMarcosian system we meet in the fourth (originally the third) place Anthrôpos and Ecclesia. In the Pistis Sophia theÆon Jeu is called the First Man, he is the overseer of the Light, messenger of the First Precept, and constitutes the forces of the Heimarmene. In the Books of the Jeu this "great Man" is the King of the Light-treasure, he is enthroned above all things and is the goal of allsouls. According to the Naassenes, the Protanthropos is the first element; the fundamental being before its differentiation intoindividuals."The Son of Man" is the same being after it has been individualized into existing things and thus sunk intomatter.
The Gnostic Anthrôpos, therefore, orAdamas, as it is sometimes called, is acosmogonic element, puremind as distinct frommatter,mind conceived hypostatically asemanating fromGod and not yet darkened by contact withmatter. Thismind is considered as thereason ofhumanity, orhumanity itself, as a personifiedidea, acategory without corporeality, thehumanreason conceived as the World-Soul.
This speculation about the Anthrôpos is completely developed inManichaeism, where, in fact, it is the basis of the whole system.God, in danger of the power of darkness, creates with the help of the Spirit, the five worlds, the twelve elements, and the Eternal Man, and makes him combat the darkness. But this Man is somehow overcome byevil and swallowed up by darkness. The presentuniverse is in throes to deliver the captive Man from the powers of darkness. In the Clementine Homilies thecosmogonic Anthrôpos is strangely mixed up with the historical figure of the first man,Adam.Adam "was thetrueprophet, running through all ages, and hastening to rest"; "the Christ, who was from the beginning and is always, who was ever present to every generation in a hidden manner indeed, yet ever present". In factAdam was, to useModernist language, theGodheadimmanent in the world and ever manifesting itself to the innerconsciousness of theelect.
The sameidea, somewhat modified, occurs in Hermetic literature, especially the "Poimandres". It is elaborated byPhilo, makes an ingenious distinction between thehuman beingcreated first "afterGod's image and likeness" and the historic figures ofAdam andEvecreated afterwards.Adamkat eikona is: "Idea, Genus, Character, belonging to the world, of Understanding, without body, neither male norfemale; he is the Beginning, the Name ofGod, theLogos,immortal, incorruptible" (De opif. mund., 134-148; De conf. ling., 146). Theseideas in Talmudism, Philonism, Gnosticism, and Trismegistic literature, all come from once source, the late Mazdea development of the Gayomarthians, or worshipper of the Super-Man.
This Gnostic figure, appearing in a number of systems, theNicolaites, the "Gnostics" of Epiphanius, the Sethians, the system of the "Evangelium Mariae" and that inIrenaeus,I.29.2 sq., remains to a certain extent an enigma. The namebarbelo, barbeloth, barthenos has not been explained withcertainty. In any case she represents the supremefemale principle, is in fact the highestGodhead in itsfemale aspect. Barbelo has most of the functions of theano Sophia as described above. So prominent was her place amongst some Gnostics that some schools were designated as Barbeliotae, Barbelo worshippers of Barbelognostics. She is probably none other than the Light-Maiden of the Pistis Sophia, thethygater tou photos or simply the Maiden,parthenos. In Epiphanius (Haer., xxvi, 1) andPhilastrius (Haer., xxxiii) Parthenos (Barbelos) seems identical with Noria, whoplays a great role as wife either ofNoah or of Seth. The suggestion, that Noria is "Maiden",parthenos, Istar, Athena, Wisdom, Sophia, or Archamoth, seems worthy of consideration.
We are not so well informed about the practical and ritual side of Gnosticism as we are about itsdoctrinal and theoretical side. However,St. Irenæus's account of theMarcosians,Hippolytus's account of theElcesaites, theliturgical portions of the"Acta Thomae", some passages in the Pseudo-Clementines, and above all Coptic Gnostic andMandaean literature gives us at least some insight into theirliturgical practices.
All Gnosticsects possessed thisrite in some way; in Mandaeism dailybaptism is one of the great practices of the system. The formulae used byChristian Gnostics seem to have varied widely from that enjoyed byChrist. TheMarcosians said: "In [eis] the name of the unknown Father of all, in [eis] the Truth, the Mother of all, in him, who came down onJesus [eis ton katelthonta eis Iesoun]". TheElcesaites said: "In [en] the name of the great and highestGod and in the name of his Son, the great King". InIrenaeus (I.21.3) we find the formula: "In the name that was hidden from every divinity and lordship andtruth, which [name]Jesus the Nazarene has put on in the regions of light" and several other formulae, which were sometimes pronounced in Hebrew or Aramaic. TheMandaeans said: "The name of the Life and the name of the Manda d'Haye is named over thee". In connection withBaptism theSphragis was of great importance; in what the seal or sign consisted wherewith they were marked is not easy to say. There was also the tradition of a name either by utterance or by handing a tablet with some mystic word on it.
The anointing of the candidate withchrism, or odoriferous ointment, is a Gnosticrite which overshadows the importance ofbaptism. In the"Acta Thomae", so some scholars maintain, it had completely replacedbaptism, and was the solesacrament of initiation. This however is not yetproven. TheMarcosians went so far as to rejectChristian baptism and to substitute a mixture of oil and water which they poured over the head of the candidate. Byconfirmation the Gnostics intended not so much to give theHoly Ghost as to seal the candidates against the attacks of the archons, or to drive them away by the sweet odour which is above all things (tes uter ta hola euodias). Thebalsam was somehow supposed to have flowed from the Tree of Life, and this tree was again mystically connected with the Cross; for thechrism is in the"Acta Thomae" called "the hiddenmystery in which the Cross is shown to us".
It is remarkable that so little is known of the Gnostic substitute for the Eucharist. In a number of passages we read of the breaking of the bread, but in what this consisted is not easy to determine. The use ofsalt in thisrite seems to have been important (Clement, Hom. xiv), for we read distinctly how St. Peter broke the bread of the Eucharist and "puttingsalt thereon, he gave first to the mother and then to us". There is furthermore a great likelihood, though nocertainty, that the Eucharist referred to in the"Acta Thomae" was merely a breaking of bread without the use of the cup. This point is strongly controverted, but the contrary can hardly beproven. It is beyonddoubt that the Gnostics often substituted water for thewine (Acta Thomae, Baptism of Mygdonia, ch. cxxi). What formula ofconsecration was used we do notknow, but thebread was certainlysigned with the Cross. It is to be noted that the Gnostics called the Eucharist byChristiansacrificial terms —prosphora, "oblation",Thysia (II bk. of Jeû, 45). In the Coptic Books (Pistis Sophia, 142; II Jeû, 45-47) we find a long description of some apparently Eucharisticceremonies carried out byJesus Himself. In these fire andincense, two flasks, and also two cups, one with water, the other with wine, and branches of the vine are used.Christ crowns theApostles with olive wreaths, begsMelchisedech to come and changewine into water forbaptism, puts herbs in theApostles' mouths and hands. Whether these actions in some sense reflect theritual of Gnosticism, or are onlyimaginations of the author, cannot be decided. The Gnostics seem also to have used oil sacramentally for the healing of the sick, and even the dead were anointed by them to be rendered safe and invisible in their transit through the realms of the archons.
They possessed a special Gnosticsacrament of the bridechamber (nymphon) in which, through some symbolical actions, theirsouls were wedded to theirangels in the Pleroma. Details of itsrites are not as yetknown.Tertullian nodoubt alluded to them in the words "Eleusinia fecerunt lenocinia".
An extraordinary prominence is given to the utterance of the vowels:alpha, epsilon, eta, iota, omicron, upsilon, omega. TheSaviour and Hisdisciples are supposed in the midst of their sentences to have broken out in an interminable gibberish of only vowels; magic spells have come down to us consisting of vowels by the fourscore; onamulets the seven vowels, repeated according to all sorts of artifices, form a very commoninscription. Within the last few years these Gnostic vowels, so long amystery, have been the object of careful study by Ruelle, Poirée, andLeclercq, and it may be consideredproven that each vowel represents one of the seven planets, or archons; that the seven together represent the Universe, but without consonants they represent the Ideal andInfinite not yet imprisoned and limited bymatter; that they represent a musical scale, probably like theGregorian 1 tone re-re, or d, e, f, g, a, b, c, and many a Gnostic sheet of vowels is in fact a sheet of music. But research on this subject has only just begun. Among the Gnostics the Ophites were particularly fond of representing theircosmogonic speculations by diagrams, circles within circles, squares, and parallel lines, and other mathematical figures combined, with names written within them. How far these sacred diagrams were used as symbols in theirliturgy, we do notknow.
Gnosticism possessed no central authority for eitherdoctrine ordiscipline; considered as a whole it had no organization similar to the vast organization of theCatholicChurch. It was but a large conglomeration ofsects, of whichMarcionism alone attempted in some way to rival the constitution of theChurch, and evenMarcionism had no unity. No other classification of thesesects is possible than that according to their main trend of thought. We can therefore distinguish: (a)Syrian orSemitic; (b) Hellenistic or Alexandrian; (c)dualistic; (d)antinomian Gnostics.
This school represents the oldest phase of Gnosticism, as WesternAsia was the birthplace of the movement.Dositheus,Simon Magus, Menander,Cerinthus, Cerdo, Saturninus Justin, theBardesanites, Sevrians,Ebionites,Encratites, Ophites, Naassenes, the Gnostics of the"Acts of Thomas", the Sethians, the Peratae, theCainites may be said to belong to thisschool.
The more fantastic elements and elaborate genealogies and syzygies ofæons of the later Gnosis are still absent in these systems. The terminology is some barbarous form ofSemitic;Egypt is the symbolic name for thesoul's land of bondage.
The opposition between the good God and the World-Creator is noteternal orcosmogonic, though there is strongethical opposition toJehovah theGod of theJews. He is the last of the sevenangels who fashioned this world out ofeternally pre-existentmatter. Thedemiurgicangels, attempting to createman,created but a miserable worm, to which the Good God, however, gave the spark of divine life. The rule of thegod of the Jews must pass away, for the good God calls us to his own immediate service throughChrist his Son. Weobey theSupreme Deity byabstaining from flesh meat and marriage, and by leading an ascetic life.
Such was the system of Saturninus of Antioch, who taught during the reign of Hadrian (c. A.D. 120). The Naassenes (fromNahas, the Hebrew for serpent) were worshippers of the serpent as a symbol of wisdom, which theGod of the Jews tried to hide frommen. The Ophites (ophianoi, fromophis, serpent), who, when transplanted on Alexandrian soil, supplied the mainideas of Valentinianism, become one of the most widely spreadsects of Gnosticism. Though not strictly serpent-worshippers, they recognized the serpent as symbol of the supremeemanation, Achamoth or Divine Wisdom. They were styled Gnosticspar excellence. The Sethians saw in Seth the father of all spiritual (pneumatikoi) men; inCain and Abel the father of the psychic (psychikoi) and hylic (hylikoi) men. According to the Peratae there exists a trinity of Father, Son, and Hyle (Matter). The Son is the Cosmic Serpent, who freedEve from the power of the rule of Hyle.
Theuniverse they symbolized by a triangle enclosed in a circle. The number three is the key to allmysteries. There are three supreme principles: the not-generated, the self-generated, the generated. There are three logoi, of gods; the Saviour has a threefoldnature, threefold body, threefold power, etc. They are called Peretae (peran) because they have "crossed over" out ofEgypt, through theRed Sea of generation. They are thetrue Hebrews, in fact (the word comes from the Hebrew meaning "to cross over"). The Peratae were founded by Euphrates and Celbes (Acembes?) and Ademes. This Euphrates, whose name is perhaps connected with the name Peratae itself, is said to be the founder of the Ophites mentioned byCelsus about A.D. 175. TheCainites were so called because theyveneratedCain, andEsau, and the Sodomites, andCore, andJudas, because they had all resisted thegod of the Jews.
These systems were more abstract, andphilosophical, and self-consistent than theSyrian. TheSemitic nomenclature was almost entirely replaced by Greek names. Thecosmogonic problem had outgrown all proportions, theethical side was less prominent,asceticism less strictly enforced.
The two great thinkers of this school wereBasilides andValentinus.
Though born atAntioch, inSyria,Basilides founded his school in Alexandria (c. A.D. 130), and was followed by his son Isidorus. His system was the most consistent and soberemanationism that Gnosticism ever produced. His school never spread so widely as the next to be mentioned, but inSpain it survived for several centuries.
Valentinus, who taught first at Alexandria and then atRome (c. A.D. 160), elaborated a system of sexual duality in the process ofemanation; a long series of male andfemale pairs of personifiedideas is employed to bridge over the distance from the unknownGod to this present world. His system is more confused than Basilidianism, especially as it is disturbed by the intrusion of the figure or figures ofSophia in thecosmogonic process. BeingSyrian Ophitism inEgyptian guise, it can claim to be thetrue representative of the Gnostic spirit.
Thereductio ad absurdum of these unbridled speculations can be seen in the Pitis Sophia, which is light-maidens, paralemptores, spheres, Heimarmene, thirteenæons, light-treasures, realms of the midst, realms of the right and of the left, Jaldabaoth, Adamas, Michael, Gabriel,Christ, the Saviour, andmysteries without number whirl past and return likewitches in adance. The impression created on the same reader can only be fitly described in the words of "Jabberwocky": "gyre and gimble on the wabe".
We learn fromHippolytus (Against Heresies IV.35),Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 4) andClement of Alexandria (Exc. ex Theod., title) that there were two main schools of Valentinianism, the Italian and the Anatolian orAsiatic. In the Italian school were teachers of note: Secundus, who divided the Ogdoad within the Pleroma into two tetrads, Right and Left; Epiphanes, who described this Tetras as Monotes, Henotes, Monas, and To Hen; and possibly Colorbasus, unless his name be a misreading ofKol Arba "All Four". But the most important were Ptolemy and Heracleon.
Ptolemy is especiallyknown to fame by his letter to Flora, a noble lady who had written to him as Prom Presbyter (Texte u. Unters., N.S., XIII, Anal. z. alt. Gesch. d. Chr.) to explain the meaning of theOld Testament. This Ptolemy split up the names and numbers of theæons into personifiedsubstances outside thedeity, asTertullian relates. He was given toBiblical studies, and was a man of unbridledimagination.
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata IV.9.73) calls Heracleon the most eminent teacher of theValentinian school.Origen devotes a large part of hiscommentary on St. John to combating Heracleon'scommentary on the sameEvangelist. Heracleon called the source of all being Anthropos, instead of Bythos, and rejected theimmortality of thesoul — meaning, probably, the merely psychic element. He apparently stood nearer to theCatholicChurch than Ptolemy and was a man of better judgment.
Tertullian mentions two other names (Against the Valentinians 4), Theotimus and (On the Flesh of Christ 17) Alexander.
The Anatolian school had as a prominent teacher Axionicus (Tertullian,Against the Valentinians 4; Hippolytus,Against Heresies VI.30) who had hiscollegium at Antioch about A.D. 220, "the master's most faithfuldisciple". Theodotus is onlyknown to us from the fragment of his writings preserved byClement of Alexandria.Marcus the Conjuror's system, an elaborate speculation with ciphers and numbers, is given byIrenaeus (I.11-12) and also byHippolytus (VI.42).Irenaeus's account ofMarcus was repudiated by theMarcosians, butHippolytus asserts that they did so without reason.Marcus was probably anEgyptian and a contemporary ofIrenaeus.
A system not unlike that of theMarcosians was worked out by Monoimus the Arabian, to whomHippolytus devoteschapters 5 to 8 of Book VIII, and who is mentioned only byTheodoret besides him.Hippolytus is right in calling these two Gnostics imitations ofPythagoras rather thanChristians. According to the Epistles ofJulian the Apostate,Valentiniancollegia existed inAsia Minor up to his own times (d. 363).
Somedualism was indeed congenital with Gnosticism, yet but rarely did it overcome the main tendency of Gnosticism, i.e.Pantheism. This, however, was certainly the case in the system ofMarcion, who distinguished between theGod of theNew Testament and theGod of theOld Testament, as between twoeternal principles, the first beingGood,agathos; the second merelydikaios, or just; yet evenMarcion did not carry this system to its ultimate consequences. He may be considered rather as a forerunner of Mani than a pure Gnostic. Three of hisdisciples, Potitus, Basilicus, and Lucanus, are mentioned byEusebius as being true to their master'sdualism (Church History V.13), butApelles, his chiefdisciple, though he went farther than his master in rejecting the Old-Testament Scriptures, returned tomonotheism by considering the Inspirer ofOld-Testamentprophecies to be not a god, but anevil angel. On the other hand, Syneros and Prepon, also hisdisciples, postulated three different principles. A somewhat differentdualism was taught by Hermogenes in the beginning of the second century at Carthage. The opponent of the good God was not theGod of the Jews, but Eternal Matter, the source of allevil. This Gnostic was combatted byTheophilus of Antioch andTertullian.
As amoral law was given by theGod of the Jews, and opposition to theGod of the Jews was aduty, the breaking of themoral law to spite its give was considered asolemnobligation. Such asect, called theNicolaites, existed inApostolic times, their principle, according toOrigen, wasparachresthai te sarki. Carpocrates, whomTertullian (On the Soul 35) calls a magician and a fornicator, was a contemporary ofBasilides. One could only escape the cosmic powers through discharging one'sobligations to them byinfamous conduct. To disregard alllaw and sink oneself into theMonad by remembering one's pre-existence in the Cosmic Unit — such was the Gnosis of Carpocrates. His son Epiphanes followed hisfather'sdoctrine so closely that he died in consequence of hissins at the age of seventeen.Antinomian views were further maintained by the Prodicians and Antitactae. No more ghastly instance ofinsane immorality can be found than the one mentioned in Pistis Sophia itself as practised by some Gnostics.St. Justin (First Apology 26),Irenaeus (I.25.3) andEusebius (Church History IV.7) make it clear that "thereputation of these men broughtinfamy upon the whole race ofChristians".
The Gnostics developed an astounding literary activity, which produced a quantity of writings far surpassing contemporary output ofCatholic literature. They were most prolific in the sphere of fiction, as it is safe to say that three-fourths of the earlyChristians romances aboutChrist and Hisdisciples emanated from Gnostic circles. Besides these — often crude and clumsy — romances they possessed what may be called"theosophic" treatises and revelations of a highlymystical character. These are best described as a stupefying roar of bombast occasionally interrupted by a few words of real sublimity. Traine remarks withjustice: "Anyone who reads the teachings of the Gnostics breathes in an atmosphere of fever and fancies himself in ahospital, amongst delirious patients, who are lost in gazing at their own teeming thought and who fix their lustrous eyes on emptyspace" (Essais de crit. et d'histoire, Paris, 1904). Gnostic literature, therefore, possesses little or no intrinsic value, however great its value forhistory andpsychology. It is of unparalleled importance in the study of the surroundings in whichChristianity first arose. The bulk of it is unfortunately no longer extant. With the exception of some Coptic translations and some expurgated or CatholicizedSyriac versions, we possess only a number of fragments of what once must have formed a largelibrary. Most of this literature will be found catalogued under the names of Gnostic authors in the articlesBASILIDES;BARDESANES;CERINTHUS; MARCION;SIMON MAGUS;PTOLEMY;VALENTINUS. We shall enumerate in the following paragraphs only anonymous Gnostic works and such writings as are not attributed to any of the above authors.
TheNicolaites possessed "some books under the name of Jaldabaoth", a book called "Nôria" (the mythical wife ofNoah),prophecy of Barcabbas, who was a soothsayer among theBasilidians, a "Gospel of the Consummation", and a kind of apocalypse called "the Gospel of Eva" (Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., xxv, xxvi;Philastrius, 33). The Ophites possessed "thousands" ofapocrypha, as Epiphanius tells us; among these he specially mentions: "Questions of Mary, great and small" (some of these questions are perhaps extant in the Pistis Sophia); also many books under the name of "Seth", "Revelations of Adam",Apocryphal Gospels attributed toApostles; an Apocalypse of Elias, and a book called "Genna Marias". Of these writings somerevelations ofAdam and Seth, eight in number, are probably extant in anArmenian translation, published in theMechitarist collection of theOld-Testamentapocrypha (Venice, 1896). See Preuschen "Die apocryph. Gnost. Adamschr." (Giessen, 1900). TheCainites possessed a "Gospel of Judas", an "Ascension of Paul" (anabatikon Paulou) and some other book, of which we do notknow the title, but which, according to Epiphanius, was full ofwickedness. The Prodicians, according toClement of Alexandria, possessedapocrypha under the name of Zoroaster (Stromata I.15.69). TheAntinomians had an apocryphon "full of audacity andwickedness" (Stromata III.4.29;Origen, "In Matth,", xxviii). The Naassenes had a book out of whichHippolytus largely quotes, but of which we do notknow the title. It contained acommentary onBible texts,hymns, andpsalms. The Peratae possessed a similar book. The Sethians possessed a "Paraphrasis Seth", consisting of seven books, explanatory of their system, a book calledAllogeneis, or "Foreigners", an "Apocalypse of Adam", a book attributed toMoses, and others. TheArchontians possessed a large and small book entitled "Symphonia"; this possibly extant in Pitra's "Analecta Sacra" (Paris, 1888). The Gnostics attacked by Plotinus possessedapocrypha attributed to Zoroaster, Zostrian, Nichotheus, Allogenes (the Sethian Book "Allogeneis"?), and others.
In addition to these writings the followingapocrypha are evidently of Gnostic authorship:
There are a number of otherapocrypha in which scholars have claimed to find traces of Gnostic authorship, but these traces are mostly vague and unsatisfactory. In connection with these undoubtedly Gnosticapocrypha mention must be made of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. It istrue that these are more often classed under Judaistic than under strictly Gnostic literature, but their affinity to Gnostic speculations is at least a first sight so close and their connection with the Book of Elxai (cf.ELCESAITES) so generally recognized that they cannot be omitted in a list of Gnostic writings. If the theory maintained by Dom Chapman in "The Date of the Clementines" (Zeitschrift f. N. Test. Wiss., 1908) and in the articleCLEMENTINES in the Catholic Encyclopedia be correct, and consequently Pseudo-Clemens be a crypto-Arian who wrote A.D. 330, the "Homilies" might still have at least some value in the study of Gnosticism. But Dom Chapman's theory, though ingenious, is too daring and as yet too unsupported, to justify the omission of the "Homilies" in this place.
A great, if not the greatest, part of Gnostic literature, which has been saved from the general wreck of Gnostic writings, is preserved to us in threeCopticcodices, commonly called the Askew, the Bruce, and the AkhmimCodex. The AskewCodex, of the fifth of sixth century, contains the lengthy treatise "Pistis Sophia", i.e. Faith-Wisdom. This is a work in four books, written between A.D. 250 and 300; the fourth book, however, is an adaptation of an earlier work. The first two books describe the fall of theÆon Sophia and hersalvation by theÆon Soter; the last two books describe the origin ofsin andevil and the need of Gnostic repentance. In fact the whole is a treatise on repentance, as the last two books only apply in practice the example of penance set by Sophia. The work consists of a number of questions and answers betweenChrist and His male andfemaledisciples in which five "Odes of Solomon", followed bymystical adaptations of the same, are inserted. As the questioning is mostly done by Mary, the Pistis Sophia is probably identical with the "Questions of Mary" mentioned above. Thecodex also contains extracts from the "Book of the Saviour". The dreary monotony of these writings can only be realized by those who have read them. An English translation of the Latin translation of the Coptic, which itself is a translation of the Greek, was made by G.R.S. Mead (London, 1896). The Bruce papyrus is of about the samedate as the Askew vellumcodex and contains two treatises:
No complete English translations of these treatises exist; some passages, however, are translated in the aforesaid G.R.S. Mead's "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten". Both the Bruce and AskewCodices have been translated into German by C. Schmidt (1892) in "Texte u. Unters" and (1901) in theBerlin "Greek Fathers". A Latin translation exists of the "Pistis Sophia" by Schwartze and Petermann (Berlin, 1851) and a French one of the BruceCodex by Amélineau (Paris, 1890). The AkhmimCodex of the fifth century, found in 1896, and now in the Egyptian Museum atBerlin, contains
The study of Gnosticism is seriously retarded by the entirely unaccountable delay in the publication of these treatises; for these thirteen years past we possess only the brief account of thiscodex published in the "Sitzungsber. d. k. preus. Acad." (Berlin, 1896), pp. 839-847.
This account of Gnostic literature would be incomplete without reference to a treatise commonly published amongst the works ofClement of Alexandria and called"Excerpta ex Theodoto". It consists of a number of Gnostic extracts made byClement for his own use with theidea of future refutation; and, withClement's notes and remarks on the same, form a very confusing anthology. See O. Bibelius, "Studien zur Gesch. der Valent." in "Zeitschr. f. N. Nest. Wiss." (Giessen, 1908).
Oriental non-Christian Gnosticism has left us the sacred books of theMandaeans, viz.,
Alexandrian non-Christian Gnosticism is perceptible in Trismegistic literature, published in English translation by G.R.S. Mead (London and Benares, 1902, three volumes). SpecificallyJewish Gnosticism left no literature, but Gnostic speculations have an echo in severalJewish works, such as the Book of Enoch, the Zohar, theTalmudic treatise Chagiga XV. See Gförer, "Philo", Vol. I, and Karppe, "Etudes sur. ore. nat. d. Zohar" (Paris, 1901).
From the first Gnosticism met with the most determined opposition from theCatholicChurch.
The last words of the agedSt. Paul in hisFirst Epistle to Timothy are usually taken as referring to Gnosticism, which is described as "Profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called [antitheseis tes pseudonomou gnoseos — the antitheses of so-called Gnosis] which some professing haveerred concerning thefaith". Most probablySt. Paul's use of the termspleroma, the æon of this world, the archon of the power of the air, inEphesians andColossians, was suggested by the abuse of these terms by the Gnostics. Other allusions to Gnosticism in theNew Testament are possible, but cannot beproven, such asTitus 3:9;1 Timothy 4:3;1 John 4:1-3.
The first anti-Gnostic writer wasSt. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165). His "Syntagma" (Syntagma kata pason ton gegenemenon aireseon), long thought lost, is substantially contained in the "Libellus adv. omn. haeres.", usually attached toTertullian's "De Praescriptione"; such at least is the thesis of J. Kunze (1894) which is largely accepted. OfSt. Justin's anti-Gnostic treatise on theResurrection (Peri anastaseos) considerable fragments are extant inMethodius' "Dialogue on the Resurrection" and inSt. John Damascene's "Sacra Parellela".St. Justin's "Comendium against Marcion", quoted bySt. Irenæus (IV.6.2 andV.26.2), is possibly identical with his Syntagma". Immediately afterSt. Justin, Miltiades, aChristianphilosopher ofAsia Minor, is mentioned byTertullian andHippolytus (Against the Valentinians 5, and Eusebius,Church History V.28) as having combated the Gnostics and especially theValentinians. His writings are lost.Theophilus of Antioch (d. c. 185) wrote against theheresy of Hermogenes, and also an excellent treatise againstMarcion (kata Markionos Logos). The book againstMarcion is probably extant in the "Dialogus de rectâ in Deum fide" of Pseudo-Origen. For Agrippa Castor seeBASILIDES.
Hegesippus, a Palestinian, traveled by way ofCorinth toRome, where he arrived underAnicetus (155-166), to ascertain the sound andorthodoxfaith fromApostolic tradition. He met manybishops on his way, who all taught the samefaith and inRome he made a list of thepopes from Peter toAnicetus. In consequence he wrote five books of Memoirs (Upomnemata) "in a most simple style, giving thetruetradition ofApostolicdoctrine", becoming "a champion of thetruth against the godlessheresies" (Eusebius,Church History IV.7 sqq. and IV.21 sqq.). Of this work only a few fragments remain, and these are historical rather thantheological.
Rhodon, adisciple ofTatian, Philip,Bishop ofGortyna in Crete, and a certain Modestus wrote againstMarcion, but their writings are lost.Irenaeus (Against Heresies I.15.6) and Epiphanius (xxxiv, 11) quote a short poem against the OrientalValentinians and the conjuror Marcus by "an aged" but unknown author; and Zachaeus,Bishop ofCaesarea, is said to have written against theValentinians and especially Ptolemy.
Beyond all comparison most important is the great anti-Gnostic work ofSt. Irenæus,Elegchos kai anatrope tes psudonymou gnoseos, usually called"Adversus Haereses". It consists of five books, evidently not written at one time; the first three books about A.D. 180; the last two about a dozen years later. The greater part of the first book has come down to us in the original Greek, the rest in a very ancient and anxiously close Latin translation, and some fragments inSyriac.
St. Irenæusknew the Gnostics from personal intercourse and from their own writings and gives minute descriptions of their systems, especially of theValentinians and Barbelo-Gnostics. A good test of howSt. Irenæus employed his Gnostic sources can be made by comparing the newly found "Evangelium Mariae" withAgainst Heresies I.24. Numerous attempts to discreditIrenaeus as awitness haveproved failures (seeSAINT IRENAEUS). Besides his great work,Irenaeus wrote an open letter to the Romanpriest Florinus, who thought of joining theValentinians; and when the unfortunatepriest hadapostatized, and had become a Gnostic,Irenaeus wrote on his account a treatise "On the Ogdoad", and also a letter toPope Victor, begging him to use his authority against him. Only a few passages of these writings are extant.
Eusebius (Church History IV.23.4) mentions a letter ofDionysius of Corinth (c. 170) to theNicomedians, in which he attacks theheresy ofMarcion. The letter is not extant.Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) only indirectly combated Gnosticism by defending thetrueChristian Gnosis, especially inThe Pedagogue I,Stromata II, III, V, and in the so-called eighth book or"Excerpta ex Theodoto".Origen devoted no work exclusively to the refutation of Gnosticism but his four books"On First Principles" (Peri archon), written about the year 230, and preserved to us only in some Greek fragments and a free Latin translation byRufinus, is practically a refutation of Gnosticdualism,Docetism, andEmanationism.
About the year 300 an unknownSyrian author, sometimeserroneously identified withOrigen, and often called by the literary pseudonym Adamantius, or "The Man of Steel", wrote a long dialogue of which the title is lost, but which is usually designated by the words, "De rectâ in Deum fide". This dialogue, usually divided into five books, contains discussions with representatives of twosects ofMarcionism, of Valentinianism, and ofBardesanism. The writer plagiarizes extensively fromTheophilus of Antioch andMethodius of Olympus, especially the latter's anti-Gnostic dialogue"On Free Will" (Peri tou autexousiou).
The greatest anti-Gnostic controversialist of the earlyChristian Church isTertullian (b. 169), who practically devoted his life to combating this dreadful sum of allheresies. We need but mention the titles of his anti-Gnostic works:"De Praescriptione haereticorum";"Adversus Marcionem"; a book"Adversus Valentinianos";"Scorpiace";"De Carne Christi";"De Resurrectione Carnis"; and finally"Adversus Praxeam".
A storehouse of information rather than a refutation is the great work ofHippolytus, written some time after A.D. 234, once called "Philosophoumena" and ascribed toOrigen, but since the discovery of Books IV-X, in 1842, known by the name if itstrue author and itstrue title,"Refutation of All Heresies" (katapason aireseon elegchos).
The publication of theAthosCodex by E. Miller (Oxford, 1851) revolutionized the study of Gnosticism and rendered works published previous to thatdate antiquated and almost worthless. To students of Gnosticism this work is as indispensable as that ofSt. Irenæus. There is an English translation by J. MacMahon in "The Ante-Nicene Library" (Edinburgh, 1868).Hippolytus tried toprove that all Gnosticism was derived fromheathenphilosophy; his speculations may be disregarded, but, as he was in possession of a great number of Gnostic writings from which he quotes, his information is priceless. As he wrote nearly fifty years afterSt. Irenæus, whosedisciple he had been, he describes a later development of Gnosis than theBishop of Lyons. Besides his greater work,Hippolytus wrote, many years previously (before 217), a small compendium against allheresies, giving a list of the same, thirty-two in number, fromDositheus to Noetus; also a treatise againstMarcion.
As, from the beginning of the fourth century, Gnosticism was in rapid decline, there was less need of champions oforthodoxy, hence there is a long interval between Adamantius's dialogue and St. Epiphanius's "Panarion", begun in the year 374.St. Epiphanius, who is his youth was brought into closest contact with Gnosticsects inEgypt, and especially the Phibionists, and perhaps even, as some hold, belonged to thissect himself, is still a first-class authority. With marvelous industry he gathered information on all sides, but his injudicious and too credulous acceptance of many details can hardly be excused.
Philastrius of Brescia, a few years later (383), gave to theLatin Church whatSt. Epiphanius had given to the Greek. He counted and described no fewer than one hundred and twenty-eightheresies, but took the word in a somewhat wide and vague sense. Though dependent on the "Syntagma" ofHippolytus, his account is entirely independent of that of Epiphanius.
Another Latin writer, who probably lived in the middle of the fifth century in Southern Gaul, and who is probably identical withArnobius the Younger, left a work, commonly called "Praedestinatus", consisting of three books, in the first of which he describes ninetyheresies fromSimon Magus to the Praedestinationists. This work unfortunately contains manydoubtful and fabulous statements. Some time after theCouncil of Chalcedon (451)Theodoret wrote a "Compendium of Heretical Fables" which is of considerable value for the history of Gnosticism, because it gives in a very concise and objective way the history of theheresies since thetime ofSimon Magus.St. Augustine's book "De Haeresibus" (written about 428) is too dependent onPhilastrius and Epiphanius to be of much value. Amongst anti-Gnostic writers we must finally mention theneo-Platonist Plotinus (d. A.D. 270), who wrote a treatise "Against the Gnostics". These were evidently scholars who frequented hiscollegia, but whose Oriental and fantasticpessimism was irreconcilable with Plotinus's views.
The attempt to picture Gnosticism as a mighty movement of thehumanmind towards the noblest and highesttruth, a movement in some way parallel to that ofChristianity, has completely failed. It has been abandoned by recent unprejudiced scholars such as W. Bousset and O. Gruppe, and it is to be regretted that it should have been renewed by an English writer, G.R.S. Mead, in "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten", an unscholarly and misleading work, which in English-speaking countries may retard the sober andtrue appreciation of Gnosticism as it was in historical fact.
Gnosticism was not an advance, it was a retrogression. It was born amidst the last throes of expiring cults and civilizations in WesternAsia andEgypt. Though hellenized, these countries remained Oriental andSemitic to the core. This Oriental spirit — Attis ofAsia Minor, Istar ofBabylonia, Isis ofEgypt, with theastrological andcosmogonic lore of theAsiatic world — first sore beset byAhuramazda in the East, and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness ofJesus Christ in the West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism andChristianity with itself. It tried to do for the East whatNeo-Platonism tried to do for the West. During at least two centuries it was a real danger toChristianity, though not so great as some modern writers would make usbelieve, as if the merest breath might have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as againstorthodox,Christianity.
Similar things are said ofMithraism andneo-Platonism as against thereligion of Jesus Christ. But these sayings have more piquancy than objectivetruth.Christianity survived, and not Gnosticism, because the former was the fittest — immeasurably, nayinfinitely, so. Gnosticism died not by chance, but because it lacked vital power within itself; and no amount oftheosophistic literature, flooding English and German markets, can give life to that which perished from intrinsic and essential defects.
It is striking that the two earliest champions ofChristianity against Gnosticism — Hegesippus andIrenaeus — brought out so clearly the method of warfare which alone was possible, but which also alone sufficed to secure the victory in the conflict, a method whichTertullian some years later scientifically explained in his "De Praescriptione". Both Hegesippus andIrenaeusproved that Gnostic doctrines did not belong to that deposit offaith which was taught by thetruesuccession ofbishops in the primarysees ofChristendom; both in triumphant conclusion drew up a list of theBishops of Rome, from Peter to theRoman bishop of their day; as Gnosticism was not taught by thatChurch with which theChristians everywhere must agree, it stood self-condemned.
A just verdict on the Gnostics is that of O. Gruppe (Ausführungen, p. 162); the circumstances of the period gave them a certain importance. But a living force they never were, either in general history or in the history ofChristendom. Gnosticism deserves attention as showing what mental dispositionsChristianity found inexistence, what obstacles it had to overcome to maintain its own life; but "means ofmental progress it never was".
APA citation.Arendzen, J.(1909).Gnosticism. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
MLA citation.Arendzen, John."Gnosticism."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 6.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1909.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Christine J. Murray.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.