​GNOSTICISM (Gr.γνῶσις, knowledge), the name generallyapplied to that spiritual movement existing side by side withgenuine Christianity, as it gradually crystallized into the oldCatholic Church, which may roughly be defined as a distinct religioussyncretism bearing the strong impress of Christian influences.

I. The term “Gnosis” first appears in a technical sense in1 Tim. vi. 20 (ἡ ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις). It seems to have at firstbeen applied exclusively, or at any rate principally, to a particulartendency within the movement as a whole,i.e. to those sections of(the Syrian) Gnostics otherwise generally known as Ophites orNaasseni (see Hippolytus,Philosophumena, v. 2:Ναασσηνοὶ . . . οἱ ἑαυτοὺς Γνωστικοὺς ἀποκαλοῦντες; Irenaeus i. 11. 1;Epiphanius,Haeres. xxvi. Cf. also the self-assumed name of theCarpocratiani, Iren. i. 25. 6). But in Irenaeus the term hasalready come to designate the whole movement. This first cameinto prominence in the opening decades of the 2nd centuryA.D.,but is certainly older; it reached its height in the second third ofthe same century, and began to wane about the 3rd century, andfrom the second half of the 3rd century onwards was replaced bythe closely-related and more powerful Manichaean movement.Offshoots of it, however, continued on into the 4th and 5thcenturies. Epiphanius still had the opportunity of makingpersonal acquaintance with Gnostic sects.

II. Of the actual writings of the Gnostics, which were extraordinarilynumerous,^[1] very little has survived; they weresacrificed to the destructive zeal of their ecclesiastical opponents.Numerous fragments and extracts from Gnostic writings are to befound in the works of the Fathers who attacked Gnosticism.Most valuable of all are the long extracts in the 5th and 6th booksof thePhilosophumena of Hippolytus. The most accessible andbest critical edition of the fragments which have been preservedword for word is to be found in Hilgenfeld’sKetzergeschichte desUrchristentums. One of the most important of these fragments isthe letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora, preserved in Epiphanius,Haeres.xxxiii. 3-7 (see on this point Harnack in theSitzungsberichte derBerliner Akademie, 1902, pp. 507–545). Gnostic fragments arecertainly also preserved for us in theActs of Thomas. Here weshould especially mention the beautiful and much-discussedSong of the Pearl, orSong of the Soul, which is generally, thoughwithout absolute clear proof, attributed to the Gnostic Bardesanes(till lately it was known only in the Syrian text; edited andtranslated by Bevan,Texts and Studies,^[2] v. 3, 1897; Hofmann,Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, iv.; for thenewly-found Greek text seeActa apostolorum, ed. Bonnet, ii. 2,c. 108, p. 219). Generally also much Gnostic matter is containedin the apocryphal histories of the Apostles. To the school ofBardesanes belongs the “Book of the Laws of the Lands,” whichdoes not, however, contribute much to our knowledge of Gnosticism.Finally, we should mention in this connexion the text onwhich are based the pseudo-ClementineHomilies andRecognitiones(beginning of the 3rd century). It is, of course, alreadypermeated with the Catholic spirit, but has drawn so largely uponsources of a Judaeo-Christian Gnostic character that it comes toa great extent within the category of sources for Gnosticism.Complete original Gnostic works have unfortunately survived tous only from the period of the decadence of Gnosticism. Ofthese we should mention the comprehensive work called thePistis-Sophia, probably belonging to the second half of the 3rdcentury.^[3] Further, the Coptic-Gnostic texts of theCodexBrucianus; both the books of Ieu, and an anonymous thirdwork (edited and translated by C. Schmidt,Texte und Untersuchungen,vol. viii., 1892; and a new translation by the same inKoptische-gnostische Schriften, i.) which, contrary to the opinionof their editor and translator, the present writer believes torepresent, in their existing form, a still later period and astill more advanced stage in the decadence of Gnosticism.For other and older Coptic-Gnostic texts, in one of which is containedthe source of Irenaeus’s treatises on the Barbelognostics,but which have unfortunately not yet been made completelyaccessible, see C. Schmidt inSitzungsberichte der Berl. Akad.(1896), p. 839 seq., and “Philotesia,” dedicated to Paul Kleinert(1907); p. 315 seq.

On the whole, then, for an exposition of Gnosticism we arethrown back upon the polemical writings of the Fathers in theircontroversy with heresy. The most ancient of these is Justin,who according to hisApol. i. 26 wrote aSyntagma against allheresies (c.A.D. 150), and also, probably, a special polemic against ​Marcion (fragment in Irenaeus iv. 6. 2). Both these writings arelost. He was followed by Irenaeus, who, especially in the firstbook of his treatiseAdversus haereses (ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως βιβλία πέντε,c.A.D. 180), gives adetailed account of the Gnostic heresies. He founds his workupon that of his master Justin, but adds from his own knowledgeamong many other things, notably the detailed account ofValentinianism at the beginning of the book. On Irenaeus, andprobably also on Justin, Hippolytus drew for hisSyntagma(beginning of the 3rd century), a work which is also lost, but can,with great certainty, be reconstructed from three recensions of it:in thePanarion of Epiphanius (after 374), in Philaster of Brescia,Adversus haereses, and the Pseudo-Tertullian,Liber adversusomnes haereses. A second work of HippolytusΚατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος is preserved in the so-calledPhilosophumenawhich survives under the name of Origen. Here Hippolytusgave a second exposition supplemented by fresh Gnostic originalsources with which he had become acquainted in the meanwhile.These sources quoted in Hippolytus have lately met with veryunfavourable criticisms. The opinion has been advanced thatHippolytus has here fallen a victim to the mystification of aforger. The truth of the matter must be that Hippolytusprobably made use of a collection of Gnostic texts, put togetherby a Gnostic, in which were already represented various secondarydevelopments of the genuine Gnostic schools. It is also possiblethat the compiler has himself attempted here and there toharmonize to a certain extent the various Gnostic doctrines, yetin no case is this collection of sources given by Hippolytus to bepassed over; it should rather be considered as important evidencefor the beginnings of the decay of Gnosticism. Very noteworthyreferences to Gnosticism are also to be found scattered up anddown theStromateis of Clement of Alexandria. Especiallyimportant are theExcerpta ex Theodoto, the author of which iscertainly Clement, which are verbally extracted from Gnosticwritings, and have almost the value of original sources. Thewritings of Origen also contain a wealth of material. In thefirst place should be mentioned the treatiseContra Celsum, inwhich the expositions of Gnosticism by both Origen and Celsusare of interest (see especially v. 61 seq. and vi. 25 seq.). OfTertullian’s works should be mentioned:De praescriptionehaereticorum, especiallyAdversus Marcionem,Adversus Hermogenem,and finallyAdversus Valentinianos (entirely founded onIrenaeus). Here must also be mentioned the dialogue of Adamantiuswith the Gnostics,De recta in deum fide (beginning of 4thcentury). Among the followers of Hippolytus, Epiphanius in hisPanarion gives much independent and valuable informationfrom his own knowledge of contemporary Gnosticism. ButTheodoret of Cyrus (d. 455) is already entirely dependent onprevious works and has nothing new to add. With the 4thcentury both Gnosticism and the polemical literature directedagainst it die out.^[4]

III. If we wish to grasp the peculiar character of the greatGnostic movement, we must take care not to be led astray bythe catchword “Gnosis.” It is a mistake to regard the Gnosticsas pre-eminently the representatives of intellect among Christians,and Gnosticism as an intellectual tendency chiefly concernedwith philosophical speculation, the reconciliation of religionwith philosophy and theology. It is true that when Gnosticismwas at its height it numbered amongst its followers both theologiansand men of science, but that is not its main characteristic.Among the majority of the followers of the movement “Gnosis”was understood not as meaning “knowledge” or “understanding,”in our sense of the word, but “revelation.” These littleGnostic sects and groups all lived in the conviction that theypossessed a secret and mysterious knowledge, in no way accessibleto those outside, which was not to be proved or propagated,but believed in by the initiated, and anxiously guarded as asecret. This knowledge of theirs was not based on reflection,on scientific inquiry and proof, but on revelation. It wasderived directly from the times of primitive Christianity; fromthe Saviour himself and his disciples and friends, with whomthey claimed to be connected by a secret tradition, or else fromlater prophets, of whom many sects boasted. It was laid downin wonderful mystic writings, which were in the possession of thevarious circles (Liechtenhahn,Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus,1901).

In short, Gnosticism, in all its various sections, its form andits character, falls under the great category of mystic religions,which were so characteristic of the religious life of decadentantiquity. In Gnosticism as in the other mystic religions wefind the same contrast of the initiated and the uninitiated, thesame loose organization, the same kind of petty sectarianismand mystery-mongering. All alike boast a mystic revelationand a deeply-veiled wisdom. As in many mystical religions,so in Gnosticism, the ultimate object is individual salvation,the assurance of a fortunate destiny for the soul after death.As in the others, so in this the central object of worship is aredeemer-deity who has already trodden the difficult way whichthe faithful have to follow. And finally, as in all mysticalreligions, so here too, holy rites and formulas, acts of initiationand consecration, all those things which we call sacraments,play a very prominent part. The Gnostic religion is full of suchsacraments. In the accounts of the Fathers we find less aboutthem; yet here Irenaeus’ account of the Marcosians is of thehighest significance (i. 21 seq.). Much more material is to befound in the original Gnostic writings, especially in thePistis-Sophiaand the two books of Ieu, and again in theExcerpta exTheodoto, theActs of Thomas, and here and there also in thepseudo-Clementine writings. Above all we can see from theoriginal sources of the Mandaean religion, which also representsa branch of Gnosticism, how great a part the sacraments playedin the Gnostic sects (Brandt,Mandäische Religion, p. 96 seq.).Everywhere we are met with the most varied forms of holy rites—thevarious baptisms, by water, by fire, by the spirit, thebaptism for protection against demons, anointing with oil,sealing and stigmatizing, piercing the ears, leading into thebridal chamber, partaking of holy food and drink. Finally,sacred formulas, names and symbols are of the highest importanceamong the Gnostic sects. We constantly meet with theidea that the soul, on leaving the body, finds its path to thehighest heaven opposed by the deities and demons of the lowerrealms of heaven, and only when it is in possession of the namesof these demons, and can repeat the proper holy formula, or isprepared with the right symbol, or has been anointed with theholy oil, finds its way unhindered to the heavenly home. Hencethe Gnostic must above all things learn the names of the demons,and equip himself with the sacred formulas and symbols, inorder to be certain of a good destiny after death. The expositionof the system of the Ophites given by Celsus (in Origen vi. 25 seq.),and, in connexion with Celsus, by Origen, is particularly instructiveon this point. The two “Coptic Ieu” books unfold animmense system of names and symbols. This system again wassimplified, and as the supreme secret was taught in a singlename or a single formula, by means of which the happy possessorwas able to penetrate through all the spaces of heaven (cf. thename “Caulacau” among the Basilidians; Irenaeus,Adv. haer.i. 24. 5, and among other sects). It was taught that even theredeemer-god, when he once descended on to this earth, to risefrom it again, availed himself of these names and formulas on hisdescent and ascent through the world of demons. Traces ofideas of this kind are to be met with almost everywhere. Theyhave been most carefully collected by Anz (Ursprung des Gnosticismus,Texte und Untersuchungen xv. 4passim) who would seein them the central doctrine of Gnosticism.

IV. All these investigations point clearly to the fact thatGnosticism belongs to the group of mystical religions. We must ​now proceed to define more exactly the peculiar and distinctivecharacter of the Gnostic system. The basis of the Gnosticreligion and world-philosophy lies in a decided Oriental dualism.In sharp contrast are opposed the two worlds of the good and ofthe evil, the divine world and the material worldὕλη, theworlds of light and of darkness. In many systems there seemsto be no attempt to derive the one world from the other. ThetrueBasilides (q.v.), perhaps also Satornil, Marcion and a partof his disciples, Bardesanes and others, were frankly dualists.In the case of other systems, owing to the inexactness of ourinformation, we are unable to decide; the later systems ofMandaeism and Manichaeanism, so closely related to Gnosticism,are also based upon a decided dualism. And even when thereis an attempt at reconciliation, it is still quite clear how strongwas the original dualism which has to be overcome. Thus theGnostic systems make great use of the idea of a fall of the Deityhimself; by the fall of the Godhead into the world of matter,this matter, previously insensible, is animated into life andactivity, and then arise the powers, both partly and whollyhostile, who hold sway over this world. Such figures of fallendivinities, sinking down into the world of matter are those ofSophia (i.e. Ahamoth) among the Gnostics (Ophites) inthe narrower sense of the word, the Simoniani (the figure ofHelena), the Barbelognostics, and in the system of thePistis-Sophiaor the Primal Man, among the Naasseni and the sect,related to them, as described by Hippolytus.^[5] A further weakeningof the dualism is indicated when, in the systems of theValentinian school, the fall of Sophia takes place within thegodhead, and Sophia, inflamed with love, plunges into the Bythos,the highest divinity, and when the attempt is thus made geneticallyto derive the lower world from the sufferings and passionsof fallen divinity. Another attempt at reconciliation is setforth in the so-called “system of emanations” in which it isassumed that from the supreme divinity emanated a somewhatlesser world, from this world a second, and so on, until thedivine element (of life) became so far weakened and attenuated,that the genesis of a partly, or even wholly, evil world appearsboth possible and comprehensible. A system of emanationsof this kind, in its purest form, is set forth in the expositionscoming from the school of Basilides, which are handed down byIrenaeus, while the propositions which are set forth in thePhilosophumena of Hippolytus as being doctrines of Basilidesrepresent a still closer approach to a monistic philosophy.Occasionally, too, there is an attempt to establish at any rate athreefold division of the world, and to assume between theworlds of light and darkness a middle world connecting the two;this is clearest among the Sethiani mentioned by Hippolytus(and cf. the Gnostics in Irenaeus i. 30. 1). Quite peculiar inthis connexion are the accounts in Books xix. and xx. of theClementineHomilies. After a preliminary examination of allpossible different attempts at a solution of the problem of evil,the attempt is here made to represent the devil as an instrumentof God. Christ and the devil are the two hands of God, Christthe right hand, and the devil the left, the devil having powerover this world-epoch and Christ over the next. The devil hereassumes very much the characteristics of the punishing and justGod of the Old Testament, and the prospect is even held out ofhis ultimate pardon. All these efforts at reconciliation showhow clearly the problem of evil was realized in these Gnosticand half-Gnostic sects, and how deeply they meditated on thesubject; it was not altogether without reason that in the ranksof its opponents Gnosticism was judged to have arisen out of thequestion,πόθεν τὸ κακόν.

This dualism had not its origin in Hellenic soil, neither is itrelated to that dualism which to a certain extent existed also inlate Greek religion. For the lower and imperfect world, whichin that system too is conceived and assumed, is the nebulousworld of the non-existent and the formless, which is thenecessary accompaniment of that which exists, as shadow is oflight.

In Gnosticism, on the contrary, the world of evil is full ofactive energy and hostile powers. It is an Oriental (Iranian)dualism which here finds expression, though in one point, it istrue, the mark of Greek influence is quite clear. When Gnosticismrecognizes in this corporeal and material world the true seat ofevil, consistently treating the bodily existence of mankind asessentially evil and the separation of the spiritual from thecorporeal being as the object of salvation, this is an outcomeof the contrast in Greek dualism between spirit and matter, souland body. For in Oriental (Persian) dualism it is within thismaterial world that the good and evil powers are at war, and thisworld beneath the stars is by no means conceived as entirelysubject to the influence of evil. Gnosticism has combined thetwo, the Greek opposition between spirit and matter, and thesharp Zoroastrian dualism, which, where the Greek mind conceivedof a higher and a lower world, saw instead two hostileworlds, standing in contrast to each other like light and darkness.And out of the combination of these two dualisms arose theteaching of Gnosticism, with its thoroughgoing pessimism andfundamental asceticism.

Another characteristic feature of the Gnostic conception ofthe universe is the rôle played in almost all Gnostic systemsby the seven world-creating powers. There are indeed certainexceptions; for instance, in the systems of the Valentinian schoolsthere is the figure of the one Demiurge who takes the place ofthe Seven. But how widespread was the idea of seven powers,who created this lower material world and rule over it, hasbeen clearly proved, especially by the systematic examinationof the subject by Anz (Ursprung des Gnosticismus). TheseSeven, then, are in most systems half-evil, half-hostile powers;they are frequently characterized as “angels,” and are reckonedas the last and lowest emanations of the Godhead; below them—andfrequently considered as derived from them—comes theworld of the actually devilish powers. On the other hand, amongthe speculations of the Mandaeans, we find a different and perhapsmore primitive conception of the Seven, according to whichthey, together with their mother Namrus (Rūhā) and theirfather (Ur), belong entirely to the world of darkness. Theyand their family are looked upon as captives of the god of light(Mandā-d’hayyē, Hibil-Zīvā), who pardons them, sets them onchariots of light, and appoints them as rulers of the world(cf. chiefly Genza, inTractat. 6 and 8; W. Brandt,MandäischeSchriften, 125 seq. and 137 seq.;Mandäische Religion, 34 seq.,&c.). In the Manichaean system it is related how the helper ofthe Primal Man, the spirit of life, captured the evilarchontes, andfastened them to the firmament, or according to another account,flayed them, and formed the firmament from their skin (F. C.Baur,Das manichäische Religionssystem, v. 65), and this conceptionis closely related to the other, though in this tradition the number(seven) of thearchontes is lost. Similarly, the last book of thePistis-Sophia contains the myth of the capture of the rebelliousarchontes, whose leaders here appear as five in number (Schmidt,Koptisch-gnostische Schriften, p. 234 seq.).^[6] There can scarcelybe any doubt as to the origin of these seven (five) powers; theyare the seven planetary divinities, the sun, moon and five planets.

In the Mandaean speculations the Seven are introduced withthe Babylonian names of the planets. The connexion of theSeven with the planets is also clearly established by the expositionsof Celsus and Origen (Contra Celsum, vi. 22 seq.) and similarlyby the above-quoted passage in thePistis-Sophia, where thearchontes, who are here mentioned as five, are identified withthe five planets (excluding the sun and moon). This collectivegrouping of the seven (five) planetary divinities is derived fromthe late Babylonian religion, which can definitely be indicatedas the home of these ideas (Zimmern,Keilinschriften in demalten Testament, ii. p. 620 seq.; cf. particularly Diodorus ii. 30).And if in the old sources it is only the first beginnings of thisdevelopment that can be traced, we must assume that at a later ​period the Babylonian religion centred in the adoration of theseven planetary deities. Very instructive in this connexionis the later (Arabian) account of the religion of the MesopotamianSabaeans. The religion of the Sabaeans, evidently a lateroffshoot from the stock of the old Babylonian religion, actuallyconsists in the cult of the seven planets (cf. the great work ofDaniel Chwolsohn,Die Ssabier u. der Ssabismus). But thisreference to Babylonian religion does not solve the problemwhich is here in question. For in the Babylonian religion theplanetary constellations are reckoned as the supreme deities.And here the question arises, how it came about that in theGnostic systems the Seven appear as subordinate, half-daemonicpowers, or even completely as powers of darkness. This canonly be explained on the assumption that some religion hostileto, and stronger than the Babylonian, has superimposed itselfupon this, and has degraded its principal deities into daemons.Which religion can this have been? We are at first inclined tothink of Christianity itself, but it is certainly most improbablethat at the time of the rise of Christianity the Babylonian teachingabout the seven planet-deities governing the world should haveplayed so great a part throughout all Syria, Asia Minor andEgypt, that the most varying sections of syncretic Christianityshould over and over again adopt this doctrine and work it upinto their system. It is far more probable that the combinationwhich we meet with in Gnosticism is older than Christianity,and was found already in existence by Christianity and its sects.We must also reject the theory that this degradation of theplanetary deities into daemons is due to the influence of Hebrewmonotheism, for almost all the Gnostic sects take up a definitelyhostile attitude towards the Jewish religion, and almost alwaysthe highest divinity among the Seven is actually the creator-Godof the Old Testament. There remains, then, only one religionwhich can be used as an explanation, namely the Persian, whichin fact fulfils all the necessary conditions. The Persian religionwas at an early period brought into contact with the Babylonian,through the triumphant progress of Persian culture towardsthe West; at the time of Alexander the Great it was already theprevailing religion in the Babylonian plain (cf. F. Cumont,Textes et monuments rel. aux mystères de Mithra, i. 5, 8-10, 14,223 seq., 233). It was characterized by a main belief, tendingtowards monotheism, in the Light-deity Ahuramazda and hissatellites, who appeared in contrast with him as powers of thenature of angels.

A combination of the Babylonian with the Persian religioncould only be effected by the degradation of the Babyloniandeities into half-divine, half-daemonic beings, infinitely remotefrom the supreme God of light and of heaven, or even intopowers of darkness. Even the characteristic dualism of Gnosticismhas already proved to be in part of Iranian origin; and nowit becomes clear how from that mingling of late Greek andPersian dualism the idea could arise that these seven half-daemonicpowers are the creators or rulers of this materialworld, which is separated infinitely from the light-world of thegood God. Definite confirmation of this conjecture is affordedus by later sources of the Iranian religion, in which we likewisemeet with the characteristic fundamental doctrine of Gnosticism.Thus theBundahish (iii. 25, v. 1) is able to inform us that in theprimeval strife of Satan against the light-world, seven hostilepowers were captured and set as constellations in the heavens,where they are guarded by good star-powers and preventedfrom doing harm. Five of the evil powers are the planets,while here the sun and moon are of course not reckoned amongthe evil powers—for the obvious reason that in the Persianofficial religion they invariably appear as good divinities (cf.similar ideas in the Arabic treatise on Persian religionUlema-i-Islam,Vullers,Fragmente über die Religion Zoroasters, p. 49,and in other later sources for Persian religion, put togetherin Spiegel,Eranische Altertumskunde, Bd. ii. p. 180). ThesePersian fancies can hardly be borrowed from the ChristianGnostic systems, their definiteness and much more stronglydualistic character recalling the exposition of the Mandaean(and Manichaean) system, are proofs to the contrary. They arederived from the same period in which the underlying ideaof the Gnostic systems also originated, namely, the time at whichthe ideas of the Persian and Babylonian religions came intocontact, the remarkable results of which have thus partly foundtheir way into the official documents of Parsiism.

With this fundamental doctrine of Gnosticism is connected,as Anz has shown in his book which we have so often quoted,a side of their religious practices to which we have alreadyalluded. Gnosticism is to a great extent dominated by the ideathat it is above all and in the highest degree important for theGnostic’s soul to be enabled to find its way back through thelower worlds and spheres of heaven ruled by the Seven to thekingdom of light of the supreme deity of heaven. Hence, aprincipal item in their religious practice consisted in communicationsabout the being, nature and names of the Seven (or ofany other hostile daemons barring the way to heaven), theformulas with which they must be addressed, and the symbolswhich must be shown to them. But names, symbols andformulas are not efficacious by themselves: the Gnostic mustlead a life having no part in the lower world ruled by thesespirits, and by his knowledge he must raise himself abovethem to the God of the world of light. Throughout this mysticreligious world it was above all the influence of the late Greekreligion, derived from Plato, that also continued to operate;it is filled with the echo of the song, the first note of which wassounded by the Platonists, about the heavenly home of thesoul and the homeward journey of the wise to the higher worldof light.

But the form in which the whole is set forth is Oriental, andit must be carefully noted that the Mithras mysteries, so closelyconnected with the Persian religion, are acquainted with thisdoctrine of the ascent of the soul through the planetary spheres(Origen,Contra Celsum, vi. 22).

V. We cannot here undertake to set forth and explain in detailall the complex varieties of the Gnostic systems; but it willbe useful to take a nearer view of certain principal figures whichhave had an influence upon at least one series of Gnostic systems,and to examine their origins in the history of religion. Inalmost all systems an important part is played by the GreatMother (μήτηρ) who appears under the most varied forms (cf.Great Mother of the Gods). At an early period, and notablyin the older systems of the Ophites (a fairly exact account ofwhich has been preserved for us by Epiphanius and Hippolytus),among the Gnostics in the narrower sense of the word, the Archontici,the Sethites (there are also traces among the Naasseni,cf. thePhilosophumena of Hippolytus), theμήτηρ is the mostprominent figure in the light-world, elevated above theἑβδομάς,and the great mother of the faithful. The sect of the Barbelognosticstakes its name from the female figure of the Barbelo(perhaps a corruption ofΠαρθένος; cf. the formΒαρθενώς for“virgin” in Epiphanius,Haer. xxvi. 1). But Gnostic speculationgives various accounts of the descent or fall of this goddess ofheaven. Thus the “Helena” of the Simoniani descends to thisworld in order by means of her beauty to provoke to sensualpassion and mutual strife the angels who rule the world, andthus again to deprive them of the powers of light, stolen fromheaven, by means of which they rule over the world. She isthen held captive by them in extreme degradation. Similarideas are to be found among the “Gnostics” of Epiphanius.The kindred idea of the light-maiden, who, by exciting the sensualpassions of the rulers (ἄρχοντες), takes from them those powersof light which still remain to them, has also a central placein the Manichaean scheme of salvation (F. C. Baur,Das manichäischeReligionssystem, pp. 219, 315, 321). The light-maidenalso plays a prominent part in thePistis-Sophia (cf. the indexto the translation by C. Schmidt). With this figure of the mother-goddesswho descends into the lower world seems to be closelyconnected the idea of the fallen Sophia, which is so widespreadamong the Gnostic systems. This Sophia then is certainlyno longer the dominating figure of the light-world, she is a loweraeon at the extreme limit of the world of light, who sinks downinto matter (Barbelognostics, the anonymous Gnostic of Irenaeus, ​Bardesanes,Pistis-Sophia), or turns in presumptuous love towardsthe supreme God (Βυθός), and thus brings the Fall intothe world of theaeons (Valentinians). This Sophia then appearsas the mother of the “seven” gods (see above).

The origin of this figure is not far to seek. It is certainlynot derived from the Persian religious system, to the spirit ofwhich it is entirely opposed. Neither would it be correct toidentify her entirely with the great goddess Ishtar of the oldBabylonian religion. But there can hardly be any doubt thatthe figure of the great mother-goddess or goddess of heaven,who was worshipped throughout Asia under various forms andnames (Astarte, Beltis, Atargatis, Cybele, the Syrian Aphrodite),was the prototype of theμήτηρ of the Gnostics (cf.Great Mother of the Gods). The character of the great goddess ofheaven is still in many places fairly exactly preserved in theGnostic speculations. Hence we are able to understand how theGnosticμήτηρ, the Sophia, appears as the mother of the Hebdomas(ἑβδομάς). The great goddess of heaven is the mother ofthe stars. Particularly instructive in this connexion is the factthat in those very sects, in the systems of which the figure of theμήτηρ plays a special part, unbridled prostitution appears as adistinct and essential part of the cult (cf. the accounts of particularbranches of the Gnostics, Nicolaitans, Philionites, Borborites,&c. in Epiphanius,Haer. xxv., xxvi.). The meaning ofthis cult is, of course, reinterpreted in the Gnostic sense: by thisunbridled prostitution the Gnostic sects desired to prevent thesexual propagation of mankind, the origin of all evil. But theconnexion is clear, and hence it also explained the curious Gnosticmyth mentioned above, namely that theμήτηρ (the light-maiden)by appearing to the archontes (ἄρχοντες), the lower powers ofthis world, inflames them to sexual lusts, in order to take fromthem that share of light which they have stolen from the upperworld. This is a Gnostic interpretation of the various myths ofthe great mother-goddess’s many loves and love-adventures withother gods and heroes. And when the pagan legend of the SyrianAstarte tells how she lived for ten years in Tyre as a prostitute,this directly recalls the Gnostic myth of how Simon foundHelena in a brothel in Tyre (Epiphanius,Ancoratus, c. 104).From the same group of myths must be derived the idea of thegoddess who descends to the under-world, and is there takenprisoner against her will by the lower powers; the direct prototypeof this myth is to be found,e.g. in Ishtar’s journey to hell.And finally, just as the mother-goddess of south-western Asiastands in particularly intimate connexion with the youthfulgod of spring (Tammuz, Adonis, Attis), so we ought perhaps tocompare here as a parallel the relation of Sophia with the Soterin certain Gnostic systems (see below).

Another characteristic figure of Gnosticism is that of thePrimal Man (πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος). In many systems, certainly,it has already been forced quite into the background. But oncloser examination we can clearly see that it has a wide influenceon Gnosticism. Thus in the system of the Naasseni (see Hippolytus,Philosophumena), and in certain related sects thereenumerated, the Primal Man has a central and predominantposition. Again, in the text on which are based the pseudo-Clementinewritings (Recognitions, i. 16, 32, 45-47, 52, ii. 47; andHomilies, iii. 17 seq. xviii. 14), as in the closely related systemof the Ebionites in Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 3-16; cf. liii. 1), wemeet with the man who existed before the world, the prophetwho goes through the world in various forms, and finally revealshimself in Christ. Among the Barbelognostics (Irenaeus i.29. 3), the Primal Man (Adamas,homo perfectus et verus) andGnosis appear as a pair of aeons, occupying a prominent placein the whole series. In the Valentinian systems the pair ofaeons, Anthropos and Ekklesia, occupy the third or fourthplace within theOydoás, but incidentally we learn that withsome representatives of this school the Anthropos took a stillmore prominent place (first or second; Hilgenfeld,Ketzergeschichte,p. 294 seq.). And even in thePistis-Sophia thePrimal Man “Ieu” is frequently alluded to as the King of theLuminaries (cf. index to C. Schmidt’s translation). We alsomeet with speculations of this kind about man in the circlesof non-Christian Gnosis. Thus in thePoimandres of Hermesman is the most prominent figure in the speculation; numerouspagan and half-pagan parallels (the “Gnostics” of Plotinus,Zosimus, Bitys) have been collected by Reitzenstein in hisworkPoimandres (pp. 81-116). Reitzenstein has shown (p.81 seq.) that very probably the system of the Naasseni describedby Hippolytus was originally derived from purely pagan circles,which are probably connected in some way with the mysteriesof the Attis cult. The figure in the Mandaean system mostclosely corresponding to the Primal Man, though this figurealso actually occurs in another part of the system (cf. the figureof Adakas Mana; Brandt,Mandäische Religion, p. 36 seq.) isthat of Mandā d’hayyē (γνῶσις τῆς ζωῆς; cf. the pair of aeons,Adamas and Gnosis, among the Barbelognostics, in Irenaeusi. 29. 3). Finally, in the Manichaean system, as is well known,the Primal Man again assumes the predominant place (Baur,Manich. Religionssystem, 49 seq.).

This figure of the Primal Man can particularly be comparedwith that of the Gnostic Sophia. Wherever this figure has notbecome quite obscure, it represents that divine power which,whether simply owing to a fall, or as the hero who makes waron, and is partly vanquished by darkness, descends into thedarkness of the material world, and with whose descent beginsthe great drama of the world’s development. From this powerare derived those portions of light existing and held prisonerin this lower world. And as he has raised himself again out ofthe material world, or has been set free by higher powers, soshall also the members of the Primal Man, the portions oflight still imprisoned in matter, be set free.

The question of the derivation of the myth of the PrimalMan is still one of the unsolved problems of religious history.It is worthy of notice that according to the old Persian mythalso, the development of the world begins with the slaying ofthe primal man Gayomart by Angra-Mainyu (Ahriman);further, that the Primal Man (“son of man” = man) alsoplays a part in Jewish apocalyptic literature (Daniel, Enoch,iv. Ezra), whence this figure passes into the Gospels; and again,that the dogma of Christ’s descent into hell is directly connectedwith this myth. But these parallels do not carry us much further.Even the Persian myth is entirely obscure, and has hithertodefied interpretation. It is certainly true that in some wayan essential part in the formation of the myth has been playedby the sun-god, who daily descends into darkness, to rise fromit again victoriously. But how to explain the combination ofthe figure of the sun-god with that of the Primal Man is anunsolved riddle. The meaning of this figure in the Gnosticspeculations is, however, clear. It answers the question: howdid the portions of light to be found in this lower world, amongwhich certainly belong the souls of the Gnostics, enter into it?

A parallel myth to that of the Primal Man are the accountsto be found in most of the Gnostic systems of the creation ofthe first man. In all these accounts the idea is expressed thatso far as his body is concerned man is the work of the angelswho created the world. Soe.g. Satornil relates (Irenaeus i.24. 1) that a brilliant vision appeared from above to the world-creatingangels; they were unable to hold it fast, but formedman after its image. And as the man thus formed was unableto move, but could only crawl like a worm, the supreme Powerput into him a spark of life, and man came into existence.Imaginations of the same sort are also to be found,e.g. in thegenuine fragments of Valentinus (Hilgenfeld,Ketzergeschichte,p. 293), the Gnostics of Irenaeus i. 30. 6, the Mandaeans(Brandt,Religion der Mandäer, p. 36), and the Manichaeans(Baur,Religionssystem, p. 118 seq.). The Naasseni (Hippolytus,Philosophumena, v. 7) expressly characterize the myth asChaldean (cf. the passage from Zosimus, in Reitzenstein’sPoimandres, p. 104). Clearly then the question which the mythof the Primal Man is intended to answer in relation to thewhole universe is answered in relation to the nature of man bythis account of the coming into being of the first man, whichmay, moreover, have been influenced by the account in the OldTestament. That question is: how does it happen that in this ​inferior body of man, fallen a prey to corruption, there dwellsa higher spark of the divine Being, or in other words, how arewe to explain the double nature of man?

VI. Of all the fundamental ideas of Gnosticism of which wehave so far treated, it can with some certainty be assumed thatthey were in existence before the rise of Christianity and theinfluence of Christian ideas on the development of Gnosticism.The main question with which we have now to deal is that ofwhether the dominant figure of the Saviour (Σωτήρ) in Gnosticismis of specifically Christian derivation, or whether this can alsobe explained apart from the assumption of Christian influence.And here it must be premised that, intimately as the conceptionof salvation is bound up with the Gnostic religion, the idea ofsalvation accomplished in a definite historical moment to acertain extent remained foreign to it. Indeed, nearly all theChristian Gnostic systems clearly exhibit the great difficultywith which they had to contend in order to reconcile the ideaof an historical redeemer, actually occurring in the form of adefinite person, with their conceptions of salvation. In Gnosticismsalvation always lies at the root of all existence and all history.The fundamental conception varies greatly. At one time thePrimal Man, who sank down into matter, has freed himselfand risen out of it again, and like him his members will rise outof darkness into the light (Poimandres); at another time thePrimal Man who was conquered by the powers of darknesshas been saved by the powers of light, and thus too all his racewill be saved (Manichaeism); at another time the fallen Sophiais purified by her passions and sorrows and has found herSyzygos,the Soter, and wedded him, and thus all the souls of the Gnosticswho still languish in matter will become the brides of the angelsof theSoter (Valentinus). In fact salvation, as conceived inGnosticism, is always a myth, a history of bygone events, anallegory or figure, but not an historical event. And this decisionis not affected by the fact that in certain Gnostic sects figuredhistorical personages such as Simon Magus and Menander.The Gnostic ideas of salvation were in the later schools and sectstransferred to these persons whom we must consider as ratherobscure charlatans and miracle-mongers, just as in other casesthey were transferred to the person of Christ. The “Helena”of the Simonian system was certainly not an historical but amythical figure. This explains the laborious and artificial wayin which the person of Jesus is connected in many Gnostic systemswith the original Gnostic conception of redemption. In thispatchwork the joins are everywhere still clearly to be recognized.Thus,e.g. in the Valentinian system, the myth of the fallenSophia and the Soter, of their ultimate union, their marriageand their 70 sons (Irenaeus i. 4. 5; Hippolytus,Philos. vi.34), has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian conceptionsof salvation. The subject is here that of a high goddess of heaven(she has 70 sons) whose friend and lover finds her in the miseryof deepest degradation, frees her, and bears her home as hisbride. To this myth the idea of salvation through the earthlyChrist can only be attached with difficulty. And it was openlymaintained that the Soter only existed for the Gnostic, theSaviour Jesus who appeared on earth only for the “Psychicus”(Irenaeus i. 6. 1).

VII. Thus the essential part of most of the conceptions ofwhat we call Gnosticism was already in existence and fullydeveloped before the rise of Christianity. But the fundamentalideas of Gnosticism and of early Christianity had a kind ofmagnetic attraction for each other. What drew these twoforces together was the energy exerted by the universal idea ofsalvation in both systems. Christian Gnosticism actuallyintroduced only one new figure into the already existing Gnostictheories, namely that of the historical Saviour Jesus Christ.This figure afforded, as it were, a new point of crystallizationfor the existing Gnostic ideas, which now grouped themselvesround this point in all their manifold diversity. Thus therecame into the fluctuating mass a strong movement and formativeimpulse, and the individual systems and sects sprang up likemushrooms from this soil.

It must now be our task to make plain the position of Gnosticismwithin the Christian religion, and its significance for thedevelopment of the latter. Above all the Gnostics representedand developed the distinctly anti-Jewish tendency in Christianity.Paul was the apostle whom they reverenced, and his spiritualinfluence on them is quite unmistakable. The Gnostic Marcionhas been rightly characterized as a direct disciple of Paul.Paul’s battle against the law and the narrow national conceptionof Christianity found a willing following in a movement, thesyncretic origin of which directed it towards a universal religion.St Paul’s ideas were here developed to their extremest consequences,and in an entirely one-sided fashion such as was farfrom being in his intention. In nearly all the Gnostic systemsthe doctrine of the seven world-creating spirits is given ananti-Jewish tendency, the god of the Jews and of the OldTestament appearing as the highest of the seven. The demiurgeof the Valentinians always clearly bears the features of the OldTestament creator-God.

The Old Testament was absolutely rejected by mostof the Gnostics. Even the so-called Judaeo-Christian Gnostics(Cerinthus), the Ebionite (Essenian) sect of the Pseudo-Clementinewritings (the Elkesaites), take up an inconsistentattitude towards Jewish antiquity and the Old Testament.In thisrespect the opposition to Gnosticism led to a reactionarymovement. If the growing Christian Church, in quite a differentfashion from Paul, laid stress on the literal authority of the OldTestament, interpreted, it is true, allegorically; if it took up amuch more friendly and definite attitude towards the OldTestament, and gave wider scope to the legal conception ofreligion, this must be in part ascribed to the involuntary reactionupon it of Gnosticism.

The attitude of Gnosticism to the Old Testament and to thecreator-God proclaimed in it had its deeper roots, as we havealready seen, in the dualism by which it was dominated. Withthis dualism and the recognition of the worthlessness andabsolutely vicious nature of the material world is combined adecided spiritualism. The conception of a resurrection of thebody, of a further existence for the body after death, was unattainableby almost all of the Gnostics, with the possible exception ofa few Gnostic sects dominated by Judaeo-Christian tendencies.With the dualistic philosophy is further connected an attitudeof absolute indifference towards this lower and material world,and the practice of asceticism. Marriage and sexual propagationare considered either as absolute Evil or as altogether worthless,and carnal pleasure is frequently looked upon as forbidden.Then again asceticism sometimes changes into wild libertinism.Here again Gnosticism has exercised an influence on the developmentof the Church by way of contrast and opposition. If herea return was made to the old material view of the resurrection(the apostolicἀνάστασις τῆς σαρκός), entirely abandoning themore spiritual conception which had been arrived at as a compromiseby Paul, this is probably the result of a reaction fromthe views of Gnosticism. It was just at this point, too, thatGnosticism started a development which was followed later bythe Catholic Church. In spite of the rejection of the asceticattitude of the Gnostics, as a blasphemy against the Creator,a part of this ascetic principle became at a later date dominantthroughout all Christendom. And it is interesting to observehow,e.g., St Augustine, though desperately combating thedualism of the Manichaeans, yet afterwards introduced a numberof dualistic ideas into Christianity, which are distinguishablefrom those of Manichaeism only by a very keen eye, and eventhen with difficulty.

The Gnostic religion also anticipated other tendencies. Aswe have seen, it is above all things a religion of sacraments andmysteries. Through its syncretic origin Gnosticism introducedfor the first time into Christianity a whole mass of sacramental,mystical ideas, which had hitherto existed in it only in itsearliest phases. But in the long run even genuine Christianityhas been unable to free itself from the magic of the sacraments;and the Eastern Church especially has taken the same directionas Gnosticism. Gnosticism was also the pioneer of the ChristianChurch in the strong emphasis laid on the idea of salvation in ​religion. And since the Gnostics were compelled to draw thefigure of the Saviour into a world of quite alien myths, theirChristology became so complicated in character that it frequentlyrecalls the Christology of the later dogmatic of the Greek Fathers.

Finally, it was Gnosticism which gave the most decidedimpulse to the consolidation of the Christian Church as a church.Gnosticism itself is a free, naturally-growing religion, the religionof isolated minds, of separate little circles and minute sects.The homogeneity of wide circles, the sense of responsibilityengendered by it, and continuity with the past are almostentirely lacking in it. It is based upon revelation, which evenat the present time is imparted to the individual, upon the moreor less convincing force of the religious imagination and speculationsof a few leaders, upon the voluntary and unstable groupingof the schools round the master. Its adherents feel themselvesto be the isolated, the few, the free and the enlightened, asopposed to the sluggish and inert masses of mankind degradedinto matter, or the initiated as opposed to the uninitiated, theGnostics as opposed to the “Hylici” (ὑλικοί); at most in thelater and more moderate schools a middle place was given tothe adherents of the Church as Psychici (ψυχικοί).

This freely-growing Gnostic religiosity aroused in the Churchan increasingly strong movement towards unity and a firmand inelastic organization, towards authority and tradition. Anorganized hierarchy, a definitive canon of the Holy Scriptures,a confession of faith and rule of faith, and unbending doctrinaldiscipline, these were the means employed. A part was alsoplayed in this movement by a free theology which arose withinthe Church, itself a kind of Gnosticism which aimed at holdingfast whatever was good in the Gnostic movement, and obtainingits recognition within the limits of the Church (Clement ofAlexandria, Origen). But the mightiest forces, to which in theend this theology too had absolutely to give way, were outwardorganization and tradition.

It must be considered as an unqualified advantage for thefurther development of Christianity, as a universal religion, thatat its very outset it prevailed against the great movement ofGnosticism. In spite of the fact that in a few of its later representativesGnosticism assumed a more refined and spiritualaspect, and even produced blossoms of a true and beautiful piety,it is fundamentally and essentially an unstable religious syncretism,a religion in which the determining forces were a fantasticoriental imagination and a sacramentalism which degeneratedinto the wildest superstitions, a weak dualism fluctuatingunsteadily between asceticism and libertinism. Indirectly, however,Gnosticism was certainly one of the most powerful factorsin the development of Christianity in the 1st century.

VIII. This sketch may be completed by a short review of thevarious separate sects and their probable connexion with eachother. As a point of departure for the history of the developmentof Gnosticism may be taken the numerous little sectswhich were apparently first included under the name of “Gnostics”in the narrower sense. Among these probably belong theOphites of Celsus (in Origen), the many little sects included byEpiphanius under the name of Nicolaitans and Gnostics (Haer.25, 26); the Archontici (Epiphanius,Haer. xl.), Sethites (Cainites)should also here be mentioned, and finally the Carpocratians.Common to all these is the dominant position assumed by the“Seven” (headed by Ialdabaoth); the heavenly world lyingabove the spheres of the Seven is occupied by comparativelyfew figures, among which the most important part is played bytheμήτηρ, who is sometimes enthroned as the supremegoddess in heaven, but in a few systems has already descendedfrom there into matter, been taken prisoner, &c. Numerouslittle groups are distinguished from the mass, sometimes by onepeculiarity, sometimes by another. On the one hand we havesects with a strongly ascetic tendency, on the other we find somecharacterized by unbridled libertinism; in some the mostabandoned prostitution has come to be the most sacred mystery;in others again appears the worship of serpents, which hereappears to be connected in various and often very loose wayswith the other ideas of these Gnostics—hence the names of the“Ophites,” “Naasseni.” To this class also fundamentallybelong the Simoniani, who have included the probably historicalfigure of Simon Magus in a system which seems to be closelyconnected with those we have mentioned, especially if we lookupon the “Helena” of this system as a mythical figure. Aparticular branch of the “Gnostic” sects is represented by thosesystems in which the figure of Sophia sinking down into matteralready appears. To these belong the Barbelognostics (in thedescription given by Irenaeus the figure of the Spirit takes theplace of that of Sophia), and the Gnostics whom Irenaeus (i. 30)describes (cf. Epiphanius,Haer. xxvi.). And here may best beincluded Bardesanes, a famous leader of a Gnostic school ofthe end of the 2nd century. Most scholars, it is true, followingan old tradition, reckon Bardesanes among the Valentinians.But from the little we know of Bardesanes, his system bears notrace of relationship with the complicated Valentinian system,but is rather completely derived from the ordinary Gnosticism,and is distinguished from it apparently only by its more stronglydualistic character. The systems of Valentinus and his disciplesmust be considered as a further development of what we havejust characterized as the popular Gnosticism, and especially ofthat branch of it to which the figure of Sophia is already known.In them above all the world of the higher aeons is further extendedand filled with a throng of varied figures. They alsoexhibit a variation from the characteristic dualism of Gnosticisminto monism, in their conception of the fall of Sophia and theirderivation of matter from the passions of the fallen Sophia. Thefigures of the Seven have here entirely disappeared, the remembranceof them being merely preserved in the name of theΔημιουργός (ἑβδομάς). In general, Valentinianism displays aparticular resemblance to the dominant ideas of the Church,both in its complicated Christology, its triple division of mankindintoπνευματικοί,ψυχικοί andὑλικοί, and its far-fetchedinterpretation of texts.^[7] A quite different position from thosementioned above is taken byBasilides (q.v.). From what littlewe know of him he was an uncompromising dualist. Both thesystems which are handed down under his name by Irenaeus andHippolytus, that of emanations and the monistic-evolutionarysystem, represent further developments of his ideas with atendency away from dualism towards monism. Characteristically,in these Basilidian systems the figure of the “Mother” orof Sophia does not appear. This peculiarity the Basilidiansystem shares with that of Satornil of Antioch, which has onlycome down to us in a very fragmentary state, and in otherrespects recalls in many ways the popular Gnosticism. Byitself, on the other hand, stands the system preserved for us byHippolytus in thePhilosophumena under the name of theNaasseni, with its central figure of “the Man,” which, as wehave seen, is very closely related with certain specifically paganGnostic speculations which have come down to us (in thePoimandres,in Zosimus and Plotinus,Ennead ii. 9). With theNaasseni, moreover, are related also the other sects of whichHippolytus alone gives us a notice in hisPhilosophumena(Docetae, Perates, Sethiani, the adherents of Justin, the Gnosticof Monoimos). Finally, apart from all other Gnostics standsMarcion. With him, as far as we are able to conclude from thescanty notices of him, the manifold Gnostic speculations arereduced essentially to the one problem of the good and the justGod, the God of the Christians and the God of the Old Testament.Between these two powers Marcion affirms a sharp and, as itappears, originally irreconcilable dualism which with him restsmoreover on a speculative basis. Thanks to the noble simplicityand specifically religious character of his ideas, Marcion wasable to found not only schools, but a community, a church ofhis own, which gave trouble to the Church longer than anyother Gnostic sect. Among his disciples the speculative andfantastic element of Gnosticism again became more apparent.As we have already intimated, Gnosticism had such a power ​of attraction that it now drew within its limits even Judaeo-Christiansects. Among these we must mention the Judaeo-ChristianGnostic Cerinthus, also the Gnostic Ebionites, ofwhom Epiphanius (Haer.) gives us an account, and whose writingsare to be found in a recension in the collected works of thePseudo-ClementineRecognitions and Homilies; to the same classbelong the Elkesaites with their mystical scripture, theElxai,extracts of which are given by Hippolytus in thePhilos. (ix. 13).Later evidence of the decadence of Gnosticism occurs in thePistis-Sophia and the Coptic Gnostic writings discovered andedited by Schmidt. In these confused records of human imaginationgone mad, we possess a veritable herbarium of all possibleGnostic ideas, which were once active and now rest peacefullyside by side. None the less, the stream of the Gnostic religionis not yet dried up, but continues on its way; and it is beyonda doubt that the later Mandaeanism and the great religiousmovement of Mani are most closely connected with Gnosticism.These manifestations are all the more characteristic since inthem we meet with a Gnosticism which remained essentiallymore untouched by Christian influences than the Gnosticsystems of the 2nd centuryA.D. Thus these systems throw animportant light on the past, and a true perception of the natureand purpose of Gnosticism is not to be obtained without takingthem into consideration.