There are other points of view from which the developed Gnosticism of the 2nd cent, affected the Bible, mainly the history of the Canon, of Inter- pretation, and of the Text. The idea of a C.i.Nox (wh. see) as a collection of several books was not created by Gnosticism, but opposition to that movement made the definition of its limit necessary. There were collections of sacred writinsrs before Marcion, but the work of Marcion and the ex- istence of many apocryphal writings showed the necessity of strict definition. Our first recorded commentary on any book of Scripture is that of Her.acleon the Valentinian on St. John. And the belief at any rate that heretics nmtilated Scripture caused careful attention to be paid to the trans- mission of the sacred text. How far any of the various readings still existing may be due to Gnostic influence is at present an open question.
Literature. — On Gnosticism genemllv, by far the best work for En^lisli readers is Marisel's Ortontic l/trtnies, where Ihere is a very full discussion of the biblical pnssaires. In as far as it is behind modern criticism, it may be sniiplemenled by the articles in Smith's Diet, of Chrintian Biogniplty. where refer- ences are given to the special literature. On Biblical Gnosti- cism see esp. Lifrhtlbot 'On the Colossian Heresy' in his Epiiitle to the Volo^HauH, and Hort. Judaintic ChrititUtniti/. For special literature on the llible passages see the articles referred to.
ii. On account of his relation, real or supposed, alike to 1 Jn and to developed (inosticism, it will be worth while to examine in detail the opinions of Cerinthus, so far as these can now be recovered. He taught in the province of Asia at the end of the 1st century.
I. His Tk.vching. — Tlie only method of acquir- ing critical information concerning his teaching is to distinguish the different sources from which it comes. (1) Polycarp (tl-34), ace. to Irenjeus (Hwr. 111. iii. 4; Eus. HE III. xxviii. (i, IV. xiv. (J), related a story of the Apostle .Tolin. On going into a bath he saw C. there, and immediately rushed out saying, 'Let us flee lest the bath full on us, for C, the enemy of the truth, is within." Even if the incident be, as is possible, either exaggerated or a myth, it would not have arisen so early unless there were grounds for bringing the two togelher ; the story may Ihcrefcjre be iaken as sutlicient and conclusive evidence for placing 0. at the end of the 1st cent. The later date implied in
GNOSTICISM
GO
If 'J
less trustworthy authorities (Pseudo-Tertullian, 3, etc.) seems simply to have arisen fx-om taking the order of Irenteus as chronological.
(2) Irenajus himself (c. liOO) tells us that St. John wrote his Gospel to correct the errors of C. (//(EC. 111. xi. 1). lie describes these as follows (//(ir. I. xxvi. 1). C. taught in Asia ; he said that the world was not made by the lirsl God, but by a power separate from Him and independent of Him. Jesus Wius not born from a virgin, but \v;is the son of Jo.seph and Mary like other men, but distin- gnishetl by his superiority in justice and jirudence and wisdom. After his baptism the Christ de- scended on him in the form of a dove, and announced the unknown Father. At the end of his life the Christ left Jesus, Je.sus suffered and rose again, the Christ being spiritual remained without suffering.
(:{) The common source of the three writers, I'si'udo-TertuUian (§3), Philaster (§30), Epiphanius (i/iiT. xxviii.), is generally supposed to have been an early treatise by Hippolytus (190). The account it contains seems to l)e much less accurate than that of Irenseus. The God of the Jews was one of the angels who created the world, and wlio gave the law. Christ was a man, the son of .loseph and Mary, on whom apparently a power came down. C. had Judaistic tendencies. He supported cir- cumcision and the Sabbath, and rejected the Apostle I'aul. He was idenlitied with the opponents of the apostles in the Ac, an identification which Epinhanius developed at great length. It may be noticed that there is an element of inconsistency in this account. Cerinthus is a Judaizer, although he puts the God of the Jews in such an inferior position.
(4) In his later treatise {Ref. Omn. Ilcer. vii. 33, X. 21) Hippolytus (220-230) derives his infor- mation from Iren:eus, adding the statement that C. was educated in Egypt.
(5) The only other information of importance is that of Caius (c. 200). the Kom. presbyter (n/i. Eus. HE III. xxviii.), who a.scribes to him a gro.ss Chiliasm. There was to be a kingdom <^f Christ upon earth ; it was to last 1000 years, and to be a time of fleshly indulgence — a perpetual marriage feast. This statement is repeated or corroljorated by Dionysius of Alexandria {ap. Eus. HE 111. xxviii. 4, 6, VII. xxv. 2-5).
It is unnecessary to examine later writers, who all seem merely to combine, or exaggerate, or cor- rupt the above accounts. If we examine these in iletail, we shall notice that there are three quite inilependent tradition.s. Irena.'us has no reference to Judaistic vii-ws, and Caius alone de.scribes the Chiliastic opinions. The account in Iremeus is far the clearest and most triLstworthy ; to that we may add the information of Caius, remembering that the repulsive side may very likely be exaggerated. How far we can accept Hippolytus I., which clearly gives an inaccurate and confused account, may be doulitful.