In Perso-Babylonian syncretism, we take it. Gnosticism has its primary root, and from that alone many of its features may be plausibly derived. To this is to be added some influence of Judaism. There was a syncretistic Judaism of varied char- acter. We know definitely of three forms: (I) Es.-?enic (see art. Essenes) ; (2) Samaritan, which had been going on for centuries B.C., and from which spi'ang the system of Simon Magus (with his predecessor Dositheus, and his successor Men- ander), who is distinguished by the Fathers as the parent of Gnosticism ; (3) Alexandrian, represented mainly by Philo, who produced an amalgam of Judaism with Greek philosophy. Probably it would be justifiable to add as a fourth example the Jewish Kabbala. It is a body of writings unfold- ing a traditional and, partly at least, esoteric doctrine. Its most characteristic doctrines are found also in the two Gnostic leaders, Basilides and Valentinus (A. Franck, La Kahhale, Paris, 1843, p. 350 tt'.). It is difficult, however, to prove
that the ^abbala is not later than Gnosticism, though there is practical certainty that its history was a long one before it took final shape.
A third and very important element manifest in the fully developed Gnostic systems is Greek philosophy. Genetically^ then. Gnosticism may be defined as largely a syncretistic system rising from Perso-Babylonian religion, modified to some extent, difficult to estimate, by Judaism, and in some particulars borrowing from, and as a whole clarified by contact with, Greek philosophy. These ele- ments might be effective in very varied degrees, and produced varied systems as this or that element predominated. But from those three soiuxes, apart altogether from Christianity, Gnosticism in all essentials may be derived. And all three were in active interaction before the appearance of Chris- tianity. An important consideration follows, viz. that it is absolutely no proof of a late date for any NT writing that it contains allusions to even a comparatively well-developed Gnosticism.
i. Connexion with Christianity. — How is this connexion to be conceived or explained? What did Gnosticism owe to Christianity ? Before Chris- tianity we picture Gnosticism as vague, fluid, un- stable. When Christianity was thrown into the mass of floating opinions in the ancient world, it afforded the vague Gnostic movements a point round which they could crystallize and attain a measure of permanence and definiteness, so that out of more or less loose speculations systems could be built. Men imbued with Gnostic views (the loose elements of the system described) would easily find points of resemblance between themselves ana Christianity. It dealt in a way with the very problems that interested the Gnostic. And in apostolic teaching, especially in St. Paul, there were many points which it took little ingenuity to transform into Gnostic views. The world was to be overcome ; it lay in wickedness ; the flesh was to be mortified ; there was a law in the members warring against the spirit. Divorced from the general teaching of the apostles, this could be claimed as just the Gnostic position. It is, we take it, a misconception to regard such apostolic teaching as the starting-point of Gnosticism. In our view Gnosticism had already a considerable history, and had attained a considerable develop- ment as a system, before Christianity appeared. But in such teaching Gnosticism found points of attachment to Christianity, and other points might be adduced. Gnosticism then came to shelter within the Chui'ch, never learning her essential spirit, but going on its own evolution. Growing at first from distinct roots of its own, it twined itself about the Church and became a parasite.
It is not easy to ans%ver the question. Is the soteriology of Gnosticism borrowed from Christi- anity, or is it too an independent thing? Some points are quite plain which may justify our accepting the latter alternative. It is clear that between the Gnostic Hurrip (Saviour) and the his- torical Jesus there is no discernible likeness. The redemption of the fallen .^on by the Soter has nothing to do with a historical appearance on earth and in time. The Gnostic redemption-story is a myth, an allegory, not a historical narrative. But under the influence of Christianity, laborious at- tempts were made to bring this soteriology into union with the Christian account of the historical Jesus. The attempt was not a success. ' In this patchwork the joins are everywhere still clearly to be recognized' (£'5r" xii. [1910] 157»). _ Indeed some Gnostics made no secret of the difference between their Soter and the Christ of ordinary Christians — the Soter was for Gnostics alone, Jesus Christ for 'Psychics' (Iren. I. vi. 1). The fact that one school required its members to curse Jesus
456
Gis^OSTICISM
GNOSTICISM
is not without significance in the same dii-ection. The most probable view is that Gnosticism in all its elements was independent of Christianity, but strove to put over itself a Christian guise, and re- present itself as a fuller Christianity. But even the master minds which formulated the great systems of the 2nd cent, were baffled to conceal effectively what could not be hidden, the essenti- ally alien nature and origin of their speculative flights.
5. Allusions in the NT. — In the NT there are several clear indications that the invasion of Christianity by Gnosticism is already in progress.
(1) We note regarding Simon Magus (Ac 8^'-) only this, that in the narrative we have an allegory of what we conceive the relation of Gnosticism to Christianity to have been. He was attracted to the apostles, was baptized, and still remained in tiie ' bond of iniquitj%' For this alone he may well be named the father of the Gnostics (see art. Simon Magus).