GNOSTICISM.
Gnosis and Gnosticism (§ 1). Origin and Meaning (§ 2). Sources (§ 3).
A Religion, not a Philosophy (§4).
Reliance upon Authority
(§5). Its Dualism (§ 6). The Church and Gnosticism
(§ 7).
Gnosticism (derived from Gk. gnosis, " knowledge ") is a degenerate form of true gnosis, the true meaning of which as regards Christianity is gained from the New Testament, and is the knowledge
m
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Glosses Gnosticism
Mic|f recognition of the divine plan of salvation leans of a God-given insight. According to the oldest tradition, the Lord said to his disciples (Matt. xiii. 11) : " it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." To the Apostle Paul, gnosis was a function of the ial man (I Cor. ii. 11 sqq.), which every Chrisossessed in its essentials. But 3S '' there are IHe.-v. i ties of gifts, but the same Spirit " the gift of h y'i , as well, could be given to some one in special re (I Cor. xii. 4 sqq.). In a narrower sense, ■ostle regarded gnosis as the discerning of the a which the divine purpose of salvation had n, in particular the people of the Covenant, in :htj course of history, and which, therefore, could be £-.:; led only from Scripture. Paul was aware of tb. i ;ural dangers of such a gnosis; he knew that th. • possessor of it might imagine himself to be somewhat better than other men; nor was gnosis one of tb- three things that abide (I Cor. xiii. 13). It is , t iir'n'.)gical, more properly a theosophical, function; is: i ioi that very reason must be subordinated to :'anii, the specifically religious function. This conception is the one that has always been upheld by th»- Church. Even where it might seem as though tb' possessor of gnosis occupied a higher place than tb* poor in spirit, yet the point is emphasized again an 1 again, that the possession of gnosis as such do 'S not carry with it the assurance of redemption; ar .1 Clement of Alexandria, the ecclesiastical Gnostic, writes: " There are not, then, in the same Word some ' illuminated (Gnostics) and some animal (or natural) men '; but all who have abandoned the desires of the flesh are equal and spiritual before tb? Lord " (ANF, ii. 217).
But not all were of this opinion. At quite an
ea ly period in Christendom the contrary view
sp 'ang up, which in the First Epistle to Timothy
S,.V.) is aptly designated as " the knowledge
falsely so called." Not individuals alone,
Die groups of such men, professing to be
i > as, called themselves Gnostics (Carpocra-
. Irenaeus, ANF, i. 350-351; cf. Epiphanius,
:li. 373; Naasseni, in Hippolytus, ANF, v.
in Origen, a loosely defined sect, ANF, iv.
: again, Epiphanius, MPG, xli. 321, 364, 641,
aer passages). They boasted, moreover,
" fiat hey alone have sounded the depths of knowl-
Hippolytus, ANF, v. 47; cf. I Cor. ii. 10),
se " deep things " they pretended to have
led " through a speculative process not
upon Scripture. Irenaeus, who opposes
sed the term Gnostics in this latter signifi-
ition, and since that time it has come to be the
' rrc-nt designation for them. But this, at best,
. only a formal qualification, the concrete analysis
[ which is difficult in proportion to the diversity of
ie phenomena to be comprehended under one gen-
• i al head.
Gnosticism was not a specifically Christian phei omenon but belonged to religious history in general. fi happened quite often that Gnostic sects proi ssed to be Christian when in reality they had nothii g in common with Christianity; so that Origen p.stly said {ANF, iv. 585): "nor would Celsus, IV— 32
j-nosis jnosti-
sm.
lefl
(v-- '20, vhich i
' ! t Wl
ti n M'1
■J', >: aid
si
'■'■*&■
I, j*
in his treatise against the Christians, have introduced among the charges directed against them statements which they never uttered."
2. Origin On the other hand, many a religious sect and seemed to be independent which really
Meaning, was only a variety of Gnosticism: e.g., the Mandseans and the Manicheans (qq.v.). At any rate the view that Gnosticism is only a partial phenomenon of Christian metaphysics, and only to that extent important, is too narrow; for, in order to understand Gnosticism completely, it should not be looked upon with the eye of the ecclesiastical historian and dogmatist, for whom those forms of Gnosticism are alone of interest which have acquired special significance in relation to the progress of Christianity, for the investigation of Gnosticism in religious history is yet in its rudiments, and has not hitherto produced convincing results. On the one hand, Gnosticism is apt to be closely associated with Hellenism, and is thought to be explained by reference to Greek philosophy (Joel), or, at any rate, in connection with the Greek mysteries (Weingarten and others), a theory culminating in Harnack's famous epigram, " the Gnostic systems represent the acute secularizing or Hellenizing of Christianity" (Dogma, i. 226). It is but an- application of the same idea, to designate Gnosticism as Christian Orphism (Wobbermin), and by way of proof adduce the peculiar combination of theogonic and cosmogonic elements with the religious interest in expiation, consecration, deliverance. Others refer to the religious and magic sides of the Babylonian worship (Kessler: " the old Babylonian "; Anz: " the late Babylonian "), as though here was the native soil of Gnosticism, and mention also the influences of Zoroastrianism, and assume that the movement, as it spread over Christian Greek territory, lost its original character. However, no less expert an investigator than Jean Reville, in Revue de VHistoire des Religions, xxxviii., 1898, 220-224), opposed this reference of Gnosticism to Chaldaic and Persian sources with the remark that an Egyptologist might advocate, with equal propriety, the derivation of Gnostic ideas from Egyptian speculative schools; and indeed Reitzenstein did derive a fair portion of Gnostic views from Egyptian syncretism. And yet those investigators might prove to be in the right who refer the origin of Gnosticism to the speculations of Babylonian or Zoroastrian priests. Bousset, taking for his guide some data supplied by Anz, has lately shown that the chief Gnostic problems are best explained by those Oriental conceptions (the seven and the meter; the mother and the unknown father; dualism; the first man; elements and substance; form of the redeemer; mysteries). In all the Gnostic systems he saw branches of a common tree whose roots deeply penetrated the syncretistic soil of the dying antique'religion. And however it might be in particular instances, in general he judged correctly when he said; " Gnosis is not a phenomenon that presses forward; it is rather backward and stationary, a reaction of antique syncretism against the rising universal religion of Christianity " (W Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, p. 7, Gottingen, 1907). The doctors of the Church were right
Gnosticism