From http://www.gnosis.org


The Gnostic World View:
A Brief Summary of Gnosticism



GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term “myth” should not here be taken to mean “stories that are not true”, but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.

In the following summary, we will attempt to encapsulate in prose what the Gnostic myths express in their distinctively poetic and imaginative language.


The Cosmos

All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have their own -- perhaps quite startling -- view of these matters: they hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.

Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of creation’s imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.

Once the initial shock of the “unusual” or “blasphemous” nature of the Gnostic explanation for suffering and imperfection of the world wears off, one may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations. To appreciate it fully, however, a familiarity with the Gnostic conception of the Godhead is required, both in its original essence as the True God and in its debased manifestation as the false or creator God.


Deity

The Gnostic God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism, as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism.

William BlakeIn the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.

The basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons, intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness (Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully. The Fullness stands in contrast to our existential state, which in comparison may be called emptiness.

One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia (“Wisdom”) is of great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God. Since he took the already existing divine essence and fashioned it into various forms, he is also called the Demiurgos or “half-maker” There is an authentic half, a true deific component within creation, but it is not recognized by the half-maker and by his cosmic minions, the Archons or “rulers”.
The Human Being

Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence. This latter part is often symbolically referred to as the “divine spark”. The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of “dualist”.

Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them. This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and women ignorant of their true nature and destiny. Anything that causes us to remain attached to earthly things serves to keep us in enslavement to these lower cosmic rulers. Death releases the divine spark from its lowly prison, but if there has not been a substantial work of Gnosis undertaken by the soul prior to death, it becomes likely that the divine spark will be hurled back into, and then re-embodied within, the pangs and slavery of the physical world.

Not all humans are spiritual (pneumatics) and thus ready for Gnosis and liberation. Some are earthbound and materialistic beings (hyletics), who recognize only the physical reality. Others live largely in their psyche (psychics). Such people usually mistake the Demiurge for the True God and have little or no awareness of the spiritual world beyond matter and mind.

In the course of history, humans progress from materialistic sensate slavery, by way of ethical religiosity, to spiritual freedom and liberating Gnosis. As the scholar G. Quispel wrote: “The world-spirit in exile must go through the Inferno of matter and the Purgatory of morals to arrive at the spiritual Paradise.” This kind of evolution of consciousness was envisioned by the Gnostics, long before the concept of evolution was known.
Salvation

Evolutionary forces alone are insufficient, however, to bring about spiritual freedom. Humans are caught in a predicament consisting of physical existence combined with ignorance of their true origins, their essential nature and their ultimate destiny. To be liberated from this predicament, human beings require help, although they must also contribute their own efforts.

From earliest times Messengers of the Light have come forth from the True God in order to assist humans in their quest for Gnosis. Only a few of these salvific figures are mentioned in Gnostic scripture; some of the most important are Seth (the third Son of Adam), Jesus, and the Prophet Mani. The majority of Gnostics always looked to Jesus as the principal savior figure (the Soter).

Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God. It is not by His suffering and death but by His life of teaching and His establishing of mysteries that Christ has performed His work of salvation.

The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the Messengers and their successors.

One needs also remember that knowledge of our true nature -- as well as other associated realizations -- are withheld from us by our very condition of earthly existence. The True God of transcendence is unknown in this world, in fact He is often called the Unknown Father. It is thus obvious that revelation from on High is needed to bring about salvation. The indwelling spark must be awakened from its terrestrial slumber by the saving knowledge that comes “from without”.
Conduct

If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.

To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms; it is ever subject to changes and modifications in accordance with the spiritual development of the individual.

As noted in the discussion above, “hyletic materialists” usually have little interest in morality, while “psychic disciplinarians” often grant to it a great importance. In contrast, “Pneumatic spiritual” persons are generally more concerned with other, higher matters. Different historical periods also require variant attitudes regarding human conduct. Thus both the Manichaean and Cathar Gnostic movements, which functioned in times where purity of conduct was regarded as an issue of high import, responded in kind. The present period of Western culture perhaps resembles in more ways that of second and third century Alexandria. It seems therefore appropriate that Gnostics in our age adopt the attitudes of classical Alexandrian Gnosticism, wherein matters of conduct were largely left to the insight of the individual.

Gnosticism embraces numerous general attitudes toward life: it encourages non-attachment and non-conformity to the world, a “being in the world, but not of the world”; a lack of egotism; and a respect for the freedom and dignity of other beings. Nonetheless, it appertains to the intuition and wisdom of every individual “Gnostic” to distill from these principles individual guidelines for their personal application.
Destiny

When Confucius was asked about death, he replied: “Why do you ask me about death when you do not know how to live?” This answer might easily have been given by a Gnostic. To a similar question posed in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus answered that human beings must come by Gnosis to know the ineffable, divine reality from whence they have originated, and whither they will return. This transcendental knowledge must come to them while they are still embodied on earth.

Death does not automatically bring about liberation from bondage in the realms of the Demiurge. Those who have not attained to a liberating Gnosis while they were in embodiment may become trapped in existence once more. It is quite likely that this might occur by way of the cycle of rebirths. Gnosticism does not emphasize the doctrine of reincarnation prominently, but it is implicitly understood in most Gnostic teachings that those who have not made effective contact with their transcendental origins while they were in embodiment would have to return into the sorrowful condition of earthly life.

In regard to salvation, or the fate of the spirit and soul after death, one needs to be aware that help is available. Valentinus, the greatest of Gnostic teachers, taught that Christ and Sophia await the spiritual man -- the pneumatic Gnostic -- at the entrance of the Pleroma, and help him to enter the bridechamber of final reunion. Ptolemaeus, disciple of Valentinus, taught that even those not of pneumatic status, the psychics, could be redeemed and live in a heavenworld at the entrance of the Pleroma. In the fullness of time, every spiritual being will receive Gnosis and will be united with its higher Self -- the angelic Twin -- thus becoming qualified to enter the Pleroma. None of this is possible, however, without earnest striving for Gnosis.
Gnosis and Psyche: The Depth Psychological Connection

Throughout the twentieth Century the new scientific discipline of depth psychology has gained much prominence. Among the depth psychologists who have shown a pronounced and informed interest in Gnosticism, a place of signal distinction belongs to C. G. Jung. Jung was instrumental in calling attention to the Nag Hammadi library of Gnostic writings in the 1950's because he perceived the outstanding psychological relevance of Gnostic insights.

Carl Gustav Jung, 1875 - 1961The noted scholar of Gnosticism, G. Filoramo, wrote: "Jung's reflections had long been immersed in the thought of the ancient Gnostics to such an extent that he considered them the virtual discoverers of 'depth psychology' . . . ancient Gnosis, albeit in its form of universal religion, in a certain sense prefigured, and at the same time helped to clarify, the nature of Jungian spiritual therapy." In the light of such recognitions one may ask: "Is Gnosticism a religion or a psychology?" The answer is that it may very-well be both. Most mythologems found in Gnostic scriptures possess psychological relevance and applicability. For instance the blind and arrogant creator-demiurge bears a close resemblance to the alienated human ego that has lost contact with the ontological Self. Also, the myth of Sophia resembles closely the story of the human psyche that loses its connection with the collective unconscious and needs to be rescued by the Self. Analogies of this sort exist in great profusion.

Many esoteric teachings have proclaimed, "As it is above, so it is below." Our psychological nature (the microcosm) mirrors metaphysical nature (the macrocosm), thus Gnosticism may possess both a psychological and a religious authenticity. Gnostic psychology and Gnostic religion need not be exclusive of one another but may complement each other within an implicit order of wholeness. Gnostics have always held that divinity is immanent within the human spirit, although it is not limited to it. The convergence of Gnostic religious teaching with psychological insight is thus quite understandable in terms of time-honored Gnostic principles.


Conclusion

Some writers make a distinction between “Gnosis” and “Gnosticism”. Such distinctions are both helpful and misleading. Gnosis is undoubtedly an experience based not in concepts and precepts, but in the sensibility of the heart. Gnosticism, on the other hand, is the world-view based on the experience of Gnosis. For this reason, in languages other than English, the word Gnosis is often used to denote both the experience and the world view (die Gnosis in German, la Gnose in French).

In a sense, there is no Gnosis without Gnosticism, for the experience of Gnosis inevitably calls forth a world view wherein it finds its place. The Gnostic world view is experiential, it is based on a certain kind of spiritual experience of Gnosis. Therefore, it will not do to omit, or to dilute, various parts of the Gnostic world view, for were one to do this, the world view would no longer conform to experience.

Theology has been called an intellectual wrapping around the spiritual kernel of a religion. If this is true, then it is also true that most religions are being strangled and stifled by their wrappings. Gnosticism does not run this danger, because its world view is stated in myth rather than in theology. Myths, including the Gnostic myths, may be interpreted in diverse ways. Transcendence, numinosity, as well as psychological archetypes along with other elements, play a role in such interpretation. Still, such mythic statements tell of profound truths that will not be denied.

Gnosticism can bring us such truths with a high authority, for it speaks with the voice of the highest part of the human -- the spirit. Of this spirit, it has been said, “it bloweth where it listeth”. This then is the reason why the Gnostic world view could not be extirpated in spite of many centuries of persecution.

The Gnostic world view has always been timely, for it always responded best to the “knowledge of the heart” that is true Gnosis. Yet today, its timeliness is increasing, for the end of the second millennium has seen the radical deterioration of many ideologies which evaded the great questions and answers addressed by Gnosticism. The clarity, frankness, and authenticity of the Gnostic answer to the questions of the human predicament cannot fail to impress and (in time) to convince. If your reactions to this summary have been of a similarly positive order, then perhaps you are a Gnostic yourself!

+ Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop)

Wasnt Gnosticism based on ancient Jewish mysticism? I'll have to find some sources, but I do believe this is true. As for the Nag Hammadi library, I believe I addressed that in another thread dealing with Jenkin's book

Gnosticism description and history, version 2

Founder: Some consider Simon Magus to be the Father of Gnosticism. However, Gnosticism has also been defined as a mystical religion said to be "as old as humanity itself."(Ellwood and Partin: 95-96) Gnostic beliefs can be "found in all religions and religious philosophies, from Upanishads to the wisdom of ancient Egypt, and from the Gathas of Zarathustra to the mystery-cults of Greece and Rome."(Ellwood and Partin: 96) There are others who say that Gnosticism was built upon the combined teachings of its important leaders. Some of these include Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, Ptolemaeus, Cerinthus, Menander, Simon Magus, and Saturninus (Grant: 30-43).

What is Gnosticism: As noted, Gnosticism has been defined as a mystical religion (Ellwood and Partin: 96). It is a mixing of rites and myths from a variety of religious traditions, combining Occultism, Oriental Mysticism, astrology, magic, elements from Jewish tradition, Christian views of redemption, and even aspects of Plato's doctrine that man is not at home in the bodily realm (McManners: 26). Despite the fact that many Gnostic systems vary, they all have in common "a world view shaped by Hellenism and Neoplatism" and "esoteric Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the ancient heritages of Egypt and Mesopotamia."(Ellwood and Partin: 92) One can directly trace some of the individual aspects of Gnosticism to their roots. Their beliefs in the resurrection of the dead and dualism come from Iranian-Zoroastrian religious ideas (Rudolph: 282). Their communities are organized like the Hellenistic Mystery religions (Rudolph: 285). Orphism and Greek background influenced the Gnostic belief that the soul suffers in this world and it is fate that man should have to endure it. In turn, living a righteous life leads to salvation (Rudolph: 286).

Gnostics consider themselves "people in the know. [They] are the elect, their souls fragments of the divine, needing liberation from matter and the power of the planets." (McManners: 26) They believe that God is found in the self as well as outside the self (Ellwood and Partin: 96). The greatest hope for the Gnostic is to attain ultimate, first-hand knowledge so that they may be freed from this world and return to the world of God.

History: Gnosticism has changed over time and through different leaders, however it flourished during the first several centuries (Edwards). There were two major parts of Gnosticism: the Syrian Cult and the Alexandrian Cult. The Syrian Cult was led by Simon Magus, while the other was led by Basilides. Basilides impressed "Egyptian Hermetizism, Oriental occultism, Chaldean astrology, and Persian philosophy in his followers."(Davies) Also, his doctrines intertwined early Christianity and pagan mysteries (Davies). Aside from his Gnostic leadership Basilides remained a member of the church in Alexandria until he died (Eliade: 571). When Basilides died, Valentinus took over leadership of Gnostics, incorporating some of his own ideas (Davies). He was born in Egypt, familiar with Greek culture, and was nearly a bishop (being passed up for a martyr). He then separated from the church (Foerster: 121). Valentinus incorporated the pleroma, or heavenly world, into Gnosticism. The pleroma consists of at least thirty aeons (worlds). He also believed that ignorance is the root of the world and if it no longer existed, the world would cease to exist (Foerster: 122).

During the 2nd Century, several systems of Gnosticism grew in Alexandria and the Mediterranean area, most of which were closely related to Christianity. This was a period in which Gnosticism came to focus on Gnosis itself, as a goal for Gnostics to reach (Edwards). This century was also a period when Pagan, Jewish and Christian forms of Gnosticism had the most influence on the doctrine and structure of the Christian Church, even though critics treated it a Christian heresy (Crim: 277). Valentinus and another strong Gnostic leader, Marcion, were the most feared by the Catholic church (Crim: 278 and Rudolph: 296). They offered an alternate or rival form of Christianity, which caused the church to begin setting up barriers to Gnosticism (McManners: 27).

Mani came into leadership, and "Gnosticism became a world religion when Mani (216-277) founded his alternative Christian Church."(Eliade: 572) Mani, the Jewish-Christian raised in a Baptist community, started Manichaeism. It existed for over one thousand years (Eliade: 572). However, Manichaeism disappeared in the West during the Middle Ages. When Roman Catholicism became the state church in Armenia, the Gnostics hid in the outskirts and mountains (Eliade: 572).

After the 3rd Century, Gnosticism practically disappeared. There was some attempt to revive it during the Middle Ages, but this was nearly impossible because any documents or material about Gnostics had been buried in the desert.

The recent revival in interest was due to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices in 1945, revealing the writings and beliefs of the Gnostics (Davies). One sign that there was still interest in Gnosticism between these periods was the fact that William Blake, the poet and artist, was a known Gnostic during the late 1700's and early 1800's. Also, a man by the name of Jakob Boehme was noted as starting up modern Gnosticism in the early 1600's (Eliade: 572).

Cult or Sect: Negative sentiments are typically implied when the concepts "cult" and "sect" are employed in popular discourse. Since the Religious Movements Homepage seeks to promote religious tolerance and appreciation of the positive benefits of pluralism and religious diversity in human cultures, we encourage the use of alternative concepts that do not carry implicit negative stereotypes. For a more detailed discussion of both scholarly and popular usage of the concepts "cult" and "sect," please visit our Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" page, where you will find additional links to related issues.

Sacred or Revered Texts: The Nag Hammadi codices were discovered around 1945 in Egypt, along with other manuscripts found in Medinet Madi in 1930 and in Turkistan between 1902-1914. The Nag Hammadi texts contain 52 sacred texts, which are the "Gnostic Gospels." It had been speculated that they were buried in a jar around 390 AD by monks from St. Pachomius (Nag Hammadi). Little was known about Gnosticism until the documents were found. Previously, the only evidence about Gnostics was from their critics, who regarded them as Christian Heresy, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius (Gnosticism). An important aspect of the Nag Hammadi documents is their ability to tie Gnosticism to its roots. Many of the books are not actually Gnostic. The Gospel of Thomas is encratitic, Thunder, Whole Mind is Jewish, Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles is Jewish-Christian, Prayer of Thanksgiving is Hermetic, and Authoritative Teaching is early Catholic (Eliade: 567).

The contents of the Nag Hammadi codices illuminate the beliefs of the Gnostics. They describe the "unfolding of Divine Powers (called 'Aeons') from the Unknowable Godhead; the Cosmos as the result of a pre-creation error of crisis, and therefore evil; and the fall of the Light -- the essence of the Spirit or Divine Soul -- into the Darkness of matter, where it remains trapped until liberated by saving knowledge (Gnosis)."(Gnosticism) In Christian Gnosticism, Jesus is the Divine Messenger who brings Gnosis to humans. However, in Non-Christian Gnosticism it could be Seth (from the Bible), Zostrianos (a form of the prophet from the Persian religion Zoroastrianism), or a mythological entity (Gnosticism).

The Cathar Texts are also Gnostic writings from the medieval resurgence of Gnosticism through the group the Cathars. The writings of the Corpus Hermeticum belong to one of the non-Christian forms of Gnosticism, the Hermetics (Davies).

Modern Issues: Gnosticism is still present in modern times. Richard, Duc de Palatine established the Order of the Pleroma in the 1950's in England. He had Stephen Hoeller go to the United States to continue their work. Hoeller separated from Duc de Palatine in the 70's and started the Ecclesia Gnostica, a church, and the Gnostic Society. Hoeller's gnostic "church celebrates the Holy Eucharist every Sunday and Holy Days." (Elwood and Partin: 95) Their ceremonies and vestments are similar to the Roman Catholics, but the language uses Gnostic terminology. The scriptures are generally from Pistis Sophia or Gospel of Thomas (Ellwood and Partin: 95). There are other such gnostic churches. The American Gnostic Church in Texas was started in 1985 and their teachings reflect those of the 2nd Century Gnostic teachings of Basilides (Melton: 761). Rosamonde Miller started the Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum in Palo Alto, CA (Borce).

While there are example such as these in the West, there are also gnostics in "several Sufi orders of Islam."(Edwards) Also, at present there are approximately "15000 Mandaeans (Aramaic word for Gnostics) liv[ing] in Iraq and Iran."(Eliade: 570) In a more general sense there is "gnosticism in Jewish wisdom tradition, Kabbalah, Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhism" as well as in Sikhism (Edwards).
Beliefs

Gnosis refers to a knowledge that is essential to free oneself from the evil material world and bodily existence (Crim: 277). Gnostics believe humans err because they are ignorant, unlike the Christian belief that man is sinful by nature. Gnostics will receive salvation when they gain knowledge, gnosis. The knowledge must be of their inner self or soul. It is similar to the Hindu definition of meditation (Borce).

Some of the basic beliefs of Gnosticism are as follows:

"Between this world and the God incomprehensible to our thought, the 'primal cause,' there is an irreconcilable antagonism.

The 'self,' the 'I' of the gnostic, his 'spirit' or soul, is unalterably divine.

This 'I,' however, has fallen into this world, has been imprisoned and anaesthetized by it, and cannot free itself from it.

Only a divine 'call' from the world of light loosens the bonds of captivity.

But only at the end of the world does the divine element in a man return again to its home."(Foerster: 9) Another unique aspect of the Gnostic belief system is their view of the creation of the world. They believe that the true God has a feminine side, Sophia, the Spirit part of God. Jesus was a product of God and Spirit, and joined them to make up the Trinity. Sophia wanted to give birth to a being like herself. She proceeded without permission from God. The result was imperfect and she was ashamed of it, so she hid it in a cloud away from the other immortals. The child was the Demiurge. He was born with some power (from the Spirit) and used it to create the physical world. This trapped the "spirit in matter"(Borce). The view of the imperfections of creation are similar to those in Hebrew scripture, just as the Creator is incompetent (McManners: 27). The Gnostics taught that the Demiurge was Yehovah from the Old Testament. Jesus, on the other hand, they believe came from God and the Holy Spirit, not from the Demiurge. Jesus taught Gnostics the secret knowledge (gnosis), which he did not teach to the church. This belief created animosity between the church and the Gnostics. Also, contrary to Christian teachings about Jesus being born of the virgin Mary, Gnostics believe that Jesus entered Mary's body via sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph (Borce).

Gnostics had several other beliefs that dismayed early Christians. They scorned bishops, priests and deacons, however, they let women hold leadership and liturgical positions (McManners: 28). Many Gnostics would not make the sign of the cross, because to them the "suffering of Jesus was no actual event but a symbol for the universal condition of the human race."(McManners: 28) Christ could not have become flesh in order to be crucified, since they believe that there is a separation of spirit from matter. They view flesh as polluting (McManners: 27). This belief would also support why they do not put faith in the eucharist, which is supposed to be the body of Christ. Mani, the leader of the Manicheaists, also did not believe in the drinking of wine, the blood of Christ, because he saw it as an invention of the devil. Many Gnostics also do not recognize the significance of baptism in water (McManners: 27). They also believe they are the elect group that will gain salvation, via gnosis, and everyone else will be annihilated. "Moral virtue was of little interest to Gnostics, whose confidence in their own salvation made all that seem a matter of indifference."(McManners: 28)

Gnostics also have a different view of the make up of the world. Aeons are worlds, or "distinct spiritual entities," which all together make up the pleroma, or fullness (Foerster: 24). The pleroma is above the cosmos and is the "spiritual Divine Reality," the true God's realm (Gnosticism). This is the place a Gnostic hopes to return to through salvation.

Wasnt Gnosticism based on ancient Jewish mysticism? I'll have to find some sources, but I do believe this is true. As for the Nag Hammadi library, I believe I addressed that in another thread dealing with Jenkin's book

While some Israelites (most famously Mani) made contributions to Gnosticism, in most ways Gnosticism is a far more definitive break from Judaism than Christianity. Both Zoroastrianism and a variety of Hellenic mysticisms (Orphic cults, neo-Platonic trinitarianism) had a much more direct impact on the Gnostic worldview than anything Jewish.

After all, "Orthodox" Christianity canonized the Old Testament, while Manicheans and other Gnostic sects rejected the Old Testament God as either a demiurge (corresponding to the Zoroastrian Ahriman or Satan), or as outright myth. Gnostics viewed Christ as one who liberated man from the Old Testament demiurge and taught that salvation and knowledge of God lies within, not in revelations or scriptures.

One can see a great deal of Gnostic influence in the writings of the 13th century Dominican monk Meister Eckhart, who taught that one should not pray for worldly things or for "eternal reward" in the afterlife, but rather for release from the worldly. He was branded a heretic for teaching that what lies within Christ also lies within us, but he was too well-protected by powerful nobles who admired his teachings to be imprisoned or killed by the inquisition.

A more recent Gnostic thinker is the late 18th century poet and engraver William Blake, whose "Book of Urizen" is basically a metaphor for the liberation of man by Christ (Orc in the Blake mythos) from the nomothetic Old Testament.

I thought that Mani was a Persian? I never heard before that he was an Israelite.

What Is a Gnostic?

by Stephan A. Hoeller

Gnosticism, they say, is on the upsurge...
So just what is it?
Are we witnessing a rediscovery of Gnosticism? To judge from the burgeoning new literature and the increased use of the terms "gnosis" and "Gnosticism" in popular publications, the answer would seem to be yes. Only twenty-five years ago, when one used the word "Gnostic," it was very likely to be misunderstood as "agnostic," and thus have one's statement turned into its exact opposite. Such misapprehensions are far less likely today. Nevertheless, increased academic attention (beginning with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures in 1945) and the ensuing popular interest have produced a confusion of tongues which is anything but helpful for the sincere inquirer into matters Gnostic. It is often difficult even to tell what is meant by the word.

The difficulty in defining Gnosticism is not entirely of recent origin. As early as 1910, a small book was published in London that in many ways foreshadowed current trends, including the difficulties in definition. The title of the work was Gnosticism: The Coming Apostasy; the author, a certain D.M. Panton, was an anxious defender of Christian orthodoxy, which he felt was menaced by an emerging Gnostic revival. Gnosticism, Panton wrote, had surfaced in the twentieth century in the forms of Theosophy, Christian Science, some forms of spiritualism, and in what was called the "New Theology," which had been introduced primarily by German writers on religion. (A biography of Marcion by theologian Adolf von Harnack created much interest and controversy at that time.) While earlier crypto-Gnostics, such as Emanuel Swedenborg, William Blake, George Fox, and Elias Hicks camouflaged their heretical beliefs, Panton argued, twentieth-century Gnostics no longer bothered with concealment. The gnosticizing movements of the early twentieth century, wrote Panton, were "frankly and jubilantly Gnostic"; their thought and their movements carried within them the "throbbing heart of Gnosticism, perhaps the most dreaded foe the Christian faith ever confronted."

In some ways Panton's anti-Gnostic tirades have an advantage over much of the more recent literature, for Panton still possessed a clear understanding of what constitutes Gnosticism. Such is not the case today. If we contrast these early-twentieth-century analyses with some current ones, we may recognize how unclear our understanding has become. In a European publication concerned with contemporary aspects of Gnosticism, Ioan Culianu writes:

Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of Gnosticism occur again.

I was soon to learn however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka were gnostic…. I learned further that science is gnostic and superstition is gnostic…Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally gnostic.1

At least one circumstance emerges from this statement that is widely overlooked in America. In Europe "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism" are almost always used interchangeably. The suggestion that term "gnosis" ought to be used to describe a state of consciousness, while "Gnosticism" should denote the Gnostic system, has never caught on. The use of such classical Gnosticism of Valentinus, Basilides, et al., persists in European literature, including the writings of such scholars as Gilles Quispel, Kurt Rudolph, and Giovanni Filoramo (to mention some of the most recent ones). It is true that the late Robert McLachlan put forth a proposal to use these terms otherwise, but current usage in Europe has not followed it.

It is evident that a word used in such contradictory ways has lost its meaning. No wonder GNOSIS writer Charles Coulombe despairs over the situation when writing recently in a Catholic publication:

In reality, "Gnosticism," like "Protestantism," is a word that has lost most of its meaning. Just as we would need to know whether a "Protestant" writer is Calvinist, Lutheran, Anabaptist, or whatever in order to evaluate him properly, so too the "Gnostic" must be identified.2

While some Israelites (most famously Mani) made contributions to Gnosticism, in most ways Gnosticism is a far more definitive break from Judaism than Christianity....After all, "Orthodox" Christianity canonized the Old Testament,

I dont seem to follow. Jews dont even follow the Old Testament, in fact a core belief of the "faith" is that the Oral tradition(aka Talmud) is superior to the Old Testament. We also sae how faithful the Jews were to it when they basically rewrote and edited the Old Testament in the Jamian Canon of the first century. Ironically many books of the Christian Old Testament do no appear in Jewish texts. Maccabees is perhaps the most famous example of this. IT was only with the Protestant reformation that the Jamian canon enter Christianity because the Protestants used the canon as a way of breaking with the Roman tradition.

Gnostics viewed Christ as one who liberated man from the Old Testament demiurge and taught that salvation and knowledge of God lies within, not in revelations or scriptures.

Quite like the Cathars no? Ironically adherents to that view were often more tolerant of the Jews than "orthodox" Christians who had the Old Testament.

I dont seem to follow. Jews dont even follow the Old Testament, in fact a core belief of the "faith" is that the Oral tradition(aka Talmud) is superior to the Old Testament. We also sae how faithful the Jews were to it when they basically rewrote and edited the Old Testament in the Jamian Canon of the first century. Ironically many books of the Christian Old Testament do no appear in Jewish texts. Maccabees is perhaps the most famous example of this. IT was only with the Protestant reformation that the Jamian canon enter Christianity because the Protestants used the canon as a way of breaking with the Roman tradition.



Quite like the Cathars no? Ironically adherents to that view were often more tolerant of the Jews than "orthodox" Christians who had the Old Testament.

The Talmud is basically Jewish commentary on the Old Testament. Orthodox Judaism is still very much "Torah" (Old Testament) Judaism, and many of the attitudes found in the Talmud can be traced to the OT.

For example, the Talmud's myriad passages asserting non-Jews to be subhuman have as their direct precursors the genocidal edicts of the OT, where Jews claimed their slaughters of Canaanites (and just about every other Mideast tribe, from the Amonites to the Midianites) to be righteous and sanctioned by God. Going from the OT teachings, which asserted that Jews had the right to exterminate their enemies (and indeed, condemned apostate Jewish leaders for their failure to exterminate the children and even the cattle of non-Jewish peoples) to the dual ethical system, with one standard for the ingroup and another for the outgroup.

As such, Torah Judaism is as alien to Christianity as is Talmudic Judaism. The only reason Fundamentalist Christians fail to see this is the tendency of many Christians to extrapolate back into Biblical times and project "Christianity" into the Old Testament (whereby OT figures become proto-Christians rather than proto-Talmudists). If one instead reads the OT as a Jewish document, its connections to the Talmud are immediately apparent.

This is why Christendom would have been far better off had the Gnostic "heresies" become orthodoxy. The Old Testament would never have become canonized, Christian teachings would be far more harmonious with Persian and Hellenic (rather than alien Judaic) traditions, and most importantly philosemitic "Judaeo-Christianity" would be an impossibility.

As an aside, I will note that Catholicism is generally preferable to Protestantism in that the OT is de-emphasized and treated as allegory and myth. In contrast, Protestantism, particularly Calvinism in its various forms, began emphasizing the literal interpretation of Old Testament teachings, effectively creating a proto-Judaeo-Christianity among Puritans and Baptists (recall that the Puritans hoped to make Hebrew the official language of their colonies).

The Talmud is basically Jewish commentary on the Old Testament. Orthodox Judaism is still very much "Torah" (Old Testament) Judaism, and many of the attitudes found in the Talmud can be traced to the OT.



"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
--Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser Judaism and the Christian Predicament p. 59:

Wasnt Gnosticism based on ancient Jewish mysticism?
No. I can think of few belief systems more diametrically opposed to Judaism. What, exactly, do you believe Gnosticism has in common with the Jewish tradition? I am at a loss to think of any significant similarities.

"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
--Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser Judaism and the Christian Predicament p. 59:


Indeed. Judaism is the religion of the Talmud.

Indeed. Judaism is the religion of the Talmud.
Yes, but Judaism is more than the pages of any book. Destroy every Talmud on earth and the Jewish people will still exist. The book exists to serve the blood, not the other way around.

No. I can think of few belief systems more diametrically opposed to Judaism. What, exactly, do you believe Gnosticism has in common with the Jewish tradition? I am at a loss to think of any significant similarities.


Very true. I can think of no greater contrast than the fiendish, bloodthirsty 'Jew-in-the-sky' Yahweh of the Old Testament, and the loving, transcendental, universalist God of the Gnostics.

Yes, but Judaism is more than the pages of any book. Destroy every Talmud on earth and the Jewish people will still exist. The book exists to serve the blood, not the other way around.

You're confusing Judaism with Jewry. Judaism is the religion which has traditionally defined the identity of the Jews. The Jews, themselves are an ethnic group, regardless of persoanl religious affiliation (or lack thereof). In the words of an Australian rabbi "A Jew eating bacon in a Catholic Church on Saturday is still a Jew." Nowadays that most Jews are atheists they simply use the 'being Jewish is a religion' argument to lend credence to their hyperethnocentrism.

The Jews, themselves are an ethnic group, regardless of personal religious affiliation (or lack thereof).
That is actually what I meant. The Jews are a people first and foremost. The religion is indeed secondary. Hence my statement that "the book exists to serve the blood, not the other way around."

No. I can think of few belief systems more diametrically opposed to Judaism. What, exactly, do you believe Gnosticism has in common with the Jewish tradition? I am at a loss to think of any significant similarities.

Im just repeating what I have read from scholarly sources on this question. Almost every source I've read mentions the influence of Jewish mysticism on Gnostic thinking.

Im just repeating what I have read from scholarly sources on this question. Almost every source I've read mentions the influence of Jewish mysticism on Gnostic thinking.
Almost every source I've read mentions the influence of Jewish mysticism on Christian thinking. However, there is no denying that Christianity and Judaism are two separate, very different religions.

Almost every source I've read mentions the influence of Jewish mysticism on Christian thinking. However, there is no denying that Christianity and Judaism are two separate, very different religions.

Touche. Oh well most of my research concerning the Gnostics is mostly to refute the nonsense that they constituted a significant force in Christianity and that their Bibles(the Nag Hamani Library) somehow represents what Christianity is truely about or some other nonsense like that.

Individual Jewish mystics certainly did contribute to Gnosticism - as the article asserts, Mani was an Israelite. My point is not that Jews per se had no impact on Gnosticism, but rather that Gnosticism is a complete rejection of Judaism in that it (unlike orthodox Christian sects) does not canonize the Old Testament. In this regard Gnosticism is a complete break with Judaism while Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most of all various Protestant Churches continue to consider the OT a valid part of scriptures (and only "Christian Identity" lunatics deny that the OT is a Jewish text).

Whether Jews today believe that Talmudic teachings supercede the Talmud, Orthodox Judaism is still Torah (Old Testament) Judaism which considers the Pentateuch to be its foundation. As I said earlier, most Talmudic teachings as to the separate and "special" nature of Jews can be found in the Old Testament - witness the OT's genocidal edicts against gentile enemies of Jews and the myth that the Jews have priveleged status in the eyes of God.

Gnosticism is a complete rejection of this tradition, in that it rejects not only Judaism but does not consider Yahweh (the Jewish tribal deity) to be the same God as the one worshipped by Christians. For this reason I believe that the West would have been better off had the Marcionites triumphed over "orthodoxy." Alfred Rosenberg in his Myth of the 20th Century argues much the same .

AY, I'm still not getting this. If the Talmud has origins in the OT, why did Jewish scholars completely rewrite the OT in order to conform it to the Talmud? This is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing, they perverted the laws of the OT in the name of the "tradition of the elders"(aka Talmud). Obviously they werent too devoted to the OT if they have to rewrite it and edit out entire books just to make it conform to their teachings. So at most the Talmud maybe based on an extremely perverted version of the OT. Yet if we did the same amount of editing to say Plato's Republic, we can make it so that Plato is advocating for all sorts of nonsense.

Christians on the other hand preserved the original texts. And if you wish argue that Christianity did the same with the Councils of Nicea concerning texts in the Bible, I suggest you read Philip Jenkin's book Hidden Gospels, where he refutes this.