386,926
edits
Difference between revisions of "Gnosticism"
From BiblePortal Wikipedia
no edit summary
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament <ref name="term_56024" /> == | |||
<p> [[Gnosticism]] (Gr. γνῶσις, ‘knowledge’) is the name of a syncretistic religion and philosophy which flourished more or less for four centuries alongside Christianity, by which it was considerably influenced, under which it sheltered, by which at last it was overcome. <i> Gnosis </i> is first used in the relevant specific sense in 1 Timothy 6:20; γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος-‘science falsely so-called.’ By [[Christian]] writers the word ‘Gnostics’ was at first applied mainly to one branch: the [[Ophites]] or [[Naasenes]] (Hippol. <i> Philos </i> . v. 2: ‘Naasenes who call themselves Gnostics’; cf. Iren. i. xi. 1; Epiphan. <i> Haer </i> . xxvi.). But already in [[Irenaeus]] the term has a wider application to the whole movement. Gnosticism rose to prominence early in the 2nd cent. though it is much older than that, and reached its height before the 3rd century. By the end of the latter century it was waning. </p> <p> The above description will require justification. What may be termed the popular view of Gnosticism has been to regard it as a growth out of Christianity, an overdone theologizing on the part of Christians, who under foreign influences simply carried to extreme lengths what had been begun by apostles. Meantime it may be said that, in the view of the present writer, such a theory is an entire misconception, and historically untenable. Gnosticism and [[Christianity]] are two movements originally quite independent, so much so that it would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that, had there been no Christianity, there could still have been Gnosticism, in all essentials the Gnosticism we know. </p> <p> <b> 1. [[Authorities]] </b> .-Of the vast literature produced by [[Gnostics]] little has survived, and what has survived is almost entirely from the last stages of the movement. We may mention as survivals <i> Pistis Sophia </i> , the Coptic-Gnostic texts of the <i> Codex Brucianus </i> , the two <i> Books of Jeu </i> , and an unnamed third book described by C. Schmidt, ‘Gnost. Schriften in kopt. Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus’ ( <i> Texte and Untersuchungen </i> viii. [1892]). Then we know something of works deeply tinged with Gnosticism, such as the <i> Acts of [[Thomas]] </i> . But our chief sources of knowledge are the writings of those [[Fathers]] who oppose Gnosticism, and who often give lengthy quotations from [[Gnostic]] works. These fragments have been carefully collected by Hilgenfeld in his <i> Ketzer-geschichte </i> . Most important of the Fathers for our purpose are Irenaeus ( <i> adv. Haer </i> . i. 4), Hippolytus ( <i> Philosophoumena </i> ), [[Clement]] of [[Alexandria]] ( <i> Stromateis, Excerpta ex Theodoto </i> ), Tertullian ( <i> adv. Marcionem, adv. Hermogenem, adv. Valentinianos </i> ), [[Epiphanius]] ( <i> Panarion </i> ). </p> <p> <b> 2. Main features of Gnosticism </b> .-Gnosticism has often been described as a hopelessly tangled mass of unintelligible fantastic speculations, the product of imagination in unrestrained riot, irreducible to order. In its various, and especially its later forms, it shows a wealth of details which are fantastic, but, if we do not lose ourselves in too keen a search for minutiae, we shall find in it an imposing and quite intelligible system. Probably Gnostics themselves regarded as unessential those details which to us seem so fantastic (cf. Rainy, <i> [[Ancient]] [[Catholic]] Church </i> , p. 119). Gnostic schools generally were at one in holding a system the main features of which were as follows. </p> <p> (1) <i> A special revelation </i> .-The word γνῶσις has misled many into thinking that Gnostics are essentially those who prize intellectual knowledge as superior to faith. By <i> gnosis </i> , however, we have to understand not knowledge gained by the use of the intellect, but knowledge given in a special revelation. Not greater intellectual power than the [[Christians]] possessed, but a fuller and better revelation, was what the Gnostics claimed to have. They took no personal credit for it; it had been handed down to them. Its author was Christ or one of His apostles, or at least one of their friends. In several cases they professed to be able to give the history of its transmission. Thus [[Basilides]] claims Glaukias, an interpreter of St. Peter ( <i> Strom </i> . vii. 17 [766], 106f.), or [[Matthias]] (Hipp. vii. 20). Valentinus claims Theodas, an acquaintance of St. Paul’s ( <i> Strom. loc. cit </i> .). The Ophites claim [[Mariamne]] and James (Hipp. v. 7). Or they appealed to a secret tradition imparted to a few by Jesus Himself (so Irenaeus frequently). </p> <p> (2) <i> [[Dualism]] </i> .-This is the foundation principle of all Gnostic systems, and from it all else follows. In the ancient world we meet two kinds of dualism, one in Greek philosophy, the other in Eastern religion. Greek dualism was between φαινόμενα and νούμενα, between the world of sense-appearance and the realm of real being. The lower was but a shadow of the higher; still it was a copy of it. The contrast was not, to any great extent at least, between the good and the evil, but between the real and the empty, formless, unreal. Eastern dualism, on the other hand, drew a sharp distinction between the world of light and the world of darkness, two eternal antagonistic principles in unceasing conflict. In Gnosticism we have a primarily Eastern dualism combined with the Greek form. The world of goodness and light is the <i> [[Pleroma]] </i> (‘fullness’), <i> i.e. </i> the realm of reality in the Greek sense; the kingdom of evil and darkness is the <i> Kenoma </i> (‘emptiness’), the phenomenal world of Greek philosophy. Hence the Gnostic dualism comes to be between God and matter, two eternal entities, and the ὑλη (‘matter’) is essentially evil. </p> <p> (3) <i> [[Demiurge]] </i> .-As the Gnostic surveyed the world of matter, he found patent traces of law and order ruling it. How did matter, in itself evil and lawless, come to be so orderly? The Gnostic took the view of Nature which J. S. [[Mill]] took, and argued that either the [[Creator]] was not all-good or He was not all-powerful. The Gnostic reasoned that the world which with all its order is yet so imperfect cannot be the work of God who is wholly good and all-wise; it must be the production of some far inferior being. The world, then, it was taught, was the work of a Demiurge-a being distinct from God. The character of this Demiurge was variously conceived by different schools; some, <i> e.g. </i> Cerinthus, made him a being simply ignorant of the highest God. The tendency became strong, however, to make him hostile to God, an enemy of Light and [[Truth]] (the <i> blasphemia Creatoris </i> ). The God of the [[Jews]] was identified with this Demiurge. As to the origin of the Demiurge, some held him to belong <i> ab initio </i> to the realm of evil. But the characteristic view was that he was a much-removed emanation from the Pleroma. This theory of emanations is a prominent feature of most of the systems, and it is here that Gnosticism ran into those wild fancies that to some make the whole system so phantasmagoric. The view was that from God there emanated a series of beings called ‘aeons,’ each step in the genealogy meaning a diminution of purity; and the Demiurge was the creation of an aeon far down, indeed the very lowest in the scale. Nature and human nature, then, are productions of a Demiurge either ignorant of, or positively hostile to, the true God. While in a few schools there was only one Demiurge, most spoke of seven as concerned in cosmogony. The origin of this is clear. The seven are the seven astronomical deities of Perso-Babylonian religion. The fusion of [[Persian]] and [[Babylonian]] views resulted in those deities, originally beneficent, being conceived of as evil (Orig. <i> c. Cels </i> . vi. 22; Zimmern, <i> KAT </i> [Note: AT Zimmern-Winckler’s ed. of the preceding (a totally distinct work), 1902-03.]3[Note: Zimmern-Winckler’s ed. of the preceding (a totally distinct work), 1902-03.]ii. 620ff.). </p> <p> (4) <i> [[Redemption]] </i> .-Christian and Gnostic agree in finding in this world goodness fettered and thwarted by evil. They differ entirely in their conception of the conflict. The familiar Christian view is that into a world of perfect order and goodness a fallen angel brought confusion and evil. The common Gnostic view is that into a world of evil a fallen aeon brought a spark of life and goodness. The fall of this aeon is variously explained in different systems, as due to weakness (the aeon furthest from God was unable to maintain itself in the Pleroma), or to a sinful passion which induced the aeon to plunge into the Kenoma. [[Howsoever]] the aeon fell, it is imprisoned in the Kenoma, and longs for emancipation and return to the Pleroma. With this longing the world of aeons sympathizes, and the most perfect aeon becomes a Redeemer. The [[Saviour]] descends, and after innumerable sufferings is able to lead back the fallen aeon to the Pleroma, where He unites with her in a spiritual marriage. Redemption is thus primarily a cosmical thing. But in redeeming the fallen aeon from darkness, the Saviour has made possible a redemption of individual souls. To the Gnostic, the initiated, the Saviour imparts clear knowledge of the ideal world to be striven after, and prompts him so to strive. The soul at all points, before and after death, was opposed by hostile spirits, and a great part of Gnostic teaching consisted in instructing the soul as to how those enemies could be over-come. Here comes in the tangle of magico-mystical teaching, so large an element of the later schools. All sorts of rites, baptisms, stigmatizings, sealing, piercing the ears, holy foods and drinks, etc., were enjoined. It was important also to know the names of the spirits, and the words by which they could be mastered. Some systems taught a multitude of such ‘words of power’; in other systems one master word was given, <i> e.g. caulacau </i> (Iren. i. xxiv. 5). </p> <p> (5) <i> [[Christology]] </i> .-Gnosticism in union with Christianity identified its Saviour, of course, with Jesus. As to the connexion see below. All Christianized Gnostics held a peculiar Christology. Jesus was a pure Spirit, and it was abhorrent to thought that He should come into close contact with matter, the root of all evil. He had no true body, then, but an appearance which He assumed only to reveal Himself to the sensuous nature of man. Some, like Cerinthus, held that the Saviour united Himself with the man Jesus at the Baptism, and left him again before the Death. Others held that the body was a pure phantom. All agreed that the [[Divine]] Saviour was neither born nor capable of death. Such a view of Christ’s Person is Docetism, the antithesis of Ebionism. </p> <p> (6) <i> [[Anthropology]] </i> .-Man is regarded as a microcosm. His tripartite nature (some had only a bipartism)-spirit, soul, body-reflects God, Demiurge, matter. There are also three classes of mankind-carnal (ὑλικοί), psychic (ψυχικοί), spiritual (πνευματικοί). [[Heathen]] are hylic, Jews psychic, and Christians spiritual. But within the Christian religion itself the same three classes are found; the majority are only psychic, the truly spiritual are the Gnostics. They alone are the true Church. </p> <p> (7) <i> [[Eschatology]] </i> .-while Gnostics alone were certain of return to the [[Kingdom]] of Light, some at least were disposed to think charitably of the destiny of the psychics, who might attain a measure of felicity. Gnostics denied a resurrection of the body, as we should expect. The whole world of matter was to be at last destroyed by fires springing from its own bosom. </p> <p> (8) <i> Old [[Testament]] </i> .-While there existed a Judaistic Gnosticism, represented by Essenes, Gnostic Ebionites, and [[Cerinthus]] ( <i> qq.v. </i> [Note: v. quœ vide, which see.]), who with various modifications accepted the OT, the great mass of Gnostics were anti-Judaistic, and rejected the OT. This followed logically from their identification of the God of the Jews with the Demiurge, an ignorant, and in some cases an evil, Being. No doubt they found also some plausible support in [[Pauline]] anti-legalism. We can see here what ground some schools could have for making heroes of the characters represented as wicked in the OT. If it was inspired by an ignorant or wicked Being, truth would be found by inverting its estimates. </p> <p> Such in outline is Gnosticism as a system, though schools varied in detail under every heading (cf. Harnack, <i> Dogmengeschichte </i> ; P. Wernle, <i> Beginnings of Christianity </i> , Eng. translation, London, 1903-04; Schaff, <i> Church History </i> , ‘Ante-Nicene Christianity’). </p> <p> (9) <i> Gnostic cultus and ethic </i> .-The full development of these (as of the whole system), of course, lies outside our period, but of the latter we see the tendencies in the NT itself; and it is desirable to say something of the former, to make our sketch of the main features of Gnosticism complete. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> As to cultus </i> , Gnosticism produced two opposite movements which are comparable with puritanism and ritualism respectively. The abhorrence of matter led some consistently to the utmost simplicity of worship. Some rejected all sacraments and other outward means of grace, and the [[Prodicians]] rejected even prayer (Epiphan. <i> Haer </i> . xxvi.; Clem. Alex. <i> Strom </i> . i. 15 [304], vii. 7 [722]). On the other hand, many groups, especially the Marcosians, went to the opposite extreme with a symbolic and mystic pomp in worship. This, while inconsistent with the Gnostic views of matter, is in line with the ideas of magico-mystical salvation indicated above. [[Sacraments]] were numerous, rites many and varied. It seems clear that they led the way in introducing features which became characteristic of the Catholic Church. They were distinguished as hymn-writers (Bardesanes, Ophites, Valentinians). The [[Basilideans]] seem to have been the first to celebrate the festival of Epiphany. The [[Simonians]] and [[Carpocratians]] first used images of Christ and others (see <i> Church [[Histories]] </i> of Schaff, Kurtz, etc.). </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) The <i> ethic </i> also took two directions-one towards an unbridled antinomianism, the other towards a gloomy asceticism. Antinomian Gnostics ( <i> e.g. </i> Nicolaitans, Ophites) held that sensuality is to be overcome by indulging it to exhaustion, and they practised the foulest debaucheries. The Ascetics ( <i> e.g. </i> Saturninus, Tatian) abhorred matter, and strove to avoid all contact with flesh as far as possible. This led them to forbid marriage and indulgence in certain kinds of food. This ethic in both branches is the unfailing outcome of the primary dualism characteristic of Gnosticism. Wherever dualistic notions are influential, we find this twin development of antinomianism and asceticism. In the NT we find both kinds of error referred to (see below). It is to be remembered that neither by itself is sufficient to indicate Gnosticism. There are many sources conceivable, for asceticism especially. </p> <p> <b> 3. Origins </b> .-The older view was that Gnostics are Christian heretics, <i> i.e. </i> errorists within the Church who gradually diverged from normal Christianity, under an impulse to make a philosophy of their religion. To fill up the blanks of the Christian revelation, they adopted heathen (mainly Greek) speculations. [[Mosheim]] was among the first to perceive that the roots of what is peculiar in Gnosticism are to be sought in Eastern rather than in Greek speculation. In recent times there has taken place a thorough examination of all Gnostic remains, and knowledge of Eastern speculation has advanced. The result of the two-fold investigation has been to show that Gnosticism is far more closely in affinity with Eastern thought than had been imagined, not only in its deviations from Christianity, but as a whole. </p> <p> It is well known that the age with which we deal was marked by nothing more strongly than by its <i> syncretism </i> . All the faiths and philosophies of the world met, and became fluid, so to say. Strange combinations resulted, and were dissolved again for lack of something round which they might crystallize. [[Alike]] in philosophy and religion, attempts were made to establish by syncretism a universal system out of the confusion. Gnosticism owes its being to that syncretism. In view of the lack of definite information, any attempt to trace or reconstruct its actual history must be made with diffidence. Probably we should regard its primary impulse as philosophical rather than religious. It was an answer to problem, [[Whence]] comes evil? (Tert. <i> de Praesc. Haer </i> . vii.; Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)v. 27; Epiphan. <i> Haer </i> . xxiv. 6). This led to the other question, What is the origin of the world? Oriental thought identified the two questions. In the origin of the world was involved the existence of evil. A full explanation of the one included an explanation of the other. </p> <p> 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 <i> [[Judaism]] </i> . There was a syncretistic Judaism of varied character. We know definitely of three forms: (l) Essenic (see articleEssenes); (2) Samaritan, which had been going on for centuries b.c., and from which sprang the system of [[Simon]] Magus (with his predecessor Dositheus, and his successor Menander), 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]] Kabbâlâ. It is a body of writings unfolding 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, <i> La Kabbale </i> , Paris, 1843, p. 350 ff.). It is difficult, however, to prove that the Kabbâlâ is not later than Gnosticism, though there is practical certainty that its history was a long one before it took final shape. </p> <p> A third and very important element manifest in the fully developed Gnostic systems is <i> Greek philosophy </i> . 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 ay contact with, Greek philosophy. These elements might be effective in very varied degrees, and produced varied systems as this or that element predominated. But from those three sources, apart altogether from Christianity, Gnosticism in all essentials may be derived. And all three were in active interaction before the appearance of Christianity. 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. </p> <p> <b> 4. Connexion with Christianity </b> .-How is this connexion to be conceived or explained? What did Gnosticism owe to Christianity? Before Christianity we picture Gnosticism as vague, fluid, unstable. 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 and 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 development 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 Church, 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. </p> <p> It is not easy to answer the question, Is the <i> soteriology </i> of Gnosticism borrowed from Christianity, 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 Σωτήρ (Saviour) and the historical Jesus there is no discernible likeness. The redemption of the fallen aeon 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 attempts 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’ ( <i> Encyclopaedia Britannica </i> 11 xii. [1910] 157a). 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 is not without significance in the same direction. 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 represent 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 essentially alien nature and origin of their speculative flights. </p> <p> <b> 5. Allusions in the NT </b> .-In the NT there are several clear indications that the invasion of Christianity by Gnosticism is already in progress. </p> <p> (1) We note regarding Simon Magus (Acts 8:9 f.) 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 the ‘bond of iniquity.’ For this alone he may well be named the father of the Gnostics (see articleSimon Magus). </p> <p> (2) There are some passages which seem not only to be designed to state the Christian position, but to be directed against errors characteristic of Gnosticism: ( <i> a </i> ) against Docetism; most striking is Hebrews 2:14-18; ( <i> b </i> ) against the demiurgic idea (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16 ff.). </p> <p> (3) A definite polemic against errorists who are almost certainly Gnostics is found in the following passages: </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> Colossians </i> .-The errorists in question claim a superior knowledge (Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:18), pay great regard to angels-beings intermediate between God and man (Colossians 2:18)-teach asceticism (Colossians 2:21; Colossians 2:23); and probably their demiurgic notion is refuted in Colossians 1:16. These are the elements of Gnosticism, and most likely the Colossian errorists are Judaistic Gnostics of the same type as Cerinthus. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) <i> Pastoral [[Epistles]] </i> .-The references to Gnosticism are so clear here that some find in them a main ground for assigning a late date to the Epistles. Gnosticism has already appropriated the name γνῶσις (1 Timothy 5:20). The errorists profess a superior knowledge (Titus 1:16, 2 Timothy 3:7). Their profane and vain babblings (2 Timothy 2:16), old wives’ fables (1 Timothy 4:7), foolish questions and genealogies (Titus 3:9), denial of the resurrection of the body (2 Timothy 2:18), asceticism and depreciation of ‘creatures’ (1 Timothy 4:3-4), and in other cases their antinomianism (2 Timothy 3:6, Titus 1:16)-all are tokens of Gnosticism. </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) <i> Peter and Jude </i> .-The gross errorists denounced in 2 Peter 2 and Jude show close affinity with the Ophite sect, the [[Cainites]] ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ) (Hippol. viii. 20; <i> Strom </i> . vii. 17 [767]; Epiph. <i> Haer </i> . xxxviii.). They made [[Cain]] their first hero; and, regarding the God of the Jews as an evil being, and the [[Scriptures]] as, in consequence, a perversion of truth, honoured all infamous characters from Cain to Iscariot, who alone of the apostles had the secret of true knowledge. Naturally, they practised the wildest antinomianism, holding it necessary for perfect knowledge to have practical experience of all sins. The ‘filthy dreamers,’ who ‘speak evil of dignities’ and ‘go in the way of Cain,’ are certainly closely allied to this position. </p> <p> ( <i> d </i> ) <i> 1 John </i> .-There is throughout a contrast between true knowledge and false. Beyond reasonable doubt the [[Epistle]] has mainly, if not exclusively, Cerinthus in view. He is interesting in the history of heresy for his combination of Ebionite Christology with a Gnostic idea of the Creator (see articleCerinthus). It is mainly the former that is in view in 1 John (1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3 ff.), but 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:9 are directed against Gnostic antinomianism. </p> <p> ( <i> e </i> ) <i> Revelation </i> .-Here we have definite mention of a Gnostic sect, by name the [[Nicolaitans]] (Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15). They derived their name from <i> [[Nicolas]] </i> of Acts 6:5. ‘They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence, … teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols’ (Iren. <i> Haer. </i> i. xxvi. 3). Clem. Alex. ( <i> Strom </i> . iii. 4 [436f.]) says that the followers of Nicolas misunderstood his saying that ‘we must fight against the flesh and abuse it.’ What Nicolas meant to be an ascetic principle, they took to be an antinomian one. </p> <p> We have notice of another branch of antinomian Gnosticism in Revelation 2:20, where the ‘prophetess Jezebel’ in [[Thyatira]] is ‘teaching and seducing’ the faithful. </p> <p> Gnosticism thus plays no inconsiderable part in the NT itself. It is, however, to exaggerate that, to find references to Gnosticism in verses where terms occur that afterwards became technical terms in Gnostic systems, viz. <i> pleroma </i> ( <i> e.g. </i> Ephesians 1:23), <i> aeon </i> ( <i> e.g. </i> Ephesians 2:2), <i> gnosis </i> (frequently). These had meaning before Gnostic systems made them peculiarly their own, and the passages in question may be understood without any reference to Gnosticism. </p> <p> <b> 6. Concluding remarks </b> .-If it be difficult to indicate accurately what Gnosticism owed to Christianity, it is no less difficult to determine to what extent Christianity was permanently influenced by Gnosticism. Theological prejudice will always affect the answer, and some will find in the Christological and other definitions of Œcumenical Councils a fruit of what Gnostics began. It is easy to see what indirect service Gnosticism rendered Christianity. In opposition to Gnosticism the Church was compelled ( <i> a </i> ) to develop into clear system her own creed; the true γνῶσις had to be opposed to the false; ( <i> b </i> ) to determine what writings were to be regarded as authoritative; against the Gnostic schools, each with its own pretended special revelation, the Church formed a canon of what were generally regarded as authentic apostolic writings; ( <i> c </i> ) to seek for a just view of the relation of Judaism to Christianity, and of the permanent value of the OT which Gnostics rejected. This is, it may be said, an unsolved problem still. In opposition to Gnosticism the Church was perhaps betrayed into the other extreme, as, to secure permanent authority for every part of the OT, a fanciful system of allegorizing was adopted. </p> <p> As to direct influence, we have indicated above that Gnostics led the way in some developments of worship which found a permanent place in the Catholic Church. Probably also they led the way to the magical conception of Sacraments which became so prominent. The clearness with which the false character of Gnosticism was perceived, and the successful struggle against it, are among the most remarkable and praiseworthy things in the history of the early Church. It remains to be said that the various phenomena which constitute Gnosticism have appeared again and again in the history of the Church since then. Its speculative flights into regions where revelation does not guide and reason cannot follow; its special new revelations; its view of the world as essentially evil in itself; its stern asceticism or antinomian excess-all have appeared repeatedly. </p> <p> Literature.- <b> J. A. W. Neander </b> , <i> Die genetische Entwickelung der vornehmsten gnostischen Systeme </i> , Berlin, 1818; F. C. Baur, <i> Die christliche Gnosis </i> , Tübingen, 1835; R. A. Lipsius, <i> Gnosticismus </i> , Leipzig, 1860; H. L. Mansel, <i> Gnostic Heresies of the 1st and 2nd Centuries </i> , London,1875; A. Hilgenfeld, <i> Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums </i> , Leipzig, 1884; W. Anz, <i> Ursprung des Gnostizismus </i> , do. 1897; R. Liechtenhahn, <i> Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus </i> , Göttingen, 1901; E. de Faye, <i> Introduction à l’étude du gnosticisme au ii </i> <i> e </i> <i> et au iii </i> <i> e </i> <i> siècle </i> , Paris, 1903; W. Bousset. <i> Hauptprobleme der Gnosis </i> , Göttingen, 1907; A. Harnack, <i> History of [[Dogma]] </i> , Eng. translation, London, 1894-99; F. Loofs, <i> Leitf. zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte </i> 3, Halle, 1893; R. Seeberg, <i> Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte </i> , Leipzig, 1895-98: <i> Church Histories </i> of P. Schaff (Edinburgh, 1883-93), W. Moeller (Eng. translation, London, 1892-1900), G. P. [[Fisher]] (do. 1894), R. [[Rainy]] ( <i> Ancient Catholic Church </i> , Edinburgh, 1902). </p> <p> W. D. Niven. </p> | |||
== A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography <ref name="term_14711" /> == | == A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography <ref name="term_14711" /> == | ||
<p> < | |||
== Holman Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_40392" /> == | == Holman Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_40392" /> == | ||
<p> Importance of | <p> Importance of Gnosticism The significance of gnosticism for students of Christianity has two dimensions: the first is its prominence in the history of the church, and the second is its importance for interpreting certain features of the New Testament. Gnosticism emerged in schools of thought within the church in the early second century and soon established itself as a way of understanding Christianity in all of the church's principal centers. The church was torn by the heated debates over the issues posed by gnosticism. By the end of the second century many of the Gnostics belonged to separate, alternative churches or belief systems viewed by the church as heretical. Gnosticism was thus a major threat to the early church; and the early church leaders, such as Irenaeus (died about 200), Tertullian (died about 220), and Hippolytus (died about 236), wrote voluminously against it. Many of the features of gnosticism were incorporated into the sect of the [[Manichees]] in the third century, and [[Manichaeism]] endured as an heretical threat to the church into the fourth century. </p> <p> Gnosticism is also important for interpreting certain features of the New Testament. Irenaeus reported that one of the reasons John wrote his Gospel was to refute the views of Cerinthus, an early Gnostic. Over against the gnostic assertion that the true God would not enter our world, John stressed in his Gospel that Jesus was God's incarnate Son. Other interpreters of the New Testament understand gnosticism to be crucial at many other points in interpreting the New Testament as will be discussed to follow. </p> <p> [[Heretical]] Gnostic Sects The Gnostics who broke away or were expelled from the church claimed to be the true Christians, and the early Christian writers who set themselves to refute their claims are the major source for descriptions of the heretical gnostic sects. Although wide variations existed among the many gnostic sects in the details of systems, certain major features were common to most of them—the separation of the god of creation from the god of redemption; the division of Christians into categories with one group being superior; the stress on secret teachings which only divine persons could comprehend; and the exaltation of knowledge over faith. The church rejected such teachings as heretical, but many people have continued to find attraction in varieties of these ideas. </p> <p> Gnostics generally distinguished between an inferior god whom they felt was responsible for the creation and the superior god revealed in Jesus as the Redeemer. This was a logical belief for them because they opposed matter to thought in a radical way. Matter was seen as inferior, sin-causing, and always deteriorating; thought or knowledge distinguished persons from matter and animals and was imperishable, capable of revealing god, and the only channel of redemption. The gnostic [[Marcion]] thus rejected the Old Testament, pointing out that the lesser or subordinate god revealed in it dealt with matter, insisted on law rather than grace, and was responsible for our decaying, tragedy-filled world. The god who revealed himself in Jesus and through the additional secret teachings was, on the other hand, the absolute god, and was not incarnate in human flesh because the absolute god would not enter evil matter—Christ only seemed or appeared to be a person, but He was not. </p> <p> Gnostics divided Christians into groups, usually the spiritual and the carnal. The spiritual Christians were in a special or higher class than the ordinary Christians because they had received, as the elect of the good deity, a divine spark or spiritual seed in their beings which allowed them to be redeemed. The spiritual Christians were the true Christians who belonged to the heavenly world which was the true one. This belief that the spiritual Christians did not really belong to this world resulted in some Gnostics seeking to withdraw from the world in asceticism. Other gnostic systems took an opposite turn into antinomianism (belief that moral law is not valid for a person or group). They claimed that the spiritual Christians were not responsible for what they did and could not really sin. Thus they could act in any way they pleased without fear of discipline. </p> <p> Gnostics placed great stress on secret teachings or traditions. This secret knowledge was not a product of intellectual effort but was given by Jesus, the [[Redeemer]] from the true deity, either in a special revelation or through His apostles. The followers of the gnostic Valentinus claimed, for example, that Theodus, a friend of Paul's, had been the means of transmission of the secret data. The secret knowledge was superior to the revelation recorded in the New Testament and was an essential supplement to it because only this secret knowledge could awaken or bring to life the divine spark or seed within the elect. When one received the gnosis or true knowledge, one became aware of one's true identity with a divine inner self, was set free (saved) from the dominion of the inferior creator god, and was enabled to live as a true child of the absolute and superior deity. To be able to attain to one's true destiny as the true deity's child, one had to engage in specific secret rituals and in some instances to memorize the secret data which enabled one to pass through the network of powers of the inferior deity who sought to keep persons imprisoned. Salvation was thus seen by the gnostics in a cosmic rather than a moral context—to be saved was to be enabled to return to the one true deity beyond this world. </p> <p> The Gnostics thought faith was inferior to knowledge. The true sons of the absolute deity were saved through knowledge rather than faith. This was the feature of the various systems that gave the movements its designation: they were the Gnostics, the knowers. Yet what this precise knowledge was is quite vague. It was more a perception of one's own existence that solved life's mysteries for the Gnostic than it was a body of doctrine. The knowledge through which salvation came could be enhanced by participation in rituals or through instruction, but ultimately it was a self-discovery each Gnostic had to experience. </p> <p> Origins of the Gnostic Concepts Gnosticism would not have been a threat to the early church if it had not been quite persuasive in the first centuries of the Christian era, and the question of where such ideas came from and what human needs they met must be addressed. </p> <p> The classic answer to the question of why gnosticism arose is that it represents the “radical Hellenizing of Christianity.” In this view, gnosticism resulted from the attempt of early Christian thinkers to make Christianity understandable, acceptable, and respectable in a world almost totally permeated by Greek assumptions about the reality of the World. The expansion of Christianity from Palestine and its Jewish world of thought to the [[Roman]] [[Empire]] where Greek thought reigned called for an interpretation of Christianity that was more understandable. Common [[Hellenistic]] perceptions, such as the fact that matter and spirit were thought to be alien to one another, were incorporated into this re-statement of Christianity with the various gnostic systems as a result. </p> <p> This classic view of the heretical gnostic sects as distortions of Christianity by Hellenistic thought has much strength because it is easily demonstrated how the Gnostics could use New Testament texts, bending them to their purposes. In 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 , for example, Paul chides the [[Corinthian]] Christians for being “people of the flesh” (NRSV) or carnal when they should be spiritual. This text could with ease be used as the foundation for supporting the Hellenistic idea of the superiority of certain persons in the Christian community. In this and many other instances, terms or expressions in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Paul and John, could be lifted out of context and used in ways not originally intended by the authors to support gnostic doctrines. </p> <p> The classic explanation does leave some problems unsolved, however. Little doubt exists that there are ideas, attitudes, and practices incorporated into many of the gnostic heresies that are found outside of Hellenistic thought and much earlier than the second century of the Christian era. In particular, the ultimate goal of the Gnostics—to return to the absolute deity beyond matter and to be in some sense absorbed into the deity—belongs to near eastern pre-Christian mystical thought and not primarily to the Hellenistic world. </p> <p> The existence of such non-Hellenistic features in the gnostic sects has occasioned studies of the possibility of there being a pre-Christian gnosticism which could be understood in itself rather than as an heretical offshoot of the Christian faith. Some researchers came to the conclusion that there was a full-fledged, organized, pre-Christian gnostic religion with a literature and most crucially—the hope of a redeemer who would be sent from the true deity and ascend back to him after awakening the spiritual persons to their redemption. Some radical scholars even went so far as to maintain that the way the early Christians proclaimed Christ was dependent on and modeled after such gnostic expectation. This view thus came to be almost the exact opposite of the classic view of the gnostic sects as Christian heresies and made Christianity heavily dependent on gnosticism. This quite radical view of gnosticism has been shown to be inadequate because no literary evidence whatsoever exists for a full-blown pre-Christian gnosticism. As for a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer expectation, it is now generally acknowledged that this was a figment of the researcher's imagination without any relevant documentary evidence. </p> <p> Although the radical conclusions of some scholars regarding a highly developed pre-Christian gnosticism have been discounted, it does seem clear that there were many ideas, assumptions, and perceptions about deity, reality, and the relationships of persons to gods and the world that were incorporated into the gnostic sects from outside Hellenistic sources. Two literary discoveries have both inspired and tended to support this line of research—the [[Dead]] Sea Scrolls at [[Qumran]] in 1946 and the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 with many gnostic documents. The value of the study of gnosticism for interpreting the New Testament is greatest from the point of view that there was a pre-Christian gnosticism which was not an organized religion but was more a general attitude among thoughtful persons that although ignorance abounded, one could through knowledge come to understand one's true identity and find union or relationship with the absolute deity. This way of conceiving of a pre-Christian gnosticism supplements the classic view by providing an explanation for the rapid and widespread development of so many diverse gnostic heretical sects so quickly. This view also offers an explanation of why the New Testament could so easily be exploited by gnostic sects. The early Christian preachers and writers, seeking to speak and write to be understood, used terms current in the first century world in the vague context of gnostic religious longings and gave them new meaning in the context of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus. </p> <p> Harold S. Songer </p> | ||
== Heresies of the Church Thru the Ages <ref name="term_48964" /> == | == Heresies of the Church Thru the Ages <ref name="term_48964" /> == | ||
<p> (Greek: gnosis, knowledge) </p> <p> | <p> (Greek: gnosis, knowledge) </p> <p> Salvation by knowledge. Gnostics were people who claimed to know mysteries of the universe; various pantheistic sects, antedating the Christian era and lasting to the 5th century and borrowing the formulas of various religious, particularly of Christianity, to express their view of matter as inimical to spirit, and of the universe as a depravation of the Deity. It is an extinct force, so far as religion is concerned today, but there are survivals of it in Swedenborgianism, New Thought, and in some of the sects of Occultism. </p> | ||
== | == Morrish Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_66393" /> == | ||
<p> | <p> An early system of philosophy professedly Christian. One of their theories was that the Lord was an Æon and not really a man. [[Apparently]] to refute this the apostle insists on Christ having come 'in flesh.' 1 John 4:2,3; 2 John 7 . The same may be alluded to in Colossians 2:9 , "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the [[Godhead]] <i> bodily </i> ," in opposition to their mysticism. See GENEALOGIES. </p> | ||
== | |||
== International Standard Bible Encyclopedia <ref name="term_3961" /> == | == International Standard Bible Encyclopedia <ref name="term_3961" /> == | ||
<p> During the period of the prevalence of | <p> During the period of the prevalence of Gnosticism there took place the earlier developments of Christian theology. Gnosticism gave a powerful impetus to the formation of a New Testament canon of Scripture; and to the shaping of the earliest creed. See James M.A. D.D. General Editor. Entry for 'Gnosticism'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/isb/g/gnosticism.html. 1915.APOSTLES Copyright StatementThese files are public domain and were generously provided by the folks at WordSearch Software. Bibliography InformationOrr </p> | ||
==References == | ==References == | ||
<references> | <references> | ||
<ref name="term_56024"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/gnosticism Gnosticism from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref> | |||
<ref name="term_14711"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/a-dictionary-of-early-christian-biography/gnosticism Gnosticism from A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography]</ref> | <ref name="term_14711"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/a-dictionary-of-early-christian-biography/gnosticism Gnosticism from A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography]</ref> | ||
<ref name="term_51158"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-bible/gnosticism Gnosticism from Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible]</ref> | |||
<ref name="term_40392"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/holman-bible-dictionary/gnosticism Gnosticism from Holman Bible Dictionary]</ref> | <ref name="term_40392"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/holman-bible-dictionary/gnosticism Gnosticism from Holman Bible Dictionary]</ref> | ||
| Line 32: | Line 36: | ||
<ref name="term_48964"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/heresies-of-the-church-thru-the-ages/gnosticism Gnosticism from Heresies of the Church Thru the Ages]</ref> | <ref name="term_48964"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/heresies-of-the-church-thru-the-ages/gnosticism Gnosticism from Heresies of the Church Thru the Ages]</ref> | ||
<ref name=" | <ref name="term_66393"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/morrish-bible-dictionary/gnosticism Gnosticism from Morrish Bible Dictionary]</ref> | ||
<ref name=" | <ref name="term_41815"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/gnosticism Gnosticism from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref> | ||
<ref name="term_3961"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/international-standard-bible-encyclopedia/gnosticism Gnosticism from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]</ref> | <ref name="term_3961"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/international-standard-bible-encyclopedia/gnosticism Gnosticism from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]</ref> | ||
</references> | </references> | ||
