[[Image:Flammarion.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The [[Flammarion Woodcut]] can be taken to illustrate the Gnostics' search for spiritual worlds by circumventing the constraints of materiality.]]
[[Image:Flammarion.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The [[Flammarion Woodcut]] can be taken to illustrate the Gnostics' search for spiritual worlds by circumventing the constraints of materiality.]]
Revision as of 15:04, 9 March 2006
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject.
The Flammarion Woodcut can be taken to illustrate the Gnostics' search for spiritual worlds by circumventing the constraints of materiality.
These systems typically recommend the pursuit of mysticism or "special knowledge" (gnosis) as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a mythological struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces (such as the demiurge), and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided, governed by God (the Monad) and the Aeons.
As a result of these common traits, allegations of dualism, anticosmism and body-hatred are often raised against Gnosticism as a whole; this, however, fails to acknowledge the variety, subtlety and complexity of the traditions involved.
It should be noted that the term 'Gnosticism' and the adjectival form 'Gnostic' are also applied to modern revivals of these groups and, sometimes, its inappropriate extension to include any and all religious movements incorporating a doctrine of secret or special, initiatory knowledge can lead to categorical confusion; this has recently lead to the usefulness of the term being called into question.
Nature and Structure of Gnosticism
A typological model: the main features of gnosticism
Though difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see below), various strategies have been employed in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to offer a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from Christoph Markschies' version, as described in Gnosis: An Introduction.
Gnostic systems are typically marked by:
The notion of a remote, supreme and unknowable monadic divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including 'Pleroma' and 'Bythos' (Greek 'deep');
The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
The subsequent identification of the fall as an occurrence within divinity itself, rather than as occurring entirely through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of Sophia (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of Gnostic texts is indicative of her central importance;
The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the Platonist tradition demiurgos. Evidence exists that the conception of the demiurge has derivation from figures in Plato's Timaeus and Republic. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in Socrates' model of the psyche bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion. Elsewhere this figure is called 'Ialdabaoth', 'Samael' (Aramaicsæmʕa-ʔel, 'blind god') or 'Saklas' (Syriacsækla, 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent. The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named 'Archons', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow, or in certain cases as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening. It may be noted that the salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure (Christ, or, in other cases, Seth or Sophia).
It may be noted that the model limits itself to describing characteristics of the Syrian-Egyptian school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the Persian gnostic school - Manicheanism and Mandaeanism - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right (extensive articles exist for both on Wikipedia); indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.
It should be noted also that the conception of Gnosticism offered above has recently been challenged by Michael Allen William's groundbreaking work 'Rethinking Gnosticism', which re-examines the common conception of categorical 'Gnosticism' in an effort to demonstrate the somewhat nebulous nature of the term (see below). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains in common usage, and retains at least some usefulness in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism, even if the extent of that usefulness is in doubt.
Dualism and monism
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mediated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of monism, expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.
Radical dualism - Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely inherits this dualistic mythology from Zoroastrianism, in which the eternal spirit Ahura Mazda is opposed by his antithesis, Angra Mainyu; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of Ptahil, the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm.
Mediated dualism - such classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.
Monism - elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest that its understanding of the universe was a monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' (Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospel, 1978); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus, edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, 1980). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic. Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an error of perception; the physical universe is not characterised as being distinct from the Pleroma, but as being contained within it. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe is of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our apprehension of a distinct material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.
Moral and ritual practise
Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being overwhelmingly ascetic in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practise. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: as this mode of behaviour was one which they themselves favoured and supported, the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of libertinism, or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. Epiphanius provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks' (Panarion, 40.1.4). Thus it might be noted that moral asceticism provides a point of cohesion and co-development between orthodox Christianity and Gnostic Christianity which the Church Fathers sought to downplay.
In other areas of morality Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:
External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (logos), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.
This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.
Charges of Gnostic libertinism arguably find their source in the works of Irenaeus. According to this writer, Simon Magus (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('amoralism'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from Adversus Haereses, I.23.3).
It should be noted that Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the Testimony of Truth that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out. Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes. Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of Bridal Chamber, a ritualistic sacrament in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired syzygies that constitute the Valentinian Pleroma; though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.
Of the Carpocratians Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (Adversus Haereses, I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of gnosis; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.
On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behaviour tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and Structure of Gnosticism, 262).
Major Gnostic schools and their texts
As noted above, schools of Gnosticism are defined as being a member of one of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern' or 'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies; their myths display a more definitive division between light and darkness; creation is typically witnessed as being the result of an interaction between the realms of light and darkness; finally, though the two competing forces are seen somewhat as equivalent in capacity, the ultimate object of the process of creation is to assure the victory of the forces of light (see Dualism and monism).
The Syrian-Egyptian school, by contrast, derives its nature from its Platonist influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe; as a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view material 'evil', rather than as a force equal to immaterial 'goodness', as something markedly inferior to it. Indeed, these schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being relative descriptive terms, with the former indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessitating its inherent negativity.
Persian Gnostics
Mandaeanism which is still practised in small numbers, in parts of southern Iraq and the Iranian province of Khuzestan;
Manichaeism which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now extinct. Both of these traditions differ from the Syrian-Egyptian schools in that they contain no overt Christian elements.
Syrian-Egyptic Gnostics
Classical Gnostic Scripture, sometimes referred to as Sethian gnosticism, for its common reference to Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, as being possessor and disseminator of special knowledge. Many texts have been attributed to this school, including those following:
The Valentinians, in reference to the Christian teacher Valentinius (ca.100–ca.153CE), better known as 'Valentinus', who developed one of the complex cosmologies to be found in gnosticism, outside the Sethian tradition. Valentinus was, for a time, the most successful Christian gnostic thinker. Several texts are attributable to him, and to his followers (texts written by Valentinus himself are, in the main, fragmentary; here they are marked with an '*'):
The Basilidians, named for the founder of their school, Basiledes (132–? CE), are mainly known through the summaries of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses (see above), and through a series of fragments, found in the work of Clement of Alexandria:
The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
Reincarnation (Fragment F)
Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
Simon Magus and Marcion of Sinope both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil Menander could potentially be included within this grouping.
Cerinthus, the leader of a late first century or early second century cult; though he believed in the existence of a lesser, creator deity who governs the world, Cerinthus apparently sets great store against observation of ceremonies as a redemptive observance, rather than the gnosis that is naturally the emphasis of gnostic schools.
The Ophites, so-named because they worshipped the serpent of Genesis as the bestower of knowledge.
The Cainites, as the term implies, worshipped Cain, as well as Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see libertinism).
The Cathars (Cathari, Albigenses or Albigensians) are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, Satanic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (gnosis) as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see historical discussion above.
The meaning of 'gnosis'
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the Greek word meaning 'knowledge', gnosis (γνώσις). However, gnosis itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonistphilosophy.
Unlike modern English, ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being propositional knowledge, indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of George Bush" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").
Gnosis (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (ca.205–270CE). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient philosophical traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.
Bentley Layton has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to The Gnostic Scriptures (SCM Press, London, 1987). In this model, 'Classical Gnosticism' and 'The School of Thomas' antedated and influenced the development of Valentinus, who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both Alexandria and Rome, whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. While in Alexandria, where he was born, Valentinus probably would have had contact with the Gnostic teacher Basilides, and may have been influenced by him.
Valentinianism flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ca. 100–175CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in 388CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors). The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through Ptolemy.
Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in Egypt until the 4th century.
Simone Petrement, in A Separate God, in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)
Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in Sogdian. Manuscript from Khocho, Tarim Basin.
The development of the Persian school
An alternate heritage is offered by Kurt Rudolph in his book Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism (Koehler and Amelang, Leipzig, 1977), to explain the lineage of Persian Gnostic schools. The decline of Manicheism that occurred in Persia in the 5th century CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into Syria, Northern Arabia, Egypt and North Africa (where Augustine was a member of school from 373-382); from Syria it progressed still farther, into Palestine, Asia Minor and Armenia. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and Dalmatia in the 4th century, and also in Gaul and Spain. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathari in the middle ages.
In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and Zoroastrianism had been broken by nascent Islam. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in Central Asia, to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in 762, Manicheanism became the state religion of the Uigar Empire. From this point Manichean influence spread even further into Central Asia, and according to Rudolph its influence may be detected in Tibet and China, where it was strongly opposed by Confucianism, and its followers were subject to a number of bloody repressions. Rudolph reports that despite this suppression Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of Portuguese sailors).
'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category
In 1966 in Messina, Italy, a conference was held concerning systems of gnosis. Among its several aims were the need to incept a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi library (see above) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of 'Gnosticism'. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for contemporary philosophical and religious movements. Thus in 1835New Testament scholar Ferdinand Baur constructs a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of Hegel; one might compare literary criticHarold Bloom's recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary American religion, or Eric Voegelin's analysis of totalitarian impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism.
The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:
In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'.
— Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13
In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite'. However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' was a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly constituted knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.
These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of Michael Allen Williams in Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category, in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).
Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body- and matter-hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly tested. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a categorical definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demirugical tradition' has not become widely used.
Gnosticism in modern times
Many culturally significant movements and figures have been influenced by Gnosticism, including, for example, Carl Jung, William Blake and Eric Voegelin. This influence has apparently grown since the emergence and translation of the Nag Hammadi library (see above). See the article Gnosticism in modern times for a fuller treatment; readers are also recommended to The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by James M. Robinson, later editions of which contain an essay on 'The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism', by Richard Smith.
Aland, Barbara (1978). Festschrift für Hans Jonas. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 3-525-58111-4.
Freke, Timothy (1999). The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs. Tarcher. ISBN 0874779502. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Freke, Timothy (2002). Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0-00-710071-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Haardt, Robert (1967). Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse. Otto-Müller-Verlag, Salzburg. pp. 352 pages., translated as Haardt, Robert (1971). Gnosis: Character and Testimony. Brill, Leiden.
Hoeller, Stephan A. (2002). Gnosticism - New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing. pp. 257 pages. ISBN 0-8356-0816-6.
Jonas, Hans. Gnosis und spätantiker Geist vol. 2:1-2, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie. ISBN 3-525-53841-3.
King, Karen L. (2003). What is Gnosticism?. Harvard University Press. pp. 343 pages. ISBN 0-674-01071-X.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim (1993). Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia. Harper, San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-064586-5.
Layton, Bentley (1995). "Prolegomena to the study of ancient gnosticism". In edited by L. Michael White, O. Larry Yarbrough (ed.). The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Fortress Press, Minneapolis. ISBN 0800625854. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
Layton, Bentley (ed.) (1981). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Sethian Gnosticism. E.J. Brill. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Longfellow, Ki (2005). The Secret Magdalene. pp. 458 pages. ISBN 0-9759255-3-9.
Markschies, Christoph (2000). Gnosis: An Introduction. T & T Clark. pp. 145 pages. ISBN 0-567-08945-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |other= ignored (|others= suggested) (help)
Mins, Denis (1994). Irenaeus. Geoffrey Chapman.
Pagels, Elaine (1979). The Gnostic Gospels. pp. 182 pages. ISBN 0679724532.
Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. pp. 128 pages. ISBN 1555403344.
Petrement, Simone (1990), A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim, Harper and Row ISBN 0060664215
Puma, Jeremy (2005). Running Towards the Bomb: Gnosticism and the End of Civilisation. Geosynchronous Lamps. ISBN 1411645235.
Rudolph, Kurt (1987). Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism. Harper & Row. ISBN 0060670185.
Williams, Michael (1996). Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691011273.
Audio lectures
BC Recordings - Offers an extensive collecton of downloadable MP3 lecture by Stephan A. Hoeller on Gnosticism.
Videos
The Naked Truth - Exposing the Deceptions About the Origins of Modern Religions (1995). ASIN: 1568890060.
External links
All external links are given in alphabetical order by page title or, where available, by author. If you wish to add to the lists, please maintain this layout. Also see the subpages, e.g. Gnosticism in modern times which have their own link lists, in order to place links in the apropriate page.
