Gnosticism: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverting possible vandalism by 71.6.33.66 to version by Eusebeus. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (578706) (Bot) |
No edit summary Tag: nonsense characters |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Gnosticism}} |
{{Gnosticism}} |
||
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDEDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPRPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERP |
|||
'''Gnosticism''' ({{Lang-el|γνῶσις}} ''gnōsis'', [[knowledge]]) refers to diverse, [[Syncretism|syncretistic]] [[religious movement]]s in [[ancient history|antiquity]] consisting of various [[belief systems]] generally united in the teaching that the cosmos was created by an imperfect god, the [[demiurge]] with some of the supreme God's [[pneuma]]; this being is frequently identified with the [[Abrahamic]] [[God]], (as opposed to the [[Gospel according to the Hebrews]]) and is contrasted with a superior entity, referred to by several terms including [[Pleroma]] and [[Godhead]].<ref name="blackwell">{{cite web | title = Pleroma | publisher = A New Dictionary of Religions | first = John | last= Hinnells | url = http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631181392_chunk_g978063118139217_ss1-48}}</ref> Depictions of the [[demiurge]]—the term originates with [[Plato]]'s ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''<ref name="washington">{{cite web | title = Plato's Cosmology: The Timaeus | publisher = History of Ancient Philosophy, University of Washington | url = http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/timaeus.htm}}</ref>—vary from being as an embodiment of evil, to being merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. Gnosticism was a [[dualistic]] [[religion]], influenced by and influencing [[Hellenistic philosophy|Hellenic philosophy]], [[Judaism]] (see [[Notzrim]]), and [[Chalcedonian Christianity|Christianity]];<ref>Walker, Benjamin (1990). ''Gnosticism: Its History and Influence.'' Harper Collins. ISBN 1-85274-057-4.</ref> however, by contrast, later strands of the movement, such as the [[Valentinianism|Valentinians]], held a [[monism|monistic]] [[world-view]].<ref name="val_mon">{{cite web | title = Valentinian Monism | publisher = The Gnostic Society Library | url = http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Monism.htm | accessdate = 12/02/2009}}</ref> This, along with the varying treatments of the demiurge, may be seen as indicative of the variety of positions held within the category. |
|||
The ''gnōsis'' referred to in the term is a form of [[mystic]], revealed, [[esoteric]] [[knowledge]] through which the spiritual elements of [[Human nature|humanity]] are reminded of their true origins within the superior Godhead, being thus permitted to escape materiality.<ref>Pagels, Elaine. ''The Gnostic Gospels'', Vintage Press, 1989, pgs. 18, 37, 42.</ref> Consequently, within the sects of gnosticism only the [[Pneumatic (Gnosticism)|pneumatics]] or [[psychics]] obtain ''gnōsis''; the [[hylic]] or [[Somatics]], though human, being incapable of perceiving the higher reality, are unlikely to attain the ''gnōsis'' deemed by gnostic movements as necessary for salvation.<ref name="tripartite">{{cite web | title = The Tripartite Tractate | coauthors = (trans) Harold W. Attridge and Dieter Mueller | publisher = The Gnostic Society Library | url = http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/tripart.htm | accessdate = 2009-02-12}}</ref><ref name="poeticsbecoming">{{cite paper | first = Charles | last = Teke | author = Charles Teke | title = Towards a Poetics of Becoming: Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s and John Keats’s Aesthetics Between Idealism and Deconstruction | publisher = Universität Regensburg | url = http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=981260632&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=981260632.pdf | format = PDF | accessdate = 2009-02-12}}</ref> [[Jesus Christ|Jesus of Nazareth]] is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring ''gnōsis'' to the earth.<ref name="nhlintro">{{cite web | title = An Introduction to Gnosticism and The Nag Hammadi Library | publisher = The Gnostic Society Library | url = http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm | accessdate = 2009-12-02}}</ref> In others (e.g. the [[Notzrim]] and [[Mandaeans]]) he is considered a ''mšiha kdaba'' or "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by [[John the Baptist]].<ref name="macuch">{{cite book | last = Macuch | first = Rudolf | authorlink = David Mumford | title = Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic | publisher = De Gruyter & Co. | location = Berlin | year = 1965 | pages = 61 fn. 105 }}</ref> Still other traditions identify [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]] and [[Seth]], third son of [[Adam and Eve]], as salvific figures.<ref name="worldview">{{cite web | title = The Gnostic World View: A Brief Introduction | publisher = The Gnosis Archive | url = http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm | accessdate = 2009-02-12 }}</ref> |
|||
Whereas Gnosticism has been considered by scholars to originate as a branch of Christianity, alternate theories have proposed traces of Gnostic systems existed some centuries before the Christian Era, thus predating the [[birth of Jesus]].<ref>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Gnosticism Article] from the [[Jewish Encyclopedia]]</ref> The movement spread in areas controlled by the [[Roman Empire]] and [[Arianism|Arian]] Goths <ref>Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 By [[Guy Halsall]] pg 293 Publisher: Cambridge University Press (January 28, 2008) ISBN 0-521-43491-2 ISBN 978-0-521-43491-1 [http://books.google.com/books?id=S7ULzYGIj8oC&pg=PT359&lpg=PT359&dq=Huneric+Manichaeans.&source=bl&ots=qL0pl-gbSw&sig=54Z95nKOw8iXsL39eSiuKXCFIzE&hl=en&ei=LZsrS-3nIM-Utgetzb2SCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Huneric%20Manichaeans.&f=false]</ref>, and the [[Persian Empire]]; it continued to develop in the [[Mediterranean]] and [[Middle East]] before and during the [[2nd century|second]] and [[Third Century|third centuries]]. Conversion to [[Islam]] and the [[Albigensian Crusade]] (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the [[Middle Ages]], though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various [[esoteric]] [[mystical]] movements of the late [[19th century|19th]] and [[20th century|20th centuries]] in [[Europe]] and [[North America]], including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups. |
|||
==Nature and structure of Gnosticism== |
|||
===The main features of gnosticism=== |
|||
Gnostic systems (particularly the Syrian-Egyptian schools) are typically marked out by: |
|||
{| style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; font-size: 85%; background:#f9f9f9; color:black; width:23em; max-width: 25%;" cellspacing="5" |
|||
| style="text-align: left;" | |
|||
"And the Sophia of the Epinoia [...] brought forth. And [...] something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance, because she had created it without her consort. And it was dissimilar to the likeness of its mother, for it has another form. |
|||
"And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance." |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align: left;" | From ''The Secret Book of John'' (long version), [[Nag Hammadi Library]], Codex II, trans. Frederik Wisse.<ref name=apocryphon /> |
|||
|} |
|||
<ol> |
|||
<li>The notion of a remote, supreme [[monad (Gnosticism)|monadic]] divinity, source - this figure is known under a variety of names, including '[[Pleroma]]' (fullness, totality) and '[[Bythos]]' (depth, profundity);</li> |
|||
<li>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;</li> |
|||
<li>The introduction of a distinct creator God or [[demiurge]]. Which is an illusion and as a later [[emanation]] from the single monad or source, this second God is a lesser and inferior or false God. This creator god is commonly referred to as the ''demiourgós'' (a technical term literally denoting a public worker the [[Latin]]ized form of [[Greek language|Greek]] ''dēmiourgos'', '''δημιουργός''', hence "[[ergon]] or [[energeia|energy]]", "public God or skilled worker" "false God" or "God of the masses"), used in the [[Platonist]] tradition.<ref name="na_demiurge">{{cite web | title=Demiurge | publisher=Catholic Encyclopedia | url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04707b.htm | accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref><br />The gnostic demiurge bears resemblance to figures in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' and ''[[The Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''. In the former the ''demiourgós'' is a central figure, as benevolent creator of the universe who works to make the universe as benevolent as the limitations of matter will allow; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in [[Socrates]]' model of the [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] bears a resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the [[lion]]; the relevant passage of ''The Republic'' was found within a [[Nag Hammadi library|major gnostic library discovered at Nag Hammadi]],<ref name="nhlrepublic">{{cite web | url = http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/plato.html | title = Plato, Republic 588A-589B | publisher = "The Gnostic Society Library | accessdate = 2009-02-12 }}</ref> wherein a text existed describing the demiurge as a 'lion-faced serpent'.<ref name="apocryphon">{{cite web | url = http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_sbj.htm | title = The Apocryphon of John | publisher = The Gnostic Society Library | accessdate = 2009-02-12 }}</ref><br />Elsewhere this figure is called '[[Demiurge|Ialdabaoth]]',<ref name="apocryphon" /> 'Samael' ([[Aramaic]]: ''sæmʕa-ʔel'', 'blind god') or 'Saklas' ([[Syriac]]: ''sækla'', '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.<br />The demiurge as a [[tyrannical]] God having caused the imperfect material world and all of its suffering, is as the creator God of the pagan philosophers ([[Zeus]]) and the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic creator God ([[Yahweh]] or [[Adonai]]) not real but a construct or illusion of the human mind (as [[nous]]). Since no secondary creator God is necessary or of high importance as everything is eternal or emanated and can not be created or destroyed. The demiurge typically creates a group of co-actors named '[[Archons]]', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;<ref name="apocryphon" /></li> |
|||
{| style="float: left; margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 3em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 85%; background:#f9f9f9; color:black; width:23em; max-width: 25%;" cellspacing="5" |
|||
| style="text-align: left;" | |
|||
[The demiurge] is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, "It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" - which is, "god of the blind." |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align: left;" | From ''The Hypostasis of the Archons'' or ''The Reality of the Rulers'', [[Nag Hammadi Library]], Codex II, trans. [[Bentley Layton]].<ref name=hypostasis>{{cite web | title=The Hypostasis of the Archons | publisher=The Gnostic Society Library | url=http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html | accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref> |
|||
|}<li>The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but possibly good as its constituent material might allow.<ref name="val_mon"/> This world is typically an inferior [[simulacrum]] of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a [[painting]], [[sculpture]], or other [[handicraft]] to the thing(s) of which those crafts are supposed to be a [[Mimesis|representation]]. In certain other cases it takes on a more [[ascetic]] tendency to view material existence, negatively. Which then becomes more extreme when materiality, and the human body, is perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;</li> |
|||
<li>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 (leading towards salvation). 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;</li> |
|||
</ol> |
|||
The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the [[#Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism|Syrian-Egyptian]] school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the [[#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Persian gnostic school]] - [[Manicheanism]] and [[Mandaeanism]] - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school. |
|||
This conception of Gnosticism has in recent times come to be [[#'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category|challenged]]. Despite this, the understanding presented above remains the most common and is useful in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism. Above all, the central idea of ''gnōsis'', a knowledge superior to and independent of faith made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. The Valentinians, for example, considered ''pistis'' ([[Greek language|Greek]]: "faith") as consisting of accepting a body of teaching as true, being principally intellectual or emotional in character.<ref name="pistis_gnosis">{{cite web | title = Faith (pistis) and Knowledge (gnosis) | publisher = The Gnostic Society Library | url = http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Faith_Knowledge.htm | accessdate = 2009-02-12}}</ref> The age of the Gnostics was highly diverse, they seem to have originated in [[Alexandria]] and coexisted with the early Christians until the 4th century AD and due to there being no fixed church authority, [[syncretism]] with pre-existing belief systems as well as new religions were often embraced. According to [[Clement of Alexandria]], "...In the times of the [[Emperor Hadrian]] appeared those who devised heresies, and they continued until the age of the elder [[Antoninus Pius|Antoninus]]."<ref>{{cite book |last=Huidekoper |first=Frederic |title=Judaism at Rome: B.C. 76 to A.D. 140 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KGIpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA331&dq=the+age+of+the+Gnostics#v=onepage&q=the%20age%20of%20the%20Gnostics&f=false |page=331 |year=1891 |publisher=D. G. Francis |quote=First on our list stand the Gnostics...}}</ref> |
|||
The relationship between Gnosticism and Orthodox Christianity during the late [[First century|first]] and the whole of the [[second century]] is vital in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism; due in part to the fact that, prior to the discovery of the [[Nag Hammadi Library]], much of what we know today about gnosticism has only been preserved in the summaries and assessments of early [[church fathers]]. [[Irenaeus]] declares in his treatise "Against Heresies"<ref name="adv_her1">{{cite web | title=Against Heresies, II, 27, 1 | author=Irenaeus | publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library | url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxviii.html | accessdate=2009-02-13 }}</ref> that Gnostic movements subjected all morality to the caprice of the individual, and made any fixed rule of faith impossible. According to Irenaeus, a certain sect known as the "[[Cainites]]" professed to impart a knowledge "greater and more sublime" than the ordinary doctrine of Christians, and believed that Cain derived his power from the superior Godhead.<ref name="adv_her2">{{cite web | title=Against Heresies, I, 31, 2 | author=Irenaeus | publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library | url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxxii.html | accessdate=2009-02-13 }}</ref> Although a Gnostic Christian himself, [[Clement of Alexandria]], a 2nd century church father and the first notable member of the Church of Alexandria, raised a criticism against the followers of Basilides and Valentinus in his ''[[Stromata]]'': in his view it annulled the efficacy of [[baptism]], in that it held no value faith, the gift conferred in that sacrament.<ref name="stromata1">{{cite web | title=Stromata, II, 3 | author=Clement | publisher=New Advent | url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02102.htm | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> |
|||
===Dualism and monism=== |
|||
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning they had the view the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. [[Hans Jonas]] writes: "The cardinal feature of gnostic thought is the radical [[dualism]] that governs the relation of [[God]] and [[world]], and correspondingly that of [[man]] and world."<ref>Hans Jonas ''The Gnostic Religion'', p. 42, Beacon Press, 1963 ISBN 0-8070-5799-1; 1st ed. 1958</ref> Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'mitigated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of [[monism]], expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner. |
|||
* '''Radical Dualism''' - or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. 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 inherits<ref>Middle Persian Sources: D. N. MacKenzie, Mani’s Šābuhragān, pt. 1 (text and translation), BSOAS 42/3, 1979, pp. 500-34, pt. 2 (glossary and plates), BSOAS 43/2, 1980, pp. 288-310.</ref><ref>Bevan, A. A. (1930). "Manichaeism". [[Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics]], Volume VIII Ed. [[James Hastings]]. London</ref> this dualistic mythology from [[Zurvanism|Zurvanist Zoroastrianism]]<ref>{{cite book|last=Zaehner|first=Richard Charles|title=The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism|year=1961|publisher=Putnam|location=New York|isbn=1-84212-165-0 (2003 Phoenix ed)}} A section of the book is [http://www.farvardyn.com/zurvan.php available online]. Several other websites have duplicated this text, but include an "Introduction" that is very obviously not by Zaehner. |
|||
</ref>, 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.<br />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.<br />Additionally, general Gnostic thought (specifically to be found in Iranian sects; for instance, see '[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]') commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction. |
|||
* '''Mitigated Dualism''' - where one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other. 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. |
|||
* '''Qualified Monism''' - where it is arguable whether or not the second entity is divine or semi-divine. Elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest to some that its understanding of the universe may have been monistic rather than a dualistic one. Elaine Pagels states that 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism';<ref name="pagels">{{cite book | last=Pagels | first=Elaine | title=''The Gnostic Gospels'' | year=1978 }}</ref> while, according to Schoedel 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic'.<ref name="schoedel">{{cite book | last =Schoedel | first=William | title= 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in ''The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus'', (ed.) Bentley Layton, | publisher=E.J.Brill | location=Leiden | year=1980}}</ref> 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 imperfection by contrast to the superior entities of which he is unaware.<ref name="val_mon" /> As such, Valentinians already have less cause to treat physical reality with contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic<br />The Valentinian tradition conceives of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an ''error of perception'', which become symbolized mythopoetically as the act of material creation.<ref name="val_mon" /> |
|||
===Moral and ritual practice=== |
|||
The question of Gnostic morality can only be resolved by reading the claims of their contemporaries. Numerous Christian writers accused some Gnostic teachers of claiming to eschew the physical realm, while simultaneously freely indulging their physical appetites; however there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims. |
|||
Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally [[asceticism|ascetic]] in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice.<ref>Layton, Bentley (1987). The Gnostic Scriptures. SCM Press - Introduction to "Against Heresies" by St. Irenaeus</ref> Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: this mode of behavior was one which they themselves favoured and supported, so the Church Fathers, some modern-day Gnostic apologist presume, 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]] (see the [[Cainites]]), or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. [[Epiphanius of Salamis|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). |
|||
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: |
|||
{{Quotation|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.|[[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]|Letter to Flora}} |
|||
This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of Catholic orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the [[Catholic Church]], as transmitted through the Apostles to the Church's bishops. 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. This line of Gnostic thought is echoed in Protestantism's emphasis on private interpretation of Scripture, and on its individualist emphasis. |
|||
Charges of Gnostic libertinism find their source in the works of [[Irenaeus]]. According to this writer, [[Simon Magus]] (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism, and who had previously tried to buy sacramental authority of [[Holy Orders|ordination]] from [[St. Peter]] the Apostle) founded the school of moral freedom ('[[amorality|amoralism]]'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument was 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' (''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]''<ref name="adv_her3">{{cite web | title=Against Heresies, I, 23, 3 | author=Irenaeus | publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library | url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxiv.html | accessdate=2009-02-13 }}</ref>). |
|||
Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be 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 the [[Valentinianism#Bridal Chamber|Bridal Chamber]], a ritualistic [[sacrament]] in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired [[syzygy|syzygies]] that constitute the Valentinian [[Pleroma]]. Though it is known that [[Valentinus]] had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the Catholic 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'.<ref name="adv_her4">{{cite web | title=Against Heresies, I, 25, 4 | author=Irenaeus | publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library | url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxvi.html | accessdate=2009-02-13 }}</ref> 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 behavior 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 History of Gnosticism'', 262). |
|||
==Major Gnostic movements and their texts== |
|||
As noted [[#History|above]], schools of Gnosticism can be defined according to one classification system as being a member of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern'/'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian [[Zurvanism|Zurvanist Zoroastrians]]. Among the Syrian-Egyptian schools and the movements they spawned are a typically more Monist view. Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians which are included in their own section. |
|||
===Persian Gnosticism=== |
|||
The Persian Schools, which appeared in the western Persian province of [[Babylon]], and whose writings were originally produced in the [[Aramaic]] dialects spoken in Babylon at the time, are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from [[Christianity]] or [[Judaism]]. |
|||
* ''[[Mandaeanism]]'' is still practiced in small numbers, in parts of southern [[Iraq]] and the Iranian province of [[Khuzestan]]. The name of the group derives from the term ''Mandā d-Heyyi'', which roughly means "Knowledge of Life." Although the exact chronological origins of this movement are not known, John the Baptist eventually would come to be a key figure in the religion, as an emphasis on baptism is part of their core beliefs. As with Manichaeism, despite certain ties with Christianity, Mandaeans do not believe in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Their beliefs and practices likewise have little overlap with the religions that manifested from those religious figures and the two should not be confused. Significant amounts of original Mandaean Scripture survive in the modern era. The primary source text is known as the [[Ginza Rba|Genzā Rabbā]] and has portions identified by some scholars as being copied as early as the 2nd century CE. There is also the [[Qolusta|Qolastā]], or Canonical Book of Prayer and The Book of John the Baptist (sidra ḏ-iahia). |
|||
* ''[[Manichaeism]]'' which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now mostly extinct was founded by the Prophet Mani (210-276 CE). Although most of the literature/scripture of the Manichaeans was believed lost, the discovery of an original series of documents have helped to shed new light on the subject. Now housed in [[Cologne]] [[Germany]], the [[Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis]] contains mainly biographical information on the prophet and details on his claims and teachings. Despite connections with [[Jesus]] [[Christ]], it is not believed that the Manichaeans in any way practiced a religion with identifiable overlap with any of the various Jewish or Christian sects. As Mani stated, "The true God has nothing to do with the material world or cosmos", and, "It is the [[Prince of Darkness]] who spoke with Moses, the Jews and their priests. Thus the Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error when they worship this God. For he leads them astray in the lusts he taught them." <ref>Classical Texts:Acta Archelai |
|||
Now, he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests he says is the archont of Darkness, and the Christians, Jews, and pagans (ethnic) are one and the same, as they revere the same god. For in his aspirations he seduces them, as he is not the god of truth. And so therefore all those who put their hope in the god who spoke with Moses and the prophets have (this in store for themselves, namely) to be bound with him, because they did not put their hope in the god of truth. For that one spoke with them (only) according to their own aspirations. [www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Manicheism/Manicheism_II_Texts.pdf] Page 76</ref><ref>Likewise, Manichaeism, being another Gnostic sect, preached a similar doctrine of positioning God against matter. This dualistic teaching embodied an elaborate cosmological myth that included the defeat of a primal man by the powers of darkness that devoured and imprisoned the particles of light. Thus, to Mani, the devil god which created the world was the Jewish Jehovah. Mani said, "It is the Prince of Darkness who spoke with Moses, the Jews and their priests. Thus the Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error when they worship this God. For he leads them astray in the lusts he taught them."[http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/d/dualism.html]</ref> |
|||
===Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism=== |
|||
The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from [[platonism|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 evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being ''relative'' descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an ''inherent'' negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called [[Eastern Christianity|Orthodox]] or [[Roman Catholic]] forms). |
|||
====Syrian-Egyptic scripture==== |
|||
Most of the literature from this category is known/confirmed to us in the modern age through the Library discovered at [[Nag Hammadi]]. |
|||
* '''Sethian''' works are named after the third son of Adam and Eve, believed to be a possessor and disseminator of gnosis. These typically include: |
|||
** ''The [[Apocryphon of John]]'' |
|||
** ''The [[Apocalypse of Adam]]'' |
|||
** ''[[The Reality of the Rulers]], Also known as The hypostasis of the Archons'' |
|||
** ''[[The Thunder Perfect Mind|The Thunder-Perfect Mind]]'' |
|||
** ''[[Trimorphic Protennoia|The Three-fold First Thought]]'' ''(Trimorphic Protennoia)'' |
|||
** ''The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit'' (also known as the ''[[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians|(Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians]]'') |
|||
** ''[[Zostrianos]]'' |
|||
** ''[[Allogenes]]'' |
|||
** ''The [[Three Steles of Seth]]'' |
|||
* '''Thomasine''' works are so-named after the School of St. [[Thomas the Apostle]]. The texts commonly attributed to this school are: |
|||
** ''[[The Hymn of the Pearl]]'', or, the ''[[Hymn of the Pearl|Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians]]'' |
|||
** ''The [[Gospel of Thomas]]'' |
|||
** ''[[Book of Thomas the Contender|The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect]]'' |
|||
* '''Valentinian''' works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher [[Valentinius]], also spelled Valentinus. [[Circa|ca.]] 153 AD/CE, Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one point he was close to being appointed the [[Bishop]] of [[diocese of Rome|Rome]] of what is now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Works attributed to his school are listed below, and fragmentary pieces directly linked to him are noted with an asterisk: |
|||
** ''The Divine Word Present in the Infant'' (Fragment A) * |
|||
** ''On the Three Natures'' (Fragment B) * |
|||
** ''Adam's Faculty of Speech'' (Fragment C) * |
|||
** ''To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System'' (Fragment D) * |
|||
** ''Annihilation of the Realm of Death'' (Fragment F) * |
|||
** ''On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom'' (Fragment G) * |
|||
** ''Epistle on Attachments'' (Fragment H) * |
|||
** ''Summer Harvest''* |
|||
** ''[[Gospel of Truth|The Gospel of Truth]]''* |
|||
** ''Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth'' |
|||
** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]'' |
|||
** ''Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora'' |
|||
** ''Treatise on Resurrection'' (''Epistle to Rheginus'') |
|||
** ''[[Gospel of Philip]]'' |
|||
* '''Basilidian''' works are named for the founder of their school, [[Basilides]] (132–? CE/AD). These works are mainly known to us through the criticisms of one of his opponents, [[Irenaeus]] in his work ''[[Adversus Haereses]]''. The other pieces are known through 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) |
|||
** Forgivable Sins (Fragment H) |
|||
* The [[Gospel of Judas]] is the most recently discovered Gnostic text. [[National Geographic]] has published an English translation of it, bringing it into mainstream awareness. It portrays [[Judas Iscariot]] as the most enlightened disciple, who acted at Jesus' request when he handed Jesus over to the authorities. Its reference to [[Barbelo]] and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism. |
|||
===Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups=== |
|||
* '''Other schools and related movements'''; these are presented in chronological order:[[File:Simple crossed circle.svg|right|frame|The [[Sun cross|circular, harmonic cross]] was an [[emblem]] used most notably by the [[Cathars]], a [[medieval]] group that related to Gnosticism.]] |
|||
** ''[[Simon Magus]]'' and ''[[Marcion of Sinope]]'' both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas as they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizable following. Simon Magus' pupil ''Menander of Antioch'' could potentially be included within this grouping. Marcion is popularly labelled a gnostic, however most scholars do not consider him a gnostic at all, for example, the [[Encyclopædia Britannica]] article on [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MAL_MAR/MARCION.html Marcion] clearly states: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of [[Christendom]] through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A [[dualist]] he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic - Depending of course on one's definition of 'Gnostic'." |
|||
** ''[[Cerinthus]]'' (c. 100 AD), the founder of a heretical school with gnostic elements. Like a Gnostic, Cerinthus depicted Christ as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus, and he cited the demiurge as creating the material world. Unlike the Gnostics, Cerinthus taught Christians to observe the Jewish law; his demiurge was holy, not lowly; and he taught the Second Coming. His gnosis was a secret teaching attributed to an apostle. Some scholars believe that the First Epistle of John was written as a response to Cerinthus.<ref name = "gonzález">González, Justo L.(1970). ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I''. Abingdon. pp. 132-3</ref> |
|||
** The ''[[Ophites]]'', so-named because they worshiped the serpent of [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] as the bestower of knowledge. |
|||
** The ''[[Cainites]]'', as the term implies, worshiped [[Cain]], as well as [[Esau]], [[Korah]], and the [[Sodom and Gomorrah|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 name Cainite is used as the name of a religious movement, and not in the usual Biblical sense of people descended from Cain. According to Biblical text, which is our only source of knowledge about the man Cain, all descendants of Cain perished in [[Noah's Flood]], as only Noah's family survived, deriving from the line of Seth. |
|||
** The ''[[Carpocrates|Carpocratians]]'', a [[libertine]] sect following only the [[Gospel according to the Hebrews]] |
|||
** The ''[[Borborites]]'', a libertine Gnostic [[sect]], said to be descended from the [[Nicolaitans]] |
|||
** The ''[[Paulicianism|Paulicans]]'', an [[Adoptionist]] group, also accused by medieval sources as [[Gnostic]] and quasi [[Manichaean]] [[Christianity|Christian]]. They flourished between 650 and 872 in [[Armenia]] and the Eastern Themes of the [[Byzantine Empire]] |
|||
** The ''[[Bogomils]]'', , the [[Syncretism#Religious syncretism|synthesis]] of [[Armenia]]n [[Paulicianism]] and the [[Bulgarian Orthodox Church]] reform movement, which emerged in [[First Bulgarian Empire|Bulgaria]] between 927 and 970 and spread throughout Europe |
|||
** The ''[[Cathar]]s'' (''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, [[Satan]]ic, 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 [[#The development of the Persian school|historical discussion above]]. |
|||
===Kabbalah=== |
|||
Gnostic ideas found a Jewish variation in the mystical study of [[Kabbalah]]. The Kabbalists took many core Gnostic ideas and used them to dramatically reinterpret earlier Jewish sources according to this new influence. See [[Gershom Scholem]]'s ''Origins of the Kabbalah'' for further discussion. The Kabbalists originated in [[Provence]] which was at that time also the center of the Gnostic Cathars. It is thus believed that Cathar Gnostics persuaded Jews to Gnostic ideas, leading to the development of Kabbalah. Another influence on Kabbalah was probably that of the Muslim [[Ismaili]]s. By contrast, however, followers of Kabbalah date its origins as early as the Garden of Eden. |
|||
Kabbalah, however, does not employ the terminology or labels of gentile Gnosticism, but grounds the same or similar concepts in the language of the Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible). Nevertheless, during the time periods when Gnosticism was drawing large numbers of followers from various religions, creating Gnostic versions of those religions, many Jews also developed a mystical version of Judaism remarkably similar to Gnostic beliefs. |
|||
While Kabbalah shares several themes with Gnosticism, such as a multiplicity of heavenly levels and archetypes and the importance of mystical knowledge of these, it does not reflect the distinctive Gnostic belief that the material world and the Hebrew Bible are the work of an inferior and malevolent deity. Rather than describing Kabbalah as a form of Gnosticism, it would be more accurate to describe both Kabbalah and Gnosticism as members of a family of Neoplatonic/Neopythagorean Oriental mystical traditions, which would also include [[Sufism]]. [[Gershom Scholem]] once described Gnosticism as "the Greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism."<ref>Understanding Jewish History: Texts and Commentaries by [[Steven Bayme]] Publisher: Ktav Publishing House ISBN 0-88125-554-8 ISBN 978-0-88125-554-6 [http://books.google.com/books?id=56QJ9O7MFJ4C&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=gershom+scholem+gnosticism+anti-semitic&source=bl&ots=qKECnoMshu&sig=wdV7x2W3FJjtdmWVCSgyrMigPyE&hl=en&ei=EAELStOJDYuMtgemr5HFAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5]</ref> |
|||
==Important terms and concepts== |
|||
{{Main|List of gnostic terms}} |
|||
Please note that the following are only summaries of various Gnostic interpretations that exist. The roles of familiar beings such as [[Jesus Christ]], [[Sophia]], and the [[Demiurge]] usually share the same general themes between systems but may have somewhat different functions or identities ascribed to them. |
|||
===Æon=== |
|||
{{Main|Æon}} |
|||
In many Gnostic systems, the æons are the various [[emanationism|emanations]] of the superior [[God]], who is also known by such names as [[the One]], the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]], ''Aion teleos'' ([[Greek language|Greek]]: "The Complete Æon"),{{Citation needed|date=February 2009}} [[Bythos]] (Greek: ''Βυθος'', 'Depth' or 'profundity'), Proarkhe (Greek: ''προαρχη'', "Before the Beginning'), E Arkhe (Greek: ''ἡ ἀρχή'', 'The Beginning'), Ennoia (Greek: "Thought") of the Light<ref name="thought_norea">{{cite web | title=The Thought of Norea | publisher=The Gnostic Society Library | url=http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nore.html | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> or Sige (Greek: ''Σιγη'', "Silence").<ref name="valen_theo">{{cite web | title=Valentinian Theology | publisher=The Gnostic Society Library | url=http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Theology.htm | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> From this first being, also an æon, a series of different [[emanation]]s occur, beginning in certain Gnostic texts with the [[hermaphrodite|hermaphroditic]] Barbelo,<ref name="apocryphon" /><ref name="allogenes">{{cite web | title=Allogenes | publisher=The Gnostic Society Library | url=http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/allogene.html | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref><ref name="trimorph">{{cite web | title=Trimorphic Protennoia | publisher=The Gnostic Society Library |url=http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/trimorph.html | accessdate=209/02/13}}</ref> from which successive pairs of aeons emanate, often in [[male]]-[[female]] pairings called ''syzygies'';<ref name="valen_syzygy">{{cite web | title=The Pair (Syzygy) in Valentinian Thought | url=http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Syzygy_Valentinian.htm | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> the numbers of these pairings varied from text to text, though some identify their number as being thirty.<ref name="fragments_mead">{{cite book | title=Fragments of a Faith Forgotten | last=Mead | first=G.R.S. | publisher=Kessinger Publishing | isbn=1417984139 | year=2005}}</ref> The aeons as a totality constitute the ''[[pleroma]]'', the "region of light". The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness; that is, the physical world.{{Citation needed|date=February 2009}} |
|||
Two of the most commonly paired æons were [[Jesus]] and ''[[Sophia (wisdom)|Sophia]]'' (Greek: "Wisdom"); the latter refers to Jesus as her 'consort' in ''A Valentinian Exposition''.<ref name="valen_expos">{{cite web | title=A Valentinian Exposition | publisher=The Gnostic Society Library | url=http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/valex.html | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> ''Sophia'', emanating without her partner, resulting in the production of the ''[[Demiurge]]'' (Greek: lit. "public builder"),<ref name="newad_demi">{{cite web | title=Demiurge | publisher="Catholic encyclopedia" | url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04707b.htm | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> who is also referred to as '' Yaldabaoth'' and variations thereof in some Gnostic texts.<ref name="apocryphon" /> This creature is concealed outside the Pleroma;<ref name="apocryphon" /> in isolation, and thinking itself alone, it creates materiality and a host of co-actors, referred to as archons. The demiurge is responsible for the creation of mankind, by create he traps elements of the Pleroma stolen from Sophia in human bodies.<ref name="apocryphon" /><ref name=hypostasis /> In response, the Godhead emanates two savior æons, ''[[Christ]]'' and ''the [[Holy Spirit]]''; Christ then embodies itself in the form of Jesus, in order to be able to teach man how to achieve [[gnosis]], by which they may return to the Pleroma.<ref name="nhlintro"/> |
|||
===Archon=== |
|||
{{Main|Archon#Gnostic archons}} |
|||
In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term ''Archon'' to refer to several servants of the [[Demiurge]].<ref name=hypostasis /> In this context they may be seen as having the roles of the [[angel]]s and [[demon]]s of the [[Old Testament]]. |
|||
According to [[Origen]]'s ''[[Contra Celsum]]'', a sect called the [[Ophites]] posited the existence of seven archons, beginning with [[Demiurge|Iadabaoth]] or Ialdabaoth, who created the six that follow: [[Iao]], [[Sabaoth]], [[Adonaios]], [[Elaios]], [[Astaphanos]] and [[Horaios]].<ref name="contra_celsum">{{ cite web | title=Cotra Celsum | author=Origen | publisher=The Gnostic Society Library | url=http://www.gnosis.org/library/orig_cc6.htm | accessdate=2009/20/13}}</ref> Similarly to the [[Mithraic]] [[Chronos|Kronos]] and [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic]] [[Narasimha]], a form of [[Vishnu]], Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion.<ref name=apocryphon /><ref name="mithraic_art">{{cite web | title=Mithraic Art | url=http://www.public-domain-content.com/books/classic_greece_rome/mom/mom10.shtml | accessdate=2009-12-13 }}</ref><ref name="narashimba">{{cite web | title=Narashimba | publisher=Manas: Indian Religions | url=http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/Avatars/Narasi.html | accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> |
|||
===Abraxas/Abrasax=== |
|||
{{Main|Abraxas}} |
|||
[[File:Abraxas, Nordisk familjebok.png|thumb|right|150px|Engraving from an [[Abraxas]] stone.]] |
|||
The Egyptian Gnostic [[Basilideans]] referred to a figure called ''Abraxas'' who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings ([[Irenaeus]], ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus Haereses]]'', I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear. |
|||
The word [[Abraxas]] was engraved on certain [[Engraved gem|antique gemstones]], called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as [[amulets]] or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a [[god (male deity)|god]] who incorporated both [[Good and evil|Good]] and [[Evil]] (God and [[Demiurge]]) in one entity, and therefore representing the [[monotheistic God]], singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not [[eutheism|omni-benevolent]] (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an [[Egypt]]ian god and a [[demon]], sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of [[Satan]]/[[Lucifer]]. The word [[abracadabra]] may be related to Abraxas. |
|||
The above information relates to interpretations of ancient amulets and to reports of Christian heresy hunters which are not always clear. |
|||
Actual ancient Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians]], refer to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Spiritual Fullness in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge and Archon's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Divine Fullness that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality. |
|||
Words like or similar to Abraxas or Abrasax also appear in the [[Greek Magical Papyri]]. There are similarities and differences between such figures in reports about Basiledes' teaching, in the larger magical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, in the classic ancient Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in later magical and esoteric writings. |
|||
The Swiss Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] wrote a short Gnostic treatise in 1916 called The Seven Sermons to the Dead, which called Abraxas a God higher than the Christian God and Devil, that combines all opposites into one Being. |
|||
===Demiurge=== |
|||
{{Main|Demiurge}} |
|||
[[File:Lion-faced deity.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in [[Bernard de Montfaucon]]'s ''L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures'' may be a depiction of the Demiurge; however, cf. [[Chronos|Mithraic Zervan Akarana]] <ref>Campbell, Joseph: ''Occidental Mythology'', page 262. Penguin Arkana, 1991.</ref>]] |
|||
The term ''Demiurge'' derives from the [[Latin]]ized form of the [[Greek language|Greek]] term ''dēmiourgos'', '''δημιουργός''', (literally "public or skilled worker") and refers to an entity responsible for the creation of the [[physical universe]] and the physical aspect of [[Human nature|humanity]]. The term ''dēmiourgos'' occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably [[Platonism]]. Moral judgements of the demiurge vary from group to group within the broad category of gnosticism - such judgements usually correspond to each group's judgement of the status of materiality as being inherently evil, or else merely flawed and as good as its passive constituent matter will allow. |
|||
Like [[Plato]] does, Gnosticism presents a distinction between a supranatural, unknowable reality and the sensible materiality of which the demiurge is creator. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the Supreme God: his act of creation either in [[Unconscious mind|unconscious]] and fundamentally flawed imitation of the divine model, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine ''in'' materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the [[problem of evil]]. In the [[Apocryphon of John]] (several versions of which are found in the [[Nag Hammadi library]]), the Demiurge has the name "[[Yaltabaoth]]", and proclaims himself as God: |
|||
:''"Now the [[archon]] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is [[Saklas]], and the third is [[Samael]]. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."'' |
|||
"Samael", in the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition, refers to the [[evil]] [[Angel of Death]], and corresponds to the Christian [[demon]] of [[Samael|that name]], one second only to [[Satan]]{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}. Literally, it can mean "blind god" or "god of the blind" in [[Aramaic]] ([[Syriac]] ''sæmʕa-ʔel''); another alternative title is "Saklas", Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac ''sækla'' "the foolish one"). |
|||
[[Gnostic]] myth recounts that [[Sophia (wisdom)|Sophia]] (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine [[Pleroma]] or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place. |
|||
The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See [[Sethian|Sethian Gnosticism]].) |
|||
Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with [[Yahweh]], the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]], in opposition and contrast to the God of the [[New Testament]]. Still others equated the being with [[Satan]]. [[Catharism]] apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism. |
|||
===Gnosis=== |
|||
{{Main|Gnosis}} |
|||
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word meaning 'knowledge', ''gnosis'' (γνῶσις). 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 [[Plato]]nist [[philosophy]]. |
|||
Unlike modern [[English language|English]]{{Citation needed|date=March 2010}}, 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 [[empirical]] knowledge acquired by ''direct participation'' or ''acquaintance'' (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited"). |
|||
''Gnosis'' (γνῶσις) 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 [[Mysticism|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]] (''[[Circa|ca]].'' 205–270 AD). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient [[philosophy|philosophical]] traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups. |
|||
===Monad (apophatic theology)=== |
|||
{{Main|Monad (Gnosticism)}} |
|||
In many [[Gnostic]] systems (and heresiologies), [[God]] is known as the ''Monad'', [[the One]], [[Absolute (philosophy)|The Absolute]], ''Aion teleos'' (The Perfect [[Æon]]), ''Bythos'' (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος), ''Proarkhe'' (Before the Beginning, προαρχη), and ''E Arkhe'' (The Beginning, η αρχη). God is the high source of the [[pleroma]], the region of light. The various emanations of God are called [[æon]]s. |
|||
Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspired by [[Monoimus]], the ''Monad'' was the highest [[God]] which created lesser [[deity|gods]], or elements (similar to æons). |
|||
According to [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]], this view was inspired by the [[Pythagoreans]], who called the first thing that came into existence the ''Monad'', which begat the [[dyad]], which begat the [[number]]s, which begat the [[Point (geometry)|point]], begetting [[Line (geometry)|lines]], etc. This was also clarified in the writings of [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]] and [[Plotinus]]. This teaching being largely [[Pythagoreanism|Neopythagorean]] via [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]] as well. |
|||
This Monad is the [[supernatural|spiritual]] source of everything which [[emanationism|emanates]] the [[pleroma]], and could be contrasted to the dark [[Demiurge]] (Yaldabaoth) that controls [[matter]]. |
|||
The [[Sethian]] cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ('Secret book') of John describes an unknown [[God]], very similar to the [[orthodoxy|orthodox]] apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]] and truly [[benevolent]]. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through [[negative theology]]: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, 'he' is seen as being [[hermaphroditic]], a potent symbol for being, as it were, 'all-containing'. In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god. |
|||
An apophatic approach to discussing the Divine is found throughout gnosticism, Vedanta, and Platonic and Aristotelian theology as well. It is also found in some Judaic sources. |
|||
===Pleroma=== |
|||
{{Main|Pleroma}} |
|||
''Pleroma'' (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means ''fullness'', and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in [[Colossians]] 2.9. |
|||
Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil [[archon]]s, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the [[Old Testament]] who holds the human spirit captive. |
|||
The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as [[aeon]]s (eternal beings) and sometimes [[archon]]s. [[Jesus]] is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic [[cosmology]]. |
|||
Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that [[Gnosticism and the New Testament|Paul was actually a gnostic]], such as [[Elaine Pagels]] of [[Princeton University]], view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense. |
|||
===Sophia=== |
|||
{{Main|Sophia (wisdom)}} |
|||
In Gnostic tradition, the term ''Sophia'' (Σoφíα, [[Greek language|Greek]] for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God. |
|||
In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the [[demiurge]], who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] equivalent of ''Achamoth'' (this is a feature of [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]]'s version of the [[Valentinius|Valentinian]] gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90.{{Citation needed|date=January 2009}} |
|||
Almost all gnostic systems of the [[Gnosticism#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Syrian]] or [[Gnosticism#Major gnostic schools and their texts|Egyptian]] type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable [[God]], referred to as the Parent or [[Bythos]], as the [[Monad (Gnosticism)|Monad]] by [[Monoimus]], or the first [[Aeon]] by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously [[emanationism|emanated]] further [[Aeon]]s, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and [[Christ]]. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature. |
|||
==History== |
|||
{{Main|History of Gnosticism}} |
|||
===The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school=== |
|||
[[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 (Gnostic)|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 ''[[Circa|ca]]''. 100–180 AD/CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in 388 AD/CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors).{{Citation needed|date=October 2008}} 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 (gnostic)|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.) |
|||
[[File:Manicheans.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Manicheanism|Manichean priests]] writing at their desks, with panel inscription in [[Sogdian language|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 AD 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]], [[Arabia|Northern Arabia]], [[Egypt]] and [[Africa|North Africa]] (where [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] was a member of the 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]], [[Bogomil]]s and [[Cathars|Cathari]] in the Middle Ages, until it was ultimately stamped out as a heresy by the Catholic Church. |
|||
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 [[Uyghur Empire]]. |
|||
==Neoplatonism and Gnosticism== |
|||
{{See also|Neoplatonism and Gnosticism|Neoplatonism and Christianity}} |
|||
===Historical relations between antique Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism=== |
|||
{{See also|Platonic Academy}} |
|||
The earliest origins of Gnosticism are still obscure and disputed, but they probably include influence from [[Plato]], [[Middle Platonism]] and [[Neo-Pythagoreanism]] [[academies]] or schools of thought, and this seems to be true both of the more [[Sethian]] Gnostics, and of the [[Valentinius|Valentinian]] Gnostics.<ref name="turner">{{cite book | title="Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History" in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity | last=Turner | first=John | year=1986 | pages=59}}</ref> Further, if we compare different Sethian texts to each other in an attempted chronology of the development of Sethianism during the first few centuries, it seems that later texts are continuing to interact with Platonism. Earlier texts such as [[Apocalypse of Adam]] show signs of being pre-Christian and focus on the [[Seth]], third son of Adam and Eve. These early Sethians may be identical to or related to the [[Notzrim]], [[Ophites]] or to the sectarian group called the [[Minuth]] by [[Philo]].<ref>Aufstieg Und Niedergang Der Romischen Welt/Rise and Decline of the Roman World Bd 21/1 Volume 2; Volume 21 By Hildegard Temporini, Joseph Vogt, Wolfgang Haase Publisher: Walter de Gruyter (December 31, 1983) Language: German ISBN 3-11-008845-2 ISBN 978-3-11-008845-8 |
|||
[http://books.google.com/books?id=hBIbw9iMqIIC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=philo+minuth&source=bl&ots=Y3JDtWVYJa&sig=jGvqaO77rcs2olMYzzQFjftPlV0&hl=en&ei=NrcrS9iKH8SUtget2vT7CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=philo%20minuth&f=false]</ref><ref>The term "[[minim]]" in the Talmud often refers to gnostics, as Friedländer, and before him Krochmal and Grätz, have pointed out. |
|||
[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism#ixzz0a3pXc2Qb] |
|||
</ref> Later Sethian texts such as [[Zostrianos]] and [[Allogenes]] draw on the imagery of older Sethian texts, but utilize "a large fund of philosophical conceptuality derived from contemporary Platonism, (that is late middle Platonism) with no traces of Christian content."<ref name="Turner, John p. 59">Turner, John. "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History" in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 1986 p. 59</ref> Indeed the doctrine of the "triple-powered one" found in the text [[Allogenes]], as discovered in the Nag Hammadi Library, is "the same doctrine as found in the anonymous [[Parmenides]] commentary (Fragment XIV) ascribed by Hadot to [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] [...] and is also found in [[Plotinus]]' [[Ennead]]6.7, 17, 13-26."<ref name="turner" /> |
|||
=== Rejection by antique Greek Philosophy === |
|||
However, by the 3rd century Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus, Porphyry and [[Amelius]] are all attacking the Sethians. It looks as if Sethianism began as a pre-Christian tradition, possibly a [[syncretic]]<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/dp/1565639448 Hebrew]</ref> that incorporated elements of Christianity and Platonism as it grew, only to have both Christianity and Platonism reject and turn against it. Professor [[John D Turner]] believes that this double attack led to Sethianism fragmentation into numerous smaller groups ([[Audian]]s, [[Borborites]], [[Archontics]] and perhaps [[Phibionites]], [[Stratiotici]], and [[Secundians]]).<ref name="Turner, John p. 59"/> |
|||
Scholarship on Gnosticism has been greatly advanced by the discovery and translation of the [[Nag Hammadi]] texts, which shed light on some of the more puzzling comments by [[Plotinus]] and [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] regarding the Gnostics. More importantly, the texts help to distinguish different kinds of early Gnostics. It now seems clear that "[[Sethian]]" and "[[Valentinus (Gnostic)|Valentinian]]"<ref>This is what the scholar [[A. H. Armstrong]] wrote as a footnote in his translation of Plotinus' Enneads in the tract named against the Gnostics. Footnote from Page 264 1. From this point to the end of ch.12 Plotinus is attacking a Gnostic myth known to us best at present in the form it took in the system of Valentinus. The Mother, Sophia-Achamoth, produced as a result of the complicated sequence of events which followed the fall of the higher Sophia, and her offspring the Demiurge, the inferier and ignorant maker of the material universe, are Valentinian figures: cp. Irenaues adv. Haer 1.4 and 5. Valentinius had been in Rome, and there is nothing improbable in the presence of Valentinians there in the time of Plotinus. But the evidence in the Life ch.16 suggests that the Gnostics in Plotinus's circle belonged rather to the other group called Sethians on Archonties, related to the Ophites or Barbelognostics: they probably called themselves simply "Gnostics." Gnostic sects borrowed freely from each other, and it is likely that Valentinius took some of his ideas about Sophia from older Gnostic sources, and that his ideas in turn influenced other Gnostics. The probably Sethian Gnostic library discovered at Nag Hammadi included Valentinian treatise: ep. Puech, Le pp. 162-163 and 179-180.</ref> gnostics attempted "an effort towards conciliation, even affiliation" with late antique philosophy,<ref name ="Schenke1">Schenke, Hans Martin. "The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism" in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. E. J. Brill 1978</ref> and were rebuffed by some [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonists]], including [[Plotinus]]. |
|||
===Philosophical relations between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism=== |
|||
Gnostics borrow a lot of ideas and terms from Platonism. They exhibit a keen understanding of Greek philosophical terms and the Greek [[Koine]] language in general, and use Greek philosophical concepts throughout their text, including such concepts as [[hypostasis]] (reality, existence), [[ousia]] (essence, substance, being), and [[demiurge]] (creator God). Good examples include texts such as the [http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/intpr.htm Hypostasis of the Archons] (Reality of the Rulers) or [[Trimorphic Protennoia]] (The first thought in three forms). |
|||
===Criticism of gnosticism by antique Greek Philosophy=== |
|||
As a pagan mystic [[Plotinus]] considered his opponents heretics<ref>Introductory Note This treatise (No.33 in Porphyry's chronological order) is in fact the concluding section of a single long treatise which Porphyry, in order to carry out the design of grouping his master's works more or less according to subject into six sets of nine treatise, hacked roughly into four parts which he put into different Enneads, the other three being III. 8 (30) V. 8 (31) and V .5 (32). Porphyry says (Life ch. 16.11) that he gave the treatise the Title "Against the Gnostics" (he is presumably also responsible for the titles of the other sections of the cut-up treatise). There is an alternative title in Life. ch. 24 56-57 which runs "Against those who say that the maker of the universe is evil and the universe is evil. The treatise as it stands in the Enneads is a most powerful protest on behalf of Hellenic philosophy against the ''un-Hellenic heresy'' (as it was from the Platonist as well as the orthodox Christian point of view) of Gnosticism. A.H. Armstrong introduction to II 9. Against the Gnostics Pages 220-222</ref> and elitist blasphemers,<ref>They claimed to be a privileged caste of beings, in whom God alone was interested, and who were saved not by their own efforts but by some dramatic and arbitrary divine proceeding; and this, Plotinus claimed, led to immorality. Worst of all, they despised and hated the material universe and denied it's goodness and the goodness of its maker. For a Platonist, this is utter [[blasphemy]] -- and all the worse because it obviously derives to some extent from the sharply other-worldly side of Plato's own teaching (e.g. in the [[Phaedo]]). At this point in his attack Plotinus comes very close in some ways to the orthodox Christian opponents of Gnosticism, who also insist that this world is the work of God in his goodness. But, here as on the question of salvation, the doctrine which Plotinus is defending is as sharply opposed in other ways to orthodox Christianity as to Gnosticism: for he maintains not only the goodness of the material universe but also it's eternity and it's divinity. A.H. Armstrong introduction to II 9. Against the Gnostics Pages 220-222 |
|||
</ref> arriving at [[misotheism]] as the solution to the [[problem of evil]], being not traditional or genuine Hellenism (in philosophy or mysticism), but rather one invented taking all their truths over from Plato,<ref>The teaching of the Gnostics seems to him untraditional, irrational and immoral. They despise and revile the ancient Platonic teachings and claim to have a new and superior wisdom of their own: but in fact anything that is true in their teaching comes from [[Plato]], and all they have done themselves is to add senseless complications and pervert the true traditional doctrine into a melodramatic, superstitious fantasy designed to feed their own delusions of grandeur. They reject the only true way of salvation through wisdom and virtue, the slow patient study of truth and pursuit of perfection by men who respect the wisdom of the ancients and know their place in the universe. A.H. Armstrong introduction to II 9. Against the Gnostics Pages 220-222 |
|||
</ref> coupled with the idea expressed by Plotinus that the approach to the infinite force which is the One or [[Monad (symbol)|Monad]] cannot be through knowing or not knowing (i.e., dualist, which is of the [[Dyad (Greek philosophy)|dyad]] or [[demiurge]]).<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=VrB53l4wNK0C&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=plotinus+energy&source=web&ots=rbnlnnwui5&sig=84RfXY8ErxUowZm2xT21Nuk8_II#PPA6,M1 Faith and Philosophy By David G. Leahy]</ref><ref>Enneads VI 9.6</ref> Although there has been dispute as to which Gnostics Plotinus was referring to it appears they were indeed [[Sethian]].<ref>This is what the scholar A. H. Armstrong wrote as a footnote in his translation of Plotinus' Enneads in the tract named against the Gnostics. Footnote from Page 264 1. From this point to the end of ch.12 Plotinus is attacking a Gnostic myth known to us best at present in the form it took in the system of Valentinus. The Mother, Sophia-Achamoth, produced as a result of the complicated sequence of events which followed the fall of the higher Sophia, and her offspring the Demiurge, the inferior and ignorant maker of the material universe, are Valentinian figures: cp. Irenaues adv. Haer 1.4 and 5. Valentinius had been in Rome, and there is nothing improbable in the presence of Valentinians there in the time of Plotinus. But the evidence in the Life ch.16 suggests that the Gnostics in Plotinus's circle belonged rather to the other group called Sethians on Archonties, related to the Ophites or Barbelognostics: they probably called themselves simply "Gnostics." Gnostic sects borrowed freely from each other, and it is likely that Valentinius took some of his ideas about Sophia from older Gnostic sources, and that his ideas in turn influenced other Gnostics. The probably Sethian Gnostic library discovered at Nag Hammadi included Valentinian treatise: ep. Puech, Le pp. 162-163 and 179-180.</ref> Plotinus' main objection to the Gnostics he was familiar with, however, was their rejection of the goodness of the [[demiurge]] and the material world. He attacks the Gnostics as vilifying Plato's [[ontology]] of the universe as contained in the [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]. He accused Gnosticism of vilifying the Demiurge, or craftsman that crafted the material world, and even of thinking that the material world is evil, or a prison. As Plotinus explains, the demiurge is the nous (as the first emanation of the One), the ordering principle or mind, and also reason. Plotinus was also critical of the Gnostic origin of the demiurge as the offspring of wisdom, represented as a deity called [[Sophia]]. She was [[Christian anthropology|anthropomorphically]] expressed as a feminine spirit deity not unlike the goddess [[Athena]] or the Christian [[Holy Spirit]]. Plotinus even went so far as to state at one point that if the Gnostics did believe this world was a prison then they could at any moment free themselves by committing suicide. To some degree the texts discovered in Nag Hammadi support his allegations, but others such as the Valentinians and the Tripartite Tractate insist on the goodness of the world and the Demiurge. |
|||
==Buddhism and Gnosticism== |
|||
Early 3rd century–4th century [[Christian]] writers such as [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]] and [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] write about a [[Scythianus]], who visited India around 50 AD from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], Scythianus' pupil [[Terebinthus]] presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas").<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 6, paragraph 23]</ref> Terebinthus went to [[Palestine]] and [[Judea|Judaea]] ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in [[Babylon]], where he transmitted his teachings to [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], thereby creating the foundation of [[Manichaeism]]: |
|||
{{quote|"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas."|[[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm "Catechetical lecture 6"]}} |
|||
In the 3rd century, the Syrian writer and Christian Gnostic theologian [[Bar Daisan]] described his exchanges with the religious missions of holy men from India (Greek: Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas), passing through [[Syria]] on their way to [[Elagabalus]] or another [[Severan dynasty]] [[Roman Emperor]]. His accounts were quoted by [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] (De abstin., iv, 17 {{Citation needed|date=June 2007}}) and [[Stobaeus]] (Eccles., iii, 56, 141). |
|||
Finally, from the 3rd century to the 12th century, some Gnostic religions such as Manichaeism, which combined Christian, Hebrew and Buddhist influences ([[Mani (prophet)|Mani]], the founder of the religion, resided for some time in [[Kushan]] lands), spread throughout the [[Old World]], to [[Gaul]] and [[Great Britain]] in the West, and to [[China]] in the East. Some leading Christian theologians such as [[Augustine of Hippo]] were Manichaeans before converting to orthodox Christianity. |
|||
Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early [[Christianity]]: "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters"). |
|||
== Christianity and Gnosticism == |
|||
{{Essay-like|date=March 2010}} |
|||
The ascetic notion of immediate revelation through divine knowledge sought to find an absolute transcendence in a Supreme Deity. This concept is very important in identifying what evidence there is pertaining to Gnosticism<ref>First coined in Plato’s Politikos [‘Statement’] as gnostikoi [‘those capable of knowing’], and linking it with knowledge [episteme] (Introduction to Politikos. Cooper, John M. & Hutchinson, D. S. [Eds.] (1997)</ref> in the NT, which would influence orthodox teaching.<ref>What is understood as “orthodox” and “Gnostic” teachings in this early period [1st-2nd century] needs to be redefined due to the complexities now unfolding regarding their historical and doctrinal similarities. Ed. Note.</ref> Main Gnostic beliefs that differ from Biblical teachings include: the creator as a lower being [‘Demiurge’] and not a Supreme Deity; scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”;<ref>The terminology has ties to the passage in Pro 8:23, taking a well known Judaic-concept of ‘personification’ and defining it with Christ as the “wisdom of God” [1 Co 1:24]. This metaphor was common and understood by most church fathers like Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Epiphanius and Cyril. (Racovian Catechism, pp. 73-75)</ref> and Jesus as a spirit that “seemed”<ref>From the Greek dokein, hence Docetism (Dictionary of the Later NT & its Developments, Intervarsity Press, 1997)</ref> to be human, leading to a belief in the incarnation ([[Docetism]]).<ref>Jesus was Sui Generis, the doctrine of the “pre-existent” Christ accepted by some Gnostics and ‘orthodox’ Christians. Hanson R. P. C (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 A.D. Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 1988)</ref> The traditional “formula which enshrines the Incarnation…is that in some sense God, without ceasing to be God, was made man…which is a prima facie [‘at first sight’ a] contradiction in theological terms…the [NT] nowhere reflects on the virgin birth of Jesus as witnessing to the conjunction of deity and manhood in His person…the deity of Jesus was not…clearly stated in words and [the book of] Acts gives no hint that it was”.<ref>New Bible Dictionary, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, 1975), pp. 558-560. Furthermore, scripture teaches that this is not in line with Judaic [or rabbinic] teaching, something Jesus himself adhered to [Luke 2; John 4:24; Phil 3:3-4]. Also see, Nuesner, Jacob, The Modern Study of the Mishna, 1997; & Mishne Torah.</ref> This philosophy<ref>In Platonism the soul [psuchē] was self-moving, indivisible; degenerated and eternal, existing before the body which housed it, and longing to be free from its earthly imprisonment, leading to the Docetist-dualist concept of ‘good’ & ‘evil’ matter. Ed. Note.</ref> was known by the so-called “Church Fathers” such as Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.<ref>Their own ‘heresiology’ would later be attacked as heretical. See, Holt, Reinhard, The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason, Winston N.Y., 1971), p. 382; Alastair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1996)</ref> |
|||
At its core, Gnosticism formed a speculative interest in the relationship of the oneness of God to the ‘triplicity’ of his manifestations. It seems to have taken Neoplatonic metaphysics of substance and hypostases [“being”]<ref>“Was the Lord’s prayer addressed only to the hypostasis of the Father as ‘our Father’ and the Father of the Son, or to the entire ousia of the Godhead?” Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1, the Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971.</ref> as a departure point for interpreting the relationship of the “Father” to the “Son”<ref>A new theological vocabulary capable of explaining this doctrine was created [e.g. homoousios=same essence]. Adopting an idea of Origen’s that easterners would appreciate in their own Sabellianism. Hanson, Search, pp. 687-688</ref> in its attempt to define a new theology.<ref>The crisis of the later Roman Empire and move towards the east brought a “new realism” which may have inclined Christians to accept the new theological doctrine. Ed. note</ref> This would point to the infamous theological controversies by Arius<ref>Arius preached that, “before Christ, God was not yet a Father…there was when he [Jesus] was not.” Since most of his works are lost, the accounts are based on reports of others. Hanson, Search, pp. 5-8.</ref> against followers of the Greek Alexandrian school,<ref>Alexandria had long been a hotbed of theological innovation and debate where high ranking Christian thinkers used methods from Greek philosophy as well as Jewish and Christian sources for their teachings. Ed. note</ref> headed by Athanasius.<ref>Although, he took his monotheism seriously, he later taught that the only way to save mankind from moral and physical extinction was for God to do the unthinkable, descend into human flesh. Athanasius, “On the Incarnation of the World”, in Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 4, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994)</ref> |
|||
The ancient Nag Hammadi Library, discovered in Egypt in the 1940s, revealed how varied this movement was. The writers of these manuscripts considered themselves ‘Christians’, but owing to their syncretistic beliefs, borrowed heavily from the Greek philosopher Plato. The find included the hotly debated Gospel of Thomas, which parallels some of Jesus’ sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. This may point to the existence of a postulated lost textual source for the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, known as the Q document.<ref>See Goodacre, Mark. The Case against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002); Robinson, James, M. The Nag Hammadi Library, HarperOne, 1990.</ref> Thus, modern debate is split between those who see Gnosticism as a pre-Christian form of ‘theosophy’<ref>The word became familiar to Greeks in the 3rd century with Ammonius Saccas and the Alexandrian Neo-Platonists [or Theurgists]: it was adopted in 1875 by H. P. Blavatsky and others associated with the Theosophical Society (Blavatsky, H. P. The Secret Doctrine, the synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy, Theosophical Uni. Press, first published 1888)</ref> and those who see it as a post-Christian counter-movement. |
|||
NT scripture was largely unwritten, at least in the form of canon, existing in the practices, customs and teachings of the early Christian community. What largely was communicated generation to generation was an oral tradition passed from the apostles to the Bishops and from Bishops and priests to the faithful through their preaching and way of life.<ref>Its formulation coinciding with the period most strongly associated with Gnosticism [4th-6th centuries]. See, Eusebius Hist. Eccl; McDonald, L. M, The Formation of the Biblical Canon (rev. and exp, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995).</ref> Constantine’s call for unity in the building of the new Roman Church led to his request for Eusebius to produce some 50 copies of manuscripts. These were approved and accepted by the emperor, which later influenced the final stages of canonization.<ref>Dictionary of the Later New Testament, pp. 135-143.</ref> |
|||
The best known origin story in the NT comes in the person of Simon the ‘mage’ [Acts 8:9-24]. Although little is known historically about him, his first disciple is said to have been Basilides.<ref>Basilides was one of the earliest and best-known Gnostics (Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, Intervarsity Press, 1993, pp. 350-351)</ref> Paul’s epistles to Timothy contain refutations of “false doctrine [and] myths” [1 Tim 1:3-5]. The importance placed here, as in most NT scripture, is to uphold the truth since through such knowledge God hopes for “all men” to be saved [1 Tim 2:4]. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians have much to say regarding false teachers (2 Co 11:4), “spiritualists” [pneumatikos—1 Co 2:14-15; 15:44-46] and their gnosis. They warn against the “wisdom of the wise” and their “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (1 Co 1:19; 2:5—NIV; cp. Col 2:1-10; 2:8). These are seen as the clearest texts reacting to early Gnostic trends.{fact|date=March 2010} The book of Jude also contains scripture exhorting believers to seek the true faith (Jude 3) and it is nowhere more influential than in the nature of the man, Jesus. |
|||
The writings attributed to the Apostle John contain the most significant amount of content directed at combating the progenitors of heresies.<ref>Yet, however, the author makes it clear why the gospel was written in John 20:31 Ed. Note{{Syn|date=March 2010}}</ref> Most Bible scholars agree that these were some of the last parts of the NT written and as such, can offer the most insights into a 1st century perspective.<ref>Scholarly debate lies in placing the letters between 70-90A.D. & 90-110A.D. (Dictionary of the Later NT & its Developments, Intervarsity Press, 1997)</ref> The writer’s repeated adherence to true knowledge (“hereby we know”—inherent in Jesus’ ministry) and nature<ref>“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being.” John 1:1. A Contemporary English Translation of the Coptic Text, late 2nd century C.E based on the texts of George William Horner. The Coptic version of the NT in the southern dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 1911.</ref> seem to challenge other speculative and opposing beliefs. |
|||
The 2nd epistle of John is only 13 verses long but puts strong emphasis on the ‘Christology’ of Jesus.<ref>The Apostle states that in light of the continual battle by Satan against God and His Christ, it is not surprising that “our gospel is veiled…, the god of this world” blinding people, as also in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (NRSV)</ref> From its context we see{{Syn|date=March 2010}}{{Or|date=March 2010}} the importance placed on “knowing…walking” and loving the truth (v. 1-4), on the humanity of the man Jesus (v. 7-11) and adherence to “teaching [the doctrine] of Christ” [cp. John 7:14-18]. These point to false teachers who claimed to bring some higher teaching than what the apostles taught.<ref>It is not surprising to see{{Syn|date=March 2010}} that John is in harmony with Paul’s own teachings regarding the “true doctrine” in his pastoral letters (cp. 1 Tim 6:3-4; 2 Co 11:4). Ed. Note.{{Self-published inline|date=March 2010}}</ref> |
|||
From the evidence at hand, it seems that{{Syn|date=March 2010}} early Christian apologists used their biblical faith to teach a pagan audience how best to adopt the new religion. (They were) Wrapping their understanding of scripture and worldly wisdom in the process and taking their lead from such Jewish apologists like Philo of Alexandria.{{Syn|date=March 2010}} Whether even without Philo the ‘Fathers of the Church’ would have attempted to harmonize scripture and philosophy is a plausible assumption.{{Syn|date=March 2010}}{{Or|date=March 2010}} Whether the result of their harmonization would have been the same as it is now is a matter of conjecture. But it happens that Philo came before them and it also happens that all kinds of evidence show the influence of Philo upon them.<ref>H. A. Wolfson, ‘Notes on Patristic Philosophy’, Harvard Theological Review 57, no. 2 [Apr. 1964] p. 124.</ref> |
|||
It is hard to sift through what actual evidence there is regarding Gnosticism in the NT due to their historical synchronicity. The Hammadi library find contains Pagan, Jewish, Greek and early Gnostic influences,<ref>“Both pagan mythologies and Platonic philosophical traditions…extensive use of the early chapters of Genesis…the obvious centrality of Jesus Christ [and apostolic figures] in many texts.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament, p 410</ref> further reinforcing the need to tread lightly. The antiquity of the find being of utmost importance since it shows primary evidence of texts that may also have influenced the process of NT canonization.<ref>See Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002); Lindberg, Carter (2006) A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing</ref> |
|||
If any conclusion is to be made at this point it is that Gnosticism was considered a real enough threat by the apostles themselves, showing us how early it started to infiltrate the Church, through which several of its undercurrents were to strongly influence later ‘orthodox’ doctrine.{{Syn|date=March 2010}}<ref>The Council at Nicaea [325 A.D.] went on to condemn “those who say…that He [Jesus] came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these, the Catholic Church and apostolic Church anathematizes”. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, pp. 215-216. Kelly translates ousia as “substance” here, and the creed as recited today translates homoousios as “consubstantial”—of the same substance.</ref><ref>Works Cited |
|||
I. Alastair, H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1996) |
|||
II. Bewkes, E. G. The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, N.Y., 1960). |
|||
III. Blavatsky, H. P. The Secret Doctrine, the synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy, Theosophical Uni. Press, first published 1888. |
|||
IV. Cooper, John M. & Hutchinson, D. S. (Eds.) Introduction to Politikos, 1997. |
|||
V. Danielou, Jean. The Origin of Latin Christianity (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1977). |
|||
VI. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, Intervarsity Press, 1993. |
|||
VII. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & its Developments, Intervarsity Press, 1997. |
|||
VIII. Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 A.D. Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 1988. |
|||
IX. Holt, Reinhard. The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason, Winston N.Y., 1971. |
|||
X. Horner, G. W. The Coptic version of the New Testament in the southern dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 1911. |
|||
XI. New Bible Dictionary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, 1975. |
|||
XII. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1, the Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971. |
|||
XIII. Phillip, Schaff & Wace, Henry eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 4, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994). |
|||
XIV. Selwyn, E. G. ‘Image, Fact and Faith’, NTS 1 no. 4 (May 1955). |
|||
XV. Wolfson, H. A. ‘Notes on Patristic Philosophy’, Harvard Theological Review 57, no. 2 (Apr. 1964) & the Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Harvard Uni. Press, Publishing, PA. 1976).</ref> |
|||
=='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 establish a program to translate the recently-acquired [[Nag Hammadi library]] (discussed 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'' [[philosophy|philosophical]] and [[religious movement]]s. For example, in [[1835]], [[New Testament]] [[scholar]] [[Ferdinand Christian Baur]] constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminated in the religious philosophy of [[Hegel]]; one might compare [[literary critic]] [[Harold Bloom]]'s recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary [[United States|American]] religion, or [[Eric Voegelin]]'s analysis of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism. |
|||
The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies: |
|||
{{Quotation|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 a 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'.<ref name="markschies">{{cite book | title=Gnosis: An Introduction | last=Markschies | first="Christolph" | publisher=T.& T.Clark Ltd | year=2003 | pages=14–15}}</ref> 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.<ref name="markschies">{{cite book | title=Gnosis: An Introduction | last=Markschies | first="Christolph" | publisher=T.& T.Clark Ltd | year=2003 | pages=14–15 }}</ref> |
|||
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 3rd century religions has recently been questioned as well. Of note is [[Michael Allen Williams]]' ''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 argument).<ref name="rethinking">{{cite book | title = Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category | last=Williams | first=Michael Allen | publisher=Princeton University Press | location = Princeton | year = 1999 | isbn = 0691005427 }}</ref> |
|||
Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the [[heresiology|heresiologists]]. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of [[dualism]], [[body]]- and [[matter]]-[[hatred]], and [[anticosmism]]<ref name="afloroaei">{{ cite journal | last = Afloroaei | first = Lucia | title = Religious Dualism: Some Logical and Philosophical Difficulties | journal = Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science | volume = 4 | issue = January | pages = 83–111 | year = 2009 | url = http://www.jirrs.org/jirrs_nr_4/09-05-JIRRS4-Afloroaei.pdf | accessdate = 2009-02-13 }}</ref> without these suppositions being properly ''tested''. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the early church heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a ''categorical'' definition, even though the means now existed 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.<ref name="rethinking"/> Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used. |
|||
==Gnosticism in modern times== |
|||
{{Main|Gnosticism in modern times}} |
|||
A number of 19th century thinkers such as [[William Blake]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer]],<ref>[[Schopenhauer]], ''[[The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII</ref> [[Albert Pike]] and [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky|Madame Blavatsky]] studied Gnostic thought extensively and were influenced by it, and even figures like [[Herman Melville]] and [[W. B. Yeats]] were more tangentially influenced.<ref name="smith">Smith, Richard. "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism" in The Nag Hammadi Library, 1990 ISBN 0-06-066935-7</ref> [[Jules Doinel]] "re-established" a Gnostic church in France in 1890 which altered its form as it passed through various direct successors (Fabre des Essarts as ''Tau Synésius'' and Joanny Bricaud as ''Tau Jean II'' most notably), and which, although small, is still active today.<ref>Cf. [http://www.plerome.org l'Eglise du Plérôme]</ref> |
|||
Early 20th century thinkers who heavily studied and were influenced by Gnosticism include [[Carl Jung]] (who supported Gnosticism), [[Eric Voegelin]] (who opposed it), [[Jorge Luis Borges]] (who included it in many of his short stories), and [[Aleister Crowley]], with figures such as [[Hermann Hesse]] being more moderatedly influenced. [[Rene Guenon]] founded the gnostic review, Le Gnose in 1909 (before moving to a more [[Traditionalist School|"Perennialist"]] position). Gnostic [[Thelema|Thelemite]] organizations, such as [[Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica]] and [[Ordo Templi Orientis]], trace themselves to Crowley's thought. |
|||
The discovery and translation of the [[Nag Hammadi library]] after 1945 had a huge impact on Gnosticism since World War II. Thinkers who were heavily influenced by Gnosticism in this period include [[Hans Jonas]], [[Philip K. Dick]] and [[Harold Bloom]], with [[Albert Camus]] and [[Allen Ginsberg]] being more moderately influenced.<ref name="smith" /> A number of ecclesiastical bodies which think of themselves as Gnostic have been set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the [[Society of Novus Spiritus]], [[Ecclesia Gnostica]], the [[Thomasine Church]], the [[Apostolic Johannite Church]], the [[Alexandrian Gnostic Church]], the [[North American College of Gnostic Bishops]]. [[Celia Green]] has written on Gnostic Christianity in relation to her own philosophy.<ref name = "Green">Green, Celia (1981,2006). ''Advice to Clever Children''. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Ch.s XXXV-XXXVII.</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
{{multicol}} |
|||
*[[Antinomianism]] |
|||
*[[Apocrypha]] |
|||
*[[Buddhism]] |
|||
*[[Christian mysticism]] |
|||
*[[Criticism of Christianity]] |
|||
*[[First Council of Nicaea]] |
|||
*[[John D. Turner]] |
|||
{{multicol-break}} |
|||
*[[Gnosiology]] |
|||
*[[Gnosis]] |
|||
*[[Hermeticism]] |
|||
*[[Hinduism]] |
|||
*[[Orpheus]] |
|||
*[[Theodicy]] |
|||
{{multicol-end}} |
|||
==Footnotes== |
|||
{{reflist|2}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
===Books=== |
|||
====Primary sources==== |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = Bentley Layton | last = Layton | first = Bentley | title = The Gnostic Scriptures | publisher = SCM Press | year = 1987 | isbn = 0-334-02022-0 | pages = 526 pages }} |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = James M. Robinson | last = Robinson | first = James | title = The Nag Hammadi Library in English | publisher = Harper & Row| year = 1978 | isbn = 0-06-066934-9 | pages = 549 pages | location = San Francisco }} |
|||
* {{cite book | author = [[Plotinus]] | other = translated by A.H. Armstrong | title = The [[Enneads]] | publisher = [[Harvard University|Harvard University Press]] | year = 1989 | id = }} (in 7 volumes), vol. 1: ISBN 0-674-99484-1 |
|||
* The Gnostic Bible, Ed. [[Willis Barnstone]] |
|||
====Secondary sources==== |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Aland | first = Barbara | title = [[Festschrift]] für Hans Jonas | publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | year = 1978 | isbn = 3-525-58111-4 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last= Burstein | first = Dan | title = Secrets of Mary Magdalene | publisher = CDS Books | year = 2006 | isbn = 1-59315-205-1 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Freke | first = Timothy | coauthors = Gandy, Peter | title = Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians | publisher = Three Rivers Press | year = 2002 | isbn = 0-00-710071-X }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Green | first = Henry | title = Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism | publisher = Scholars P.,U.S. | year = 1985 | isbn = 0-89130-843-1 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse | publisher = Otto-Müller-Verlag, Salzburg | year = 1967 | id = | pages = 352 pages }}, translated as {{cite book | last = Haardt | first = Robert | title = Gnosis: Character and Testimony | publisher = Brill, Leiden | year = 1971 | id = }} |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = Stephan A. Hoeller | last = Hoeller | first = Stephan A. | title = Gnosticism - New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing | publisher = Quest| year = 2002 | isbn = 0-8356-0816-6 | pages = 257 pages | location = Wheaton }} |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = Hans Jonas | last = Jonas | first = Hans | title = Gnosis und spätantiker Geist vol. 2:1-2, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie | publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht| year = 1993| isbn = 3-525-53841-3 | location = Göttingen }} |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = Charles William King | last = King | first = Charles William | title = The Gnostics and Their Remains | year = 1887 | url = http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/ }} |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = Karen Leigh King| last = King | first = Karen L. | title = What is Gnosticism? | publisher = Harvard University Press | year = 2003 | isbn = 0-674-01071-X | pages = 343 pages }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Klimkeit | first = Hans-Joachim | title = Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia | publisher = Harper, San Francisco | year = 1993 | isbn = 0-06-064586-5 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Layton | first = Bentley | editor = edited by [[L. Michael White]], O. Larry Yarbrough | chapter = Prolegomena to the study of ancient gnosticism | title = The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks | publisher = Fortress Press, Minneapolis | year = 1995 | isbn = 0-8006-2585-4 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | author = Layton, Bentley (ed.) | title = The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Sethian Gnosticism | publisher = E.J. Brill | year = 1981 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Markschies | first = Christoph | other = trans. John Bowden | title = Gnosis: An Introduction | publisher = T & T Clark | year = 2000 | isbn = 0-567-08945-2 | pages = 145 pages }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Mins | first = Denis | title = Irenaeus | publisher = Geoffrey Chapman | year = 1994 | id = }} |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Gnostic Gospels | publisher = Vintage Books| year = 1979 | isbn = 0-679-72453-2 | pages = 182 pages | location = New York }} |
|||
* {{cite book | authorlink = Elaine Pagels | last = Pagels | first = Elaine | title = The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis | publisher = Scholars Press| year = 1989 | isbn = 1-55540-334-4 | pages = 128 pages | location = Atlanta, Ga. }} |
|||
* Petrement, Simone (1990), ''A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticsim'', Harper and Row ISBN 0-06-066421-5 |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Rudolph | first = Kurt | authorlink= Kurt Rudolph | title = Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism | publisher = Harper & Row | year = 1987 | isbn = 0-06-067018-5 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = [[Benjamin Walker|Walker]] | first = [[Benjamin Walker|Benjamin]] | title = Gnosticism: Its History and Influence | publisher = Harper Collins | year = 1990 | isbn = 1-85274-057-4 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Williams | first = Michael | title = Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 1996 | isbn = 0-691-01127-3 }} |
|||
==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 appropriate page. --> |
|||
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm Gnostic texts at sacred-texts.com] |
|||
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm Religious Tolerance] - A survey of Gnosticism |
|||
* [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html Early Christian Writings] - primary texts |
|||
* [http://www.gnosis.org/library.html The Gnostic Society Library] - primary sources and commentaries. |
|||
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gnosticism] |
|||
* [http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/intro.htm Introduction to Gnosticism] |
|||
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Jewish Encyclopedia: Gnosticism] |
|||
* [http://www.theandros.com/pregnostic.html Proto-Gnostic elements in the Gospel according to John] |
|||
* [http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html Gnostic version of the Bible and more on Gnostics] |
|||
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Gnosticism] |
|||
* [http://www.catholicgnostics.com Catholic Gnostics] - E. J. Parkinson, PhD |
|||
* {{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Gnosticism|Gnosticism}} |
|||
{{Religion topics}} |
|||
{{philosophy of religion}} |
|||
[[Category:Gnosticism|*]] |
|||
[[Category:New Testament apocrypha]] |
|||
[[Category:Persecution|*]] |
|||
[[af:Gnostisisme]] |
|||
[[ar:غنوصية]] |
|||
[[an:Gnosticismo]] |
|||
[[be-x-old:Гнастыцызм]] |
|||
[[bg:Гностицизъм]] |
|||
[[ca:Gnosticisme]] |
|||
[[cs:Gnosticismus]] |
|||
[[cy:Gnostigiaeth]] |
|||
[[da:Gnosticisme]] |
|||
[[de:Gnosis]] |
|||
[[et:Gnostitsism]] |
|||
[[el:Γνωστικισμός]] |
|||
[[es:Gnosticismo]] |
|||
[[eo:Gnostikismo]] |
|||
[[fr:Gnosticisme]] |
|||
[[fy:Gnostisisme]] |
|||
[[gl:Gnosticismo]] |
|||
[[ko:영지주의]] |
|||
[[ilo:Gnosticismo]] |
|||
[[id:Gnostisisme]] |
|||
[[ia:Gnosticismo]] |
|||
[[it:Gnosticismo]] |
|||
[[he:גנוסיס]] |
|||
[[lv:Gnosticisms]] |
|||
[[lt:Gnosticizmas]] |
|||
[[hu:Gnoszticizmus]] |
|||
[[mk:Гностицизам]] |
|||
[[ml:ജ്ഞാനവാദം]] |
|||
[[ms:Gnostikisme]] |
|||
[[nl:Gnosticisme]] |
|||
[[nds-nl:Gnostiek]] |
|||
[[ja:グノーシス主義]] |
|||
[[no:Gnostisisme]] |
|||
[[pl:Gnostycyzm]] |
|||
[[pt:Gnosticismo]] |
|||
[[ro:Gnosticism]] |
|||
[[ru:Гностицизм]] |
|||
[[sq:Gnosticizmi]] |
|||
[[scn:Gnosticismu]] |
|||
[[simple:Gnosticism]] |
|||
[[sk:Gnosticizmus]] |
|||
[[sl:Gnosticizem]] |
|||
[[sr:Гностицизам]] |
|||
[[sh:Gnosticizam]] |
|||
[[fi:Gnostilaisuus]] |
|||
[[sv:Gnosticism]] |
|||
[[tl:Nostisismo]] |
|||
[[th:ประสานญาณนิยม]] |
|||
[[tr:Gnostisizm]] |
|||
[[uk:Гностицизм]] |
|||
[[ur:معرفت]] |
|||
[[zh:諾斯底主義]] |
|||
Revision as of 16:29, 29 March 2010
 |
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDEDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPRPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERP