Gnosticism

Gnosticism (from Greek gnosis, knowledge) is a term created by modern scholars to describe a diverse religious movement often associated with Christianity, although textual evidence for the movement contains distinctly non- and anti-Christian elements, as well as anti-Judaic elements. These beliefs had largely syncretistic origins in that they were often based on various influences from such idea systems.

Several Gnostic texts appear to have no Christian element at all. Because the textual evidence comes from the first few centuries AD, many scholars have assumed that Gnosticism did not predate this period, but earlier historians of religion saw it as an outgrowth of ancient mystical traditions in Asia, especially Iran.


Nature and structure of Gnosticism

A typological model: the main features of gnosticism
Though difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see below), various strategies have been employed in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to offer a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from Christoph Markschies' version, as described in 'Gnosis: An Introduction'.

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:

The notion of a remote, supreme and incomprehensible monadic divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including 'Pleroma' and 'Bythos' (Greek 'deep');
The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;
The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself, rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of Sophia (Greek 'Wisdom'), whose presence in a wide variety of Gnostic texts is indicative of her central importance;
The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the Platonist tradition demiurgos.
Evidence exists that the conception of the demiurge has derivation from figures in Plato's Timaeus and Republic. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in Socrates' model of the psyche bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion.
Elsewhere this figure is called 'Ialdabaoth', 'Samael' (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.
The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named 'Archons', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow. 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) those crafts are supposed to be a representation of. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening. It may be noted that the salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;
Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure (Christ, or, in other cases, Seth or Sophia).
The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the Syrian-Egyptian school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the Persian gnostic school - Manicheanism and Mandaeanism - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The conception of Gnosticism offered above has recently been challenged by Michael Allen William's groundbreaking work 'Rethinking Gnosticism', which re-examines the common conception of categorical 'Gnosticism' in an effort to demonstrate the somewhat nebulous nature of the term (see below). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains in common usage, and retains at least some usefulness in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism, even if the extent of that usefulness is in doubt.


Dualism and monism
Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning they had the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or '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 likely inherits this dualistic mythology from Zoroastrianism, in which the eternal spirit Ahura Mazda is opposed by his antithesis, Angra Mainyu; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant.
The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of Ptahil, the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm.
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: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' (Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospel, 1978); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus, edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, 1980). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic.
Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an error of perception. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe may be of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our ordinary view which is limited to the material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.

 Moral and ritual practice
Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally ascetic in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice. Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: as this mode of behaviour was one which they themselves favoured and supported, the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of libertinism, or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. Epiphanius provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks' (Panarion, 40.1.4). Thus it might be noted that moral asceticism provides a point of cohesion and co-development between orthodox Christianity and Gnostic Christianity which the Church Fathers sought to downplay.

In other areas of morality Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:

External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (logos), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.

– Ptolemy, Letter to Flora

This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.

Charges of Gnostic libertinism arguably find their source in the works of Irenaeus. According to this writer, Simon Magus (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('amoralism'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from Adversus Haereses, I.23.3).

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 Bridal Chamber, a ritualistic sacrament in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired syzygies that constitute the Valentinian Pleroma; though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.

Of the Carpocratians Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (Adversus Haereses, I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of gnosis; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.

On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behaviour tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, 262).
 

The meaning of  gnosis  Platonist  Traditions