Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, in Ersch. und Gruber's Allg. Encykl. 71 Bd.

1860.

Moeller, Geschichte d. Kosmologie i. d. Griech. K. his auf Origenes.

1860.

King, The Gnostics and their remains, 1873.

Mansel, The Gnostic heresies, 1875.

Jacobi, Art. "Gnosis" in Herzog's Real Encykl. 2nd Edit.

Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, 1884, where the more recent, special literature concerning individual Gnostics is quoted.

Lipsius, Art. "Valentinus" in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography.

Harnack, Art. "Valentinus" in the Encycl. Brit.

Harnack, Pistis Sophia in the Texte und Unters. VII. 2.

Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucia.n.u.s (Texte und Unters. VIII. 1. 2).

Joel, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl.

Jahrhunderts, 2 parts, 1880, 1883.

Renan, History of the Origins of Christianity. Vols. V. VI. VII.

[Footnote 300: We may consider here once more the articles which are embraced in the first ten chapters of the recently discovered [Greek: Didache ton apostolon], after enumerating and describing which, the author continues (II. 1): [Greek: hos an oun elthon didachei umas tauta panta ta proeiremena, dexasthe auton].]

[Footnote 301: It is a good tradition, which designates the so-called Gnosticism, simply as Gnosis, and yet uses this word also for the speculations of non-Gnostic teachers of antiquity (e.g., of Barnabas).

But the inferences which follow have not been drawn. Origen says truly (c. Celsus III. 12) "As men, not only the labouring and serving cla.s.ses, but also many from the cultured cla.s.ses of Greece, came to see something honourable in Christianity, sects could not fail to arise, not simply from the desire for controversy and contradiction, but because several scholars endeavoured to penetrate deeper into the truth of Christianity.

In this way sects arose, which received their names from men who indeed admired Christianity in its essence, but from many different causes had arrived at different conceptions of it."]

[Footnote 302: The majority of Christians in the second century belonged no doubt to the uncultured cla.s.ses, and did not seek abstract knowledge, nay, were distrustful of it; see the [Greek: logos alethes] of Celsus, especially III. 44, and the writings of the Apologists. Yet we may infer from the treatise of Origen against Celsus that the number of "Christiani rudes" who cut themselves off from theological and philosophic knowledge, was about the year 240 a very large one; and Tertullian says (Adv. Prax. 3): "Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae major semper credentium pars est," cf. de jejun. 11: "Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam mult.i.tudinem psychicorum."]

[Footnote 303: Overbeck (Stud. z. Gesch. d. alten Kirche. p. 184) has the merit of having first given convincing expression to this view of Gnosticism.]

[Footnote 304: The ability of the prominent Gnostic teachers has been recognised by the Church Fathers: see Hieron. Comm in Osee. II. 10, Opp.

VI. i: "Nullus potest haeresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona naturae quae a deo artifice sunt creata: talis fuit Valentinus, tails Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis Bardesanes, cujus etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium." It is still more important to see how the Alexandrian theologians (Clement and Origen) estimated the exegetic labours of the Gnostics, and took account of them. Origen undoubtedly recognised Herakleon as a prominent exegete, and treats him most respectfully even where he feels compelled to differ from him. All Gnostics cannot, of course, be regarded as theologians. In their totality they form the Greek society with a Christian name.]

[Footnote 305: Otherwise the rise of Gnosticism cannot at all be explained.]

[Footnote 306: Cf. Bigg, "The Christian Platonists of Alexandria," p.

83: "Gnosticism was in one respect distorted Paulinism."]

[Footnote 307: Joel, "Blick in die Religionsgesch." Vol. I. pp. 101-170, has justly emphasised the Greek character of Gnosis, and insisted on the significance of Platonism for it. "The Oriental element did not always in the case of the Gnostics, originate at first hand, but had already pa.s.sed through a Greek channel."]

[Footnote 308: The age of the Antonines was the flourishing period of Gnosticism. Marquardt (Romische Staatsverwaltung Vol. 3, p. 81) says of this age: "With the Antonines begins the last period of the Roman religious development in which two new elements enter into it. These are the Syrian and Persian deities, whose worship at this time was prevalent not only in the city of Rome, but in the whole empire, and, at the same time, Christianity, which entered into conflict with all ancient tradition, and in this conflict exercised a certain influence even on the Oriental forms of worship."]

[Footnote 309: It is a special merit of Weingarten (Histor. Ztschr. Bd 45. 1881. p. 441 f.) and Koffmane (Die Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und Organisation, 1881) to have strongly emphasised the mystery character of Gnosis, and in connection with that, its practical aims. Koffmane, especially, has collected abundant material for proving that the tendency of the Gnostics was the same as that of the ancient mysteries, and that they thence borrowed their organisation and discipline. This fact proves the proposition that Gnosticism was an acute h.e.l.lenising of Christianity. Koffmane has, however, undervalued the union of the practical and speculative tendency in the Gnostics, and, in the effort to obtain recognition for the mystery character of the Gnostic communities, has overlooked the fact that they were also schools. The union of mystery-cultus and school is just, however, their characteristic. In this also they prove themselves the forerunners of Neoplatonism and the Catholic Church. Moehler in his programme of 1831 (Urspr. d. Gnosticismus Tubingen), vigorously emphasised the practical tendency of Gnosticism, though not in a convincing way. Hackenschmidt (Anfange des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, p. 83 f.) has judged correctly.]

[Footnote 310: We have also evidence of the methods by which ecstatic visions were obtained among the Gnostics, see the Pistis Sophia, and the important role which prophets and Apocalypses played in several important Gnostic communities (Barcoph and Barcabbas, prophets of the Basilideans; Martiades and Marsanes among the Ophites; Philumene in the case of Apelles; Valentinian prophecies, Apocalypses of Zostrian, Zoroaster, etc.) Apocalypses were also used by some under the names of Old Testament men of G.o.d and Apostles.]

[Footnote 311: See Koftmane, before-mentioned work, p. 5 f.]

[Footnote 312: See Fragm. Murat. V. 81 f.; Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 108; Orig. Hom. 34. The Marcionite Ant.i.theses were probably spread among other Gnostic sects. The Fathers frequently emphasise the fact that the Gnostics were united against the church: Tertullian de praescr 42: "Et hoc est, quod schismata apud haereticos fere non sunt, quia c.u.m sint, non parent. Schisma est enim unitas ipsa." They certainly also delight in emphasising the contradictions of the different schools; but they cannot point to any earnest conflict of these schools with each other. We know definitely that Bardasanes argued against the earlier Gnostics, and Ptolemaeus against Marcion.]

[Footnote 313: See the collection, certainly not complete, of Gnostic fragments by Grabe (Spicileg.) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte). Our books on the history of Gnosticism take far too little notice of these fragments as presented to us, above all, by Clement and Origen, and prefer to keep to the doleful accounts of the Fathers about the "Systems", (better in Heinrici: Valent. Gnosis, 1871). The vigorous efforts of the Gnostics to understand the Pauline and Johannine ideas, and their in part surprisingly rational and ingenious solutions of intellectual problems, have never yet been systematically estimated. Who would guess, for example, from what is currently known of the system of Basilides, that, according to Clement, the following proceeds from him, (Strom. IV. 12. 18): [Greek: hos autos phesin ho Basileides, en meros ek tou legomenou thelematos tou theou hupeilephamen, to egapekenai hapanta.

hoti logon aposozousi pros to pan hapanta; heteron de to medenos epithumein, kai to triton misein mede hen], and where do we find, in the period before Clement of Alexandria, faith in Christ united with such spiritual maturity and inner freedom as in Valentinians, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon?]

[Footnote 314: Testament of Tertullian (adv. Valent. 4) shews the difference between the solution of Valentinus, for example, and his disciple Ptolemaeus. "Ptolemaeus nomina et numeros aeonum distinxit in personales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat." It is, moreover, important that Tertullian himself should distinguish this so clearly.]

[Footnote 315: There is nothing here more instructive than to hear the judgments of the cultured Greeks and Romans about Christianity, as soon as they have given up the current gross prejudices. They shew with admirable clearness, the way in which Gnosticism originated. Galen says (quoted by Gieseler, Church Hist. 1. 1. 41): "Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente a.s.sequi nequeunt, quare indigent, ut inst.i.tuantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui Christian! vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearum abhorrent. Sunt enim inter eos feminae et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui in animis regendis coercendisque et in accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus." Christians, therefore, are philosophers without philosophy. What a challenge for them to produce such, that is to seek out the latent philosophy! Even Celsus could not but admit a certain relationship between Christians and philosophers. But as he was convinced that the miserable religion of the Christians could neither include nor endure a philosophy, he declared that the moral doctrines of the Christians were borrowed from the philosophers (I. 4). In course of his presentation (V. 65; VI. 12.

15-19, 42; VII. 27-35) he deduces the most decided marks of Christianity, as well as the most important sayings of Jesus from (misunderstood) statements of Plato and other Greek philosophers. This is not the place to shew the contradictions in which Celsus was involved by this. But it is of the greatest significance that even this intelligent man could only see philosophy where he saw something precious. The whole of Christianity from its very origin appeared to Celsus (in one respect) precisely as the Gnostic systems appear to us, that is, these really are what Christianity as such seemed to Celsus to be. Besides, it was constantly a.s.serted up to the fifth century that Christ had drawn from Plato's writings. Against those who made this a.s.sertion, Ambrosius (according to Augustine, Ep. 31. c. 8) wrote a treatise which unfortunately is no longer in existence.]

[Footnote 316: The Simonian system at most might be named, on the basis of the syncretistic religion founded by Simon Magus. But we know little about it, and that little is uncertain. Parallel attempts are demonstrable in the third century on the basis of various "revealed"

fundamental ideas ([Greek: he ek logion philosophia]).]

[Footnote 317: Among these I reckon those Gnostics whom Irenaeus (I.

29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-called Ophites, Peratae, Sethites and the school of the Gnostic Justin (Hippol. Philosoph. V.

6-28). There is no reason for regarding them as earlier or more Oriental than the Valentinians, as is done by Hilgenfeld against Baur, Moller, and Gruber (the Ophites, 1864). See also Lipsius, "Ophit. Systeme", i.

d. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1863. IV, 1864, I. These schools claimed for themselves the name Gnostic (Hippol. Philosoph. V. 6). A part of them, as is specially apparent from Orig. c. Celsum. VI., is not to be reckoned Christian. This motley group is but badly known to us through Epiphanius, much better through the original Gnostic writings preserved in the Coptic language. (Pistis Sophia and the works published by Carl Schmidt Texte u. Unters. Bd. VIII.). Yet these original writings belong, for the most part, to the second half of the third century (see also the important statements of Porphyry in the Vita Plotini, c. 16), and shew a Gnosticism burdened with an abundance of wild speculations, formulae, mysteries, and ceremonial. However, from these very monuments it becomes plain that Gnosticism antic.i.p.ated Catholicism as a ritual system (see below).]

[Footnote 318: On Marcion, see the following Chapter.]

[Footnote 319: We know that from the earliest period (perhaps we might refer even to the Epistle to the Romans) there were circles of ascetics in the Christian communities who required of all, as an inviolable law, under the name of Christian perfection, complete abstinence from marriage, renunciation of possessions, and a vegetarian diet. (Clem.

Strom. III. 6. 49: [Greek: hupo diabolou tauten paradidosthai dogmatizousi, mimeisthai d' autous hoi megalanchoi phasi ton kurion mete gemanta, mete ti en toi kosmoi ktesamenon, mallon para allous nenoekenai to euangelion kauchomenoi].--Here then, already, imitation of the poor life of Jesus, the "Evangelic" life, was the watchword. Tatian wrote a book, [Greek: peri tou kata ton sotera katartismou], that is, on perfection according to the Redeemer: in which he set forth the irreconcilability of the worldly life with the Gospel). No doubt now existed in the Churches that abstinence from marriage, from wine and flesh, and from possessions, was the perfect fulfilling of the law of Christ ([Greek: bastazein holon ton zugon tou kuriou]). But in wide circles strict abstinence was deduced from a special charism, all boastfulness was forbidden, and the watchword given out: [Greek: hoson dunasai hagneuseis], which may be understood as a compromise with the worldly life as well as a reminiscence of a freer morality (see my notes on Didache, c. 6; 11, 11 and Prolegg. p. 42 ff.). Still, the position towards asceticism yielded a hard problem, the solution of which was more and more found in distinguishing a higher and a lower though sufficient morality, yet repudiating the higher morality as soon as it claimed to be the alone authoritative one. On the other hand, there were societies of Christian ascetics who persisted in applying literally to all Christians the highest demands of Christ, and thus arose, by secession, the communities of the Encrat.i.tes and Severians. But in the circ.u.mstances of the time even they could not but be touched by the h.e.l.lenic mode of thought, to the effect of a.s.sociating a speculative theory with asceticism, and thus approximating to Gnosticism. This is specially plain in Tatian, who connected himself with the Encrat.i.tes, and in consequence of the severe asceticism which he prescribed, could no longer maintain the ident.i.ty of the supreme G.o.d and the creator of the world (see the fragments of his later writings in the Corp. Apol. ed Otto. T. VI.). As the Pauline Epistles could furnish arguments to either side, we see some Gnostics such as Tatian himself, making diligent use of them, while others such as the Severians, rejected them. (Euseb. H.

E. IV. 29. 5, and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65). The Encrat.i.te controversy was, on the one hand, swallowed up by the Gnostic, and on the other hand, replaced by the Montanistic. The treatise written in the days of Marcus Aurelius by a certain Musa.n.u.s (where?) which contains warnings against joining the Encrat.i.tes (Euseb. H. E. IV. 28) we unfortunately no longer possess.]

[Footnote 320: See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 12. Docetic elements are apparent even in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter recently discovered.]

[Footnote 321: Here, above all, we have to remember Tatian, who in his highly praised Apology, had already rejected altogether the eating of flesh (c. 23) and set up very peculiar doctrines about the spirit, matter, and the nature of man (c. 12 ff.). The fragments of the Hypotyposes of Clem. of Alex. show how much one had to bear in some rural Churches at the end of the second century.]

[Footnote 322: See Clem. Strom III. 2. 5; [Greek: Epiphanes, huios Karpokratous, ezese ta panta ete heptakaideka kai theos en Samei tes Kephallenias tetimetai, entha autoi hieron ruton lithon, bomoi, temene, mouseion, oikodometai te kai kathierotai, kai suniontes eis to hieron hoi Kaphallenes kata noumenian genethlion apotheosin thuousin Epiphanei, spendousi te kai euochountai kai humnoi legontai]. Clement's quotations from the writings of Epiphanes shew him to be a pure Platonist: the proposition that property is theft is found in him. Epiphanes and his father, Carpocrates, were the first who attempted to amalgamate Plato's State with the Christian ideal of the union of men with each other.

Christ was to them, therefore, a philosophic Genius like Plato, see Irenaeus I. 25. 5: "Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent..... et has coronant, et proponent eas c.u.m imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet c.u.m imagine Pythagorae et Platonis et Aristotelis et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt."]

[Footnote 323: See the "Gnostics" of Hermas, especially the false prophet whom he portrays, Mand. XI., Lucian's Peregrinus, and the Marcus, of whose doings Irenaeus (I. 13. ff.) gives such an abominable picture. To understand how such people were able to obtain a following so quickly in the Churches, we must remember the respect in which the "prophets" were held (see Didache XI.). If one had once given the impression that he had the Spirit, he could win belief for the strangest things, and could allow himself all things possible (see the delineations of Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. VII. 9. 11). We hear frequently of Gnostic prophets and prophetesses, see my notes on Herm. Mand. XI. 1 and Didache XI. 7. If an early Christian element is here preserved by the Gnostic schools, it has undoubtedly been h.e.l.lenised and secularised as the reports shew. But that the prophets altogether were in danger of being secularised is shewn in Didache XI. In the case of the Gnostics the process is again only hastened.]

[Footnote 324: The name Gnostic originally attached to schools which had so named themselves. To these belonged, above all, the so-called Ophites, but not the Valentinians or Basilideans.]

[Footnote 325: Special attention should be given to this form, as it became in later times of the very greatest importance for the general development of doctrine in the Church. The sect of Carpocrates was a school. Of Tatian Irenaeus says (I. 28. 1): [Greek: Tatianos Ioustinou acroates gegonais ... meta de ten ekeinou marturian apostas tes ekklesias, oiemati didaskalon epartheis ... idion charakter didaskaleiou sunestesato]. Rhodon (in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 4) speaks of a Marcionite [Greek: didaskaleion]. Other names were, "Collegium" (Tertull. ad Valen 1), "Secta", the word had not always a bad meaning, [Greek: hairesis, ekklesia] (Clem. Strom. VII. 16. 98, on the other hand, VII. 15. 92: Tertull. de praescr. 42: plerique nec Ecclesias habent), [Greek: thiasos]

(Iren. I. 13. 4, for the Marcosians). [Greek: sunagoge, sustema, diatribe, hai athropinai suneluseis], factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum. The mystery-organisation most clearly appears in the Naa.s.senes of Hippolytus, the Marcosians of Irenaeus, and the Elkasites of Hippolytus, as well as in the Coptic-Gnostic doc.u.ments that have been preserved. (See Koffmane, above work, pp. 6-22).]

[Footnote 326: The particulars here belong to church history. Overbeck ("Ueber die Anfange der patristischen Litteratur" in d. hist. Ztschr. N.

F. Bd. XII. p. 417 ff.) has the merit of being the first to point out the importance, for the history of the Church, of the forms of literature as they were gradually received in Christendom. Scientific, theological literature has undoubtedly its origin in Gnosticism. The Old Testament was here, for the first time, systematically and also in part, historically criticised; a selection was here made from the primitive Christian literature; scientific commentaries were here written on the sacred books (Basilides and especially the Valentinians, see Heracleon's comm. on the Gospel of John [in Origen]); the Pauline Epistles were also technically expounded; tracts were here composed on dogmatico-philosophic problems (for example, [Greek: peri dikaiosunes--peri prosphuous psuches--ethika--peri enkrateias he peri eunouchias]), and systematic doctrinal systems already constructed (as the Basilidean and Valentinian); the original form of the Gospel was here first trans.m.u.ted into the Greek form of sacred novel and biography (see, above all, the Gospel of Thomas, which was used by the Marcosians and Naa.s.senes, and which contained miraculous stories from the childhood of Jesus); here, finally, psalms, odes and hymns were first composed (see the Acts of Lucius, the psalms of Valentinus, the psalms of Alexander the disciple of Valentinus, the poems of Bardesanes). Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus have indeed noted, that the scientific method of interpretation followed by the Gnostics, was the same as that of the philosophers (e.g., of Philo). Valentinus, as is recognised even by the Church Fathers, stands out prominent for his mental vigour and religious imagination, Heracleon for his exegetic theological ability, Ptolemy for his ingenious criticism of the Old Testament and his keen perception of the stages of religious development (see his Epistle to Flora in Epiphanius, haer. 33. c. 7). As a specimen of the language of Valentinus one extract from a homily may suffice (in Clem. Strom. IV. 13. 89).

[Greek: Ap arches athanatoi este kai tekna zoes este aionias, kai ton thanaton ethelete merisasthai eis heautous, hina dapanesete auton kai a.n.a.losete, kai apothane ho thanatos en humin kai di' humon, hotan gar ton men kosmon luete, autoi de me kataluesthe, kurieuete tes kriseos kai tes phthoras apases.] Basilides falls into the background behind Valentinus and his school. Yet the Church Fathers, when they wish to summarise the most important Gnostics, usually mention Simon Magus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion (even Apelles). On the relation of the Gnostics to the New Testament writings, and to the New Testament, see Zahn, Gesch. des N. T-lichen Kanons I. 2, p. 718.]

[Footnote 327: Baur's cla.s.sification of the Gnostic systems, which rests on the observation of how they severally realised the idea of Christianity as the absolute religion, in contrast to Judaism and Heathenism, is very ingenious, and contains a great element of truth.