[nasional_list] [ppiindia] Re: pro Mbah Danar: The Judas Gospel

** Forum Nasional Indonesia PPI India Mailing List **
** Untuk bergabung dg Milis Nasional kunjungi: 
** Situs Milis: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ **
** Beasiswa dalam negeri dan luar negeri S1 S2 S3 dan post-doctoral 
scholarship, kunjungi 
http://informasi-beasiswa.blogspot.com **Mbak Fauwziah yang baik,

Mungkin kalau anda dengar jawaban saya, anda akan kecewa, dan jauh 
dari posisi resmi manistream gereja.

Seperti kita ketahui, set konsep akidah Kristiani adalah ditetapkan 
sebagai mutakhir dalam synode synode antara 300 dan 500 setelah 
Kristus wafat. Di Konstatinopel dan Nicea, dahulu wilayah kekaisaran 
Romawi.

Seluruh Injil yang kini berlaku, adalah sendi daripada keimanan yang 
ditetapkan itu. Konsep itu bertumpu pada ajaran mengenai peran 
Yudas, seperti kita imani sampai kini. Andaikata gospel itu 
authentis, maka harus dinilai kembali, sampai kemana isi dokument 
itu merubah ajaran Kristiani. Ini haruslah dilakukan secara terbuka 
dan ilmiah, sehingga terkuak mana yang legenda mana yang historis.

Konsep salvation, adalah inti ajaran Kristiani, dimana pencapaian 
surga hanyalah mungkin berkat penyelamatanNya. Juga kebangkitanNya 
sebagaimanusia, yang dirayakan di hari Paksah ini.

Bagi saya, setiap waktu ada kemungkinan timbulnya fakta fakta baru, 
yang mengharuskan kita, membuat penilaian atas ajaran yang sampai 
kini ditetapkan sebagai dogma.

Ini berlaku secara umum bagi semua agama agama, juga bagi agama 
agama Semit, Yahudi, Kristiani dan Islam.

Tentu saja, apabila dokument ini ternyata benar, dan diakui oleh 
para pemimpin agama Kristen setelah teruji, akan membuat umat 
Kristen melihat ajaran yang berlaku dari cahaya yang lain.

Mengenai gospel gospel lain sudah selalu ada spekulasi yang tak 
teruji mengenai keberadaan berbagai gospel. Seperti gospel barnabas 
yang ternyata ditulis setelah Islam timbul.

Saya pribadi agak mengambil jarak pada senua agama agama Semit, yang 
sebenarnya berakar sama. Saya lebih mengimani azas 
anthrophocentrisme, dimana manusia berperan utama dalam menentukan 
hidupnya, dan apa yang terjadi setelah kematian. Apa yang dialami 
manusia, adalah buah apa yang diperbuatnya. Karena itu saya agak 
kritis terhadap dogma dogma, Dogma agama apapun.

Mainstream Kristiani menolak gnosticism. Mengenai pertanyan no 4, 
saya kutib sebuah referensi yang baik:

Gnosticism
Catholic Encyclopedia 

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on 
the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at 
knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, 
though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of 
thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan 
systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of 
mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is 
markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the 
soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the 
mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that 
knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at 
once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and 
future status was essentially different from that of those who, for 
whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical 
definition of Gnosticism would be: 


A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and 
pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before 
the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while 
borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief 
religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to 
be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation 
of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the 
overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-
Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by 
the appearance of some God-sent Saviour. 
However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, 
multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly 
allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every 
attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labour 
lost. 

ORIGIN
The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy 
and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins 
are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past. Whereas 
formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of 
Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic 
systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. 
Its Eastern origin was already maintained by Gieseler and Neander; 
F. Ch. Bauer (1831) and Lassen (1858) sought to prove its relation 
to the religions of India; Lipsius (1860) pointed to Syria and 
Phoenicia as its home, and Hilgenfeld (1884) thought it was 
connected with later Mazdeism. Joel (1880), Weingarten (1881), 
Koffmane (1881), Anrich (1894), and Wobbermin (1896) sought to 
account for the rise of Gnosticism by the influence of Greek 
Platonic philosophy and the Greek mysteries, while Harnack described 
it as "acute Hellenization of Christianity". For the past twenty-
five years, however, the trend of scholarship has steadily moved 
towards proving the pre-Christian Oriental origins of Gnosticism. At 
the Fifth Congress of Orientalists (Berlin, 1882) Kessler brought 
out the connection between Gnosis and the Babylonian religion. By 
this latter name, however, he meant not the original religion of 
Babylonia, but the syncretistic religion which arose after the 
conquest of Cyrus. The same idea is brought out in his "Mani" seven 
years later. In the same year F.W. Brandt published his "Mandiäische 
Religion". This Mandaean religion is so unmistakably a form of 
Gnosticism that it seems beyond doubt that Gnosticism existed 
independent of, and anterior to, Christianity. In more recent years 
(1897) Wilhelm Anz pointed out the close similarity between 
Babylonian astrology and the Gnostic theories of the Hebdomad and 
Ogdoad. Though in many instances speculations on the Babylonian 
Astrallehre have gone beyond all sober scholarship, yet in this 
particular instance the inferences made by Anz seem sound and 
reliable. Researches in the same direction were continued and 
instituted on a wider scale by W. Bousset, in 1907, and led to 
carefully ascertained results. In 1898 the attempt was made by M. 
Friedländer to trace Gnosticism in pre-Christian Judaism. His 
opinion that the Rabbinic term Minnim designated not Christians, as 
was commonly believed, but Antinomian Gostics, has not found 
universal acceptance. In fact, E. Schürer brought sufficient proof 
to show that Minnim is the exact Armaean dialectic equivalent for 
ethne. Nevertheless Friedländer's essay retains its value in tracing 
strong antinomian tendencies with Gnostic colouring on Jewish soil. 
Not a few scholars have laboured to find the source of Gnostic 
theories on Hellenistic and, specifically, Alexandrian soil. In 1880 
Joel sought to prove that the germ of all Gnostic theories was to be 
found in Plato. Though this may be dismissed as an exaggeration, 
some Greek influence on the birth, but especially on the growth, of 
Gnosticism cannot be denied. In Trismegistic literature, as pointed 
out by Reitzenstein (Poimandres, 1904), we find much that is 
strangely akin to Gnosticism. Its Egyptian origin was defended by E. 
Amélineau, in 1887, and illustrated by A. Dietrich, in 1891 (Abraxas 
Studien) and 1903 (Mithrasliturgie). The relation of Plotinus's 
philosophy to Gnosticsm was brought out by C. Schmidt in 1901. That 
Alexandrian thought had some share at least in the development of 
Christian Gnosticism is clear from the fact that the bulk of Gnostic 
literature which we possess comes to us from Egyptian (Coptic) 
sources. That this share was not a predominant one is, however, 
acknowledged by O. Gruppe in his "Griechische Mythologie und 
Religionsgeschichte" (1902). It is true that the Greek mysteries, as 
G. Anrich pointed out in 1894, had much in common with esoteric 
Gnosticism; but there remains the further question, in how far these 
Greek mysteries, as they are known to us, were the genuine product 
of Greek thought, and not much rather due to the overpowering 
influence of Orientalism. 

Although the origins of Gnosticism are still largely enveloped in 
obscurity, so much light has been shed on the problem by the 
combined labours of many scholars that it is possible to give the 
following tentative solution: Although Gnosticism may at first sight 
appear a mere thoughtless syncretism of well nigh all religious 
systems in antiquity, it has in reality one deep root-principle, 
which assimilated in every soil what is needed for its life and 
growth; this principle is philosophical and religious pessimism. The 
Gnostics, it is true, borrowed their terminology almost entirely 
from existing religions, but they only used it to illustrate their 
great idea of the essential evil of this present existence and the 
duty to escape it by the help of magic spells and a superhuman 
Saviour. Whatever they borrowed, this pessimism they did not borrow -
- not from Greek thought, which was a joyous acknowledgment of and 
homage to the beautiful and noble in this world, with a studied 
disregard of the element of sorrow; not from Egyptian thought, which 
did not allow its elaborate speculations on retribution and judgment 
in the netherworld to cast a gloom on this present existence, but 
considered the universe created or evolved under the presiding 
wisdom of Thoth; not from Iranian thought, which held to the 
absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazda and only allowed Ahriman a 
subordinate share in the creation, or rather counter-creation, of 
the world; not from Indian Brahminic thought, which was Pantheism 
pure and simple, or God dwelling in, nay identified with, the 
universe, rather than the Universe existing as the contradictory of 
God; not, lastly, from Semitic thought, for Semitic religions were 
strangely reticent as to the fate of the soul after death, and saw 
all practical wisdom in the worship of Baal, or Marduk, or Assur, or 
Hadad, that they might live long on this earth. This utter 
pessimism, bemoaning the existence of the whole universe as a 
corruption and a calamity, with a feverish craving to be freed from 
the body of this death and a mad hope that, if we only knew, we 
could by some mystic words undo the cursed spell of this existence --
 this is the foundation of all Gnostic thought. It has the same 
parent-soil as Buddhism; but Buddhism is ethical, it endeavours to 
obtain its end by the extinction of all desire; Gnosticism is pseudo-
intellectual, and trusts exclusively to magical knowledge. Moreover, 
Gnosticism, placed in other historical surroundings, developed from 
the first on other lines than Buddhism. 

When Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C., two great worlds of thought 
met, and syncretism in religion, as far as we know it, began. 
Iranian thought began to mix with the ancient civilization of 
Babylon. The idea of the great struggle between evil and good, ever 
continuing in this universe, is the parent idea of Mazdeism, or 
Iranian dualism. This, and the imagined existence of numberless 
intermediate spirits, angels and devas, as the conviction which 
overcame the contentedness of Semitism. On the other hand, the 
unshakable trust, in astrology, the persuasion that the planetary 
system had a fatalistic influence on this world's affairs, stood its 
ground on the soil of Chaldea. The greatness of the Seven -- the 
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn -- the 
sacred Hebdomad, symbolized for millenniums by the staged towers of 
Babylonia, remained undiminished. They ceased, indeed, to be 
worshipped as deities, but they remained archontes and dynameis, 
rules and powers whose almost irresistible force was dreaded by man. 
Practically, they were changed from gods to devas, or evil spirits. 
The religions of the invaders and of the invaded effected a 
compromise: the astral faith of Babylon was true, but beyond the 
Hebodomad was the infinite light in the Ogdoad, and every human soul 
had to pass the adverse influence of the god or gods of the Hebdomad 
before it could ascend to the only good God beyond. This ascent of 
the soul through the planetary spheres to the heaven beyond (an idea 
not unknown even to ancient Babylonian speculations) began to be 
conceived as a struggle with adverse powers, and became the first 
and predominant idea in Gnosticism. The second great component of 
Gnostic thought is magic, properly so called, i.e. the power ex 
opere operato of weird names, sounds, gestures, and actions, as also 
the mixture of elements to produce effects totally disproportionate 
to the cause. These magic formulae, which caused laughter and 
disgust to outsiders, are not a later and accidental corruption, but 
an essential part of Gnosticism, for they are found in all forms of 
Christian Gnosticism and likewise in Mandaeism. No Gnosis was 
essentially complete without the knowledge of the formulae, which, 
once pronounced, were the undoing of the higher hostile powers. 
Magic is the original sin of Gnosticism, nor is it difficult to 
guess whence it is inherited. To a certain extent it formed part of 
every pagan religion, especially the ancient mysteries, yet the 
thousands of magic tablets unearthed is Assyria and Babylonia show 
us where the rankest growth of magic was to be found. Moreover, the 
terms and names of earliest of Gnosticism bear an unmistakable 
similarity to Semitic sounds and words. Gnosticism came early into 
contact with Judaism, and it betrays a knowledge of the Old 
Testament, if only to reject it or borrow a few names from it. 
Considering the strong, well-organized, and highly-cultured Jewish 
colonies in the Euphrates valley, this early contact with Judaism is 
perfectly natural. Perhaps the Gnostic idea of a Redeemer is not 
unconnected with Jewish Messianic hopes. But from the first the 
Gnostic conception of a Saviour is more superhuman than that of 
popular Judaism; their Manda d'Haye, or Soter, is some immediate 
manifestation of the Deity, a Light-King, an Æon (Aion), and an 
emanation of the good God. When Gnosticism came in touch with 
Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its 
appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity into 
Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged 
Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended 
to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the 
world with aprocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to 
substantiate its claim. As Christianity grew within and without the 
Roman Empire, Gnosticism spread as a fungus at its root, and claimed 
to be the only true form of Christianity, unfit, indeed, for the 
vulgar crowd, but set apart for the gifted and the elect. So rank 
was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stifling 
Christianity altogether, and the earliest Fathers devoted their 
energies to uprooting it. Though in reality the spirit of Gnosticism 
is utterly alien to that of Christianity, it then seemed to the 
unwary merely a modification or refinement thereof. When domiciled 
on Greek soil, Gnosticism, slightly changing its barbarous and 
Seminitic terminology and giving its "emanatons" and"syzygies" Greek 
names, sounded somewhat like neo-Platonism, thought it was strongly 
repudiated by Plotinus. In Egypt the national worship left its mark 
more on Gnostic practice than on its theories. 

In dealing with the origins of Gnosticism, one might be tempted to 
mention Manichaeism, as a number of Gnostic ideas seem to be 
borrowed from Manichaeism, where they are obviously at home. This, 
however, would hardly be correct. Manichaeism, as historically 
connected with Mani, its founder, could not have arisen much earlier 
than A.D. 250, when Gnosticism was already in rapid decline. 
Manichaeism, however, in many of its elements dates back far beyond 
its commonly accepted founder; but then it is a parallel development 
with the Gnosis, rather than one of its sources. Sometimes 
Manichaeism is even classed as a form of Gnosticism and styled 
Parsee Gnosis, as distinguished from Syrian and Egyptian Gnosis. 
This classification, however, ignores the fact that the two systems, 
though they have the doctrine of the evil of matter in common, start 
from different principles, Manichaeism from dualism, while 
Gnosticism, as an idealistic Pantheism, proceeds from the conception 
of matter as a gradual deterioration of the Godhead. 

DOCTRINES
Owing to the multiplicity and divergence of Gnostic theories, a 
detailed exposition in this article would be unsatisfactory and 
confusing and to acertain extent even misleading, since Gnosticism 
never possessed a nucleus of stable doctrine, or any sort of 
depositum fidei round which a number of varied developments and 
heresies or sects might be grouped; at most it had some leading 
ideas, which are more or less clearly traceable in different 
schools. Moreover, a fair idea of Gnostic doctrines can be obtained 
from the articles on leaders and phases of Gnostic thought (e.g. 
BASILIDES; VALENTINUS; MARCION; DOCETAE; DEMIURGE). We shall here 
only indicate some main phases of thought, which can be regarded as 
keys and which, though not fitting all systems, will unlock most of 
the mysteries of the Gnosis. 

(a) Cosmogony 

Gnosticism is thinly disguised Pantheism. In the beginning was the 
Depth; the Fulness of Being; the Not-Being God; the First Father, 
the Monad, the Man; the First Source, the unknown God (Bythos 
pleroma, ouk on theos, propator, monas, anthropos, proarche, 
hagnostos theos), or by whatever other name it might be called. This 
undefined infinite Something, though it might be addressed by the 
title of the Good God, was not a personal Being, but, like Tad of 
Brahma of the Hindus, the "Great Unknown" of modern thought. The 
Unknown God, however, was in the beginning pure spirituality; matter 
as yet was not. This source of all being causes to emanate 
(proballei) from itself a number of pure spirit forces. In the 
different systems these emanations are differently named, 
classified, and described, but the emanation theory itself is common 
too all forms of Gnosticism. In the Basilidian Gnosis they are 
called sonships (uiotetes), in Valentinianism they form antithetic 
pairs or "syzygies" (syzygoi); Depth and Silence produce Mind and 
Truth; these produce Reason and Life, these again Man and State 
(ekklesia). According to Marcus, they are numbers and sounds. These 
are the primary roots of the Æons. With bewildering fertility 
hierarchies of Æons are thus produced, sometimes to the number of 
thirty. These Æons belong to the purely ideal, noumenal, 
intelligible, or supersensible world; they are immaterial, they are 
hypostatic ideas. Together with the source from which they emanate 
they form the pleroma. The transition fromthe immaterial to the 
material, from the noumenal to the sensible, is brought about by a 
flaw, or a passion, or a sin, in one of the Æons. According to 
Basilides, it is a flaw in the last sonship; according to others it 
is the passion of the female Æon Sophia; according to others the sin 
ofthe Great Archon, or Æon-Creator, of the Universe. The ultimate 
end of all Gnosis is metanoia, or repentance, the undoing of the sin 
of material existence and the return to the Pleroma. 

(b) Sophia-Myth 

In the greater number of Gnostic systems an important role is played 
by the Æon Wisdom -- Sophia or Achamoth. In some sense she seems to 
represent the supreme female principle, as for instance in the 
Ptolemaic system, in which the mother of the seven heavens is called 
Achamoth, in the Valentinian system, in which he ano Sophia, the 
Wisdom above, is distinguished from he kato Sophia, or Achamoth, the 
former being the female principle of the noumenal world, and in the 
Archotian system, where we find a "Lightsome Mother" (he meter he 
photeine), and in which beyond the heavens of the Archons is he 
meter ton panton and likewise in the Barbelognosis, where the female 
Barbelos is but the counterpart of the Unknown Father, which also 
occurs amongst the Ophites described by Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres., III, 
vii, 4). Moreover, the Eucharistic prayer in the Acts of Thomas (ch. 
1) seems addressed to this supreme female principle. W. Bousset's 
suggestion, that the Gnostic Sophia is nothing else than a disguise 
for the Dea Syra, the great goddess Istar, or Astarte, seems worthy 
of consideration. On the other hand, the Æon Sophia usually plays 
another role; she is he Prouneikos or "the Lustful One", once a 
virginal goddess, who by her fall from original purity is the cause 
of this sinful material world. One of the earliest forms of this 
myth is found in Simonian Gnosis, in which Simon, the Great Power, 
finds Helena, who during ten years had been a prostitute in Tyre, 
but who is Simon's ennoia, or understanding, and whom his followers 
worshipped under the form of Athena, the goddess of wisdom. 
According to Valentinus's system, as described by Hippolytus (Book 
VI, xxv-xxvi), Sophia is the youngest of the twenty-eight æons. 
Observing the multitude of æons and the power of begetting them, she 
hurries back into the depth of the Father, and seeks to emulate him 
by producing offspring without conjugal intercourse, but only 
projects an abortion, a formless substance. Upon this she is cast 
out of Pleroma. According to the Valentinian system as described by 
Irenaeus (op. cit., I) and Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ix), Sophia 
conceives a passion for the First Father himself, or rather, under 
pretext of love she seeks to know him, the Unknowable, and to 
comprehend his greatness. She should have suffered the consequence 
of her audacity by ultimate dissolution into the immensity of the 
Father, but for the Boundary Spirit. According to the Pistis Sophia 
(ch. xxix) Sophia, daughter of Barbelos, originally dwelt in the 
highest, or thirteenth heaven, but she is seduced by the demon 
Authades by means of a ray of light, which she mistook as an 
emanation from the First Father. Authades thus enticed her into 
Chaos below the twelve Æons, where she was imprisoned by evil 
powers. According to these ideas, matter is the fruit of the sin of 
Sophia; this, however, was but a Valentinian development; in the 
older speculations the existence of matter is tacitly presupposed as 
eternal with the Pleroma, and through her sin Sophia falls from the 
realm of light into Chaos or realm of darkness. This original 
dualism, however, was overcome by the predominant spirit of 
Gnosticism, pantheistic emanationism. The Sophia myth is completely 
absent from the Basilidian and kindred systems. It is suggested, 
with great verisimilitude, that the Egyptian myth of Isis was the 
original source of the Gnostic "lower wisdom". In many systems this 
Kato Sophia is sharply distinguished from the Higher Wisdom 
mentioned above; as, for instance, in the magic formula for the dead 
mentioned by Irenaeus (op. cit., I, xxi, 5), in which the departed 
has to address the hostile archons thus: "I am a vessel more 
precious than the female who made you. If your mother ignores the 
source whence she is, I know myself, and I known whence I am and 
invoke the incorruptible Sophia, whois in the Father, the mother of 
your mother, who has neither father nor husband. A man-woman, born 
from a woman, has made you, not knowing her mother, but thinking 
herself alone. But I invoke her mother." This agrees with the system 
minutely described by Irenaeus (op. cit., I, iv-v), where Sophia 
Achamoth, or Lower Wisdom, the daughter of Higher Wisdom, becomes 
the mother of the Demiurge; she being the Ogdoad, her son the 
Hebdomad, they form a counterpart of the heavenly Ogdoad in the 
Pleromata. This is evidently a clumsy attempt to fuse into one two 
systems radically different, the Basilidian and the Valentinian; the 
ignorance of the Great Archon, which is the central idea of 
Basilides, is here transferred to Sophia, and the hybrid system ends 
in bewildering confusion. 

(c) Soteriology 

Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each human 
soul; it is a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to what 
they were before the flaw in the sphere of the Æons brought matter 
into existence and imprisoned some part of the Divine Light into the 
evil Hyle (Hyle). This setting free of the light sparks is the 
process of salvation; when all light shall have left Hyle, it will 
be burnt up, destroyed, or be a sort of everlasting hell for the 
Hylicoi. In Basilidianism it is the Third Filiation that is captive 
in matter, and is gradually being saved, now that the knowledge of 
its existence has been brought to the first Archon and then to the 
Second Archon, to each by his respective Son; and the news has been 
spread through the Hebdomad by Jesus the son of Mary, who died to 
redeem the Third Filiation. In Valentinianism the process is 
extraordinarily elaborate. When this world has been born from Sophia 
in consequence of her sin, Nous and Aletheia, two Æons, by command 
of the Father, produce two new Æons, Christ and the Holy Ghost; 
these restore order in the Pleroma, and in consequence all Æons 
together produce a new Æon, Jesus Logos, Soter, or Christ, whom they 
offer to the Father. Christ, the Son of Nous and Aletheia, has pity 
on the abortive substance born of Sophia and gives it essence and 
form. Whereupon Sophia tries to rise again to the Father, but in 
vain. Now the Æon Jesus-Soter is sent as second Saviour, he unites 
himself to the man Jesus, the son of Mary, at his baptism, and 
becomes the Saviour of men. Man is a creature of the Demiurge, a 
compound of soul, body, and spirit. His salvation consists in the 
return of his pneuma or spirit to the Pleroma; or if he be only a 
Psychicist, not a full Gnostic, his soul (psyche) shall return to 
Achamoth. There is no resurrection of the body. (For further details 
and differences see VALENTINUS.) 

In Marcionism, the most dualistic phase of Gnosticism, salvation 
consisted in the possession of the knowledge of the Good God and the 
rejection ofthe Demiurge. The Good God revealed himself in Jesus and 
appeared as man in Judea; to know him, and to become entirely free 
from the yoke of the World-Creator or God of the Old Testament, is 
the end of all salvation. The Gnostic Saviour, therefore, is 
entirely different from the Christian one. For 

the Gnostic Saviour does not save. Gnosticism lacks the idea of 
atonement. There is no sin to be atoned for, except ignorance be 
that sin. Nor does the Saviour in any sense benefit the human race 
by vicarious sufferings. Nor, finally, does he immediately and 
actively affect any individual human soul by the power of grace or 
draw it to God. He was a teacher, he once brought into the world the 
truth, which alone can save. As a flame sets naphtha on fire, so the 
Saviour's light ignites predisposed souls moving down the stream of 
time. Of a real Saviour who with love human and Divine seeks out 
sinners to save them, Gnosticism knows nothing. 
The Gnostic Saviour has no human nature, he is an æon, not a man; he 
only seemed a man, as the three Angels who visited Abraham seemed to 
be men. (For a detailed exposition see DOCETAE.) The Æon Soter is 
brought into the strangest relation to Sophia: in some systems he is 
her brother, in others her son, in other again her spouse. He is 
sometimes identified with Christ, sometimes with Jesus; sometimes 
Christ and Jesus are the same æon, sometimes they are different; 
sometimes Christ and the Holy Ghost are identified. Gnosticism did 
its best to utilize the Christian concept of the Holy Ghost, but 
never quite succeeded. She made him the Horos, or Methorion Pneuma 
(Horos, Metherion Pneuma), the Boundary-Spirit, the Sweet Odour of 
the Second Filiation, a companion æon with Christos, etc., etc. In 
some systems he is entirely left out. 
(d) Eschatology 

It is the merit of recent scholarship to have proved that Gnostic 
eschatology, consisting in the soul's struggle with hostile archons 
in its attempt to reach the Pleroma, is simply the soul's ascent, in 
Babylonian astrology, through the realms of the seven planets to 
Anu. Origen (Contra Celsum, VI, xxxi), referring to the Ophitic 
system, gives us the names of the seven archons as Jaldabaoth, Jao, 
Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Ailoaios, and Oraios, and tells us 
that Jaldabaoth is the planet Saturn. Astraphaios is beyond doubt 
the planet Venus, as there are gnostic gems with a female figure and 
the legend ASTAPHE, which name is also used in magic spells as the 
name of a goddess. In the Mandaean system Adonaios represents the 
Sun. Moreover, St. Irenaeus tells us: "Sanctam Hebdomadem VII 
stellas, quas dictunt planetas, esse volunt." It is safe, therefore, 
to take the above seven Gnostic names as designating the seven 
stars, then considered planets, 

Jaldabaoth (Child of Chaos? -- Saturn, called "the Lion-faced", 
leontoeides) is the outermost, and therefore the chief ruler, and 
later on the Demiurge par excellence. 
Jao (Iao, perhaps from Jahu, Jahveh, but possibly also from the 
magic cry iao in the mysteries) is Jupiter. 
Sabaoth (the Old-Testament title -- God of Hosts) was 
misunderstood; "of hosts" was thought a proper name, hence Jupiter 
Sabbas (Jahve Sabaoth) was Mars. 
Astaphaios (taken from magic tablets) was Venus. 
Adonaios (from the Hebrew term for "the Lord", used of God; Adonis 
of the Syrians representing the Winter sun in the cosmic tragedy of 
Tammuz) was the Sun; 
Ailoaios, or sometimes Ailoein (Elohim, God), Mercury; 
Oraios (Jaroah? or light?), the Moon.
In the hellenized form of Gnosticism either all or some of these 
names are replaced by personified vices. Authadia (Authades), or 
Audacity, is the obvious description of Jaldabaoth, the presumptuous 
Demiurge, who is lion-faced as the Archon Authadia. Of the Archons 
Kakia, Zelos, Phthonos, Errinnys, Epithymia, the last obviously 
represents Venus. The number seven is obtained by placing a 
proarchon or chief archon at the head. That these names areonly a 
disguise for the Sancta Hebdomas is clear, for Sophia, the mother of 
them, retains the name of Ogdoas, Octonatio. Occasionally one meets 
with the Archon Esaldaios, which is evidently the El Shaddai of the 
Bible, and he is described as the Archon "number four" (harithmo 
tetartos) and must represent the Sun. In the system of the Gnostics 
mentioned by Epiphanius we find, as the Seven Archons, Iao, Saklas, 
Seth, David, Eloiein, Elilaios, and Jaldabaoth (or no. 6 Jaldaboath, 
no. 7 Sabaoth). Of these, Saklas is the chief demon of Manichaeism; 
Elilaios is probably connected with En-lil, the Bel of Nippur, the 
ancient god of Babylonia. In this, as in several other systems, the 
traces of the planetary seven have been obscured, but hardly in any 
have they become totally effaced. What tended most to obliterate the 
sevenfold distinction was the identification of the God of the Jews, 
the Lawgiver, with Jaldabaoth and his designation as World-creator, 
whereas formerly the seven planets together ruled the world. This 
confusion, however, was suggested by the very fact that at least 
five of the seven archons bore Old-Testament names for God -- El 
Shaddai, Adonai, Elohim, Jehovah, Sabaoth. 
(e) Doctrine of the Primeval Man 

The speculations on Primeval Man (Protanthropos, Adam) occupy a 
prominent place in several Gnostic systems. According to Irenaeus 
(I, xxix, 3) the Æon Autogenes emits the true and perfect Anthrôpos, 
also called Adamas; he has a helpmate, "Perfect Knowledge", and 
receives an irresistible force, so that all things rest in him. 
Others say (Irenaeus, I, xxx) there is a blessed and incorruptible 
and endless light in the power of Bythos; this is the Father of all 
things who is invoked as the First Man, who, with his Enn?a, 
emits "the Son of Man", or Euteranthrôpos. According to Valentinus, 
Adam was created in the name of Anthrôpos and overawes the demons by 
the fear of the pre-existent man (tou proontos anthropou). In the 
Valentinian syzygies and in the Marcosian system we meet in the 
fourth (originally the third) place Anthrôpos and Ecclesia. In the 
Pistis Sophia the Æon Jeu is called the First Man, he is the 
overseer of the Light, messenger of the First Precept, and 
constitutes the forces of the Heimarmene. In the Books of the Jeu 
this "great Man" is the King of the Light-treasure, he is enthroned 
above all things and is the goal of all souls. According to the 
Naassenes, the Protanthropos is the first element; the fundamental 
being before its differentiation into individuals. "The Son of Man" 
is the same being after it has been individualized into existing 
things and thus sunk into matter. The Gnostic Anthrôpos, therefore, 
or Adamas, as it is sometimes called, is a cosmogonic element, pure 
mind as distinct from matter, mind conceived hypostatically as 
emanating from God and not yet darkened by contact with matter. This 
mind is considered as the reason of humanity, or humanity itself, as 
a personified idea, a category without corporeality, the human 
reason conceived as the World-Soul. This speculation about the 
Anthrôpos is completely developed in Manichaeism, where, in fact, it 
is the basis of the whole system. God, in danger of the power of 
darkness, creates with the help of the Spirit, the five worlds, the 
twelve elements, and the Eternal Man, and makes him combat the 
darkness. But this Man is somehow overcome by evil and swallowed up 
by darkness. The present universe is in throes to deliver the 
captive Man from the powers of darkness. In the Clementine Homilies 
the cosmogonic Anthrôpos is strangely mixed up with the historical 
figure of the first man, Adam. Adam "was the true prophet, running 
through all ages, and hastening to rest"; "the Christ, who was from 
the beginning and is always, who was ever present to every 
generation in a hidden manner indeed, yet ever present". In fact 
Adam was, to use Modernist language, the Godhead immanent in the 
world and ever manifesting itself to the inner consciousness of the 
elect. The same idea, somewhat modified, occurs in Hermetic 
literature, especially the "Poimandres". It is elaborated by Philo, 
makes an ingenious distinction between the human being created 
first "after God's image and likeness" and the historic figures of 
Adam and Eve created afterwards. Adam kat eikona is: "Idea, Genus, 
Character, belonging to the world, of Understanding, without body, 
neither male nor female; he is the Beginning, the Name of God, the 
Logos, immortal, incorruptible" (De opif. mund., 134-148; De conf. 
ling.,146). These ideas in Talmudism, Philonism, Gnosticism, and 
Trismegistic literature, all come from once source, the late Mazdea 
development of the Gayomarthians, or worshipper of the Super-Man. 

(f) The Barbelo 

This Gnostic figure, appearing in a number of systems, the 
Nicolaites, the "Gnostics" of Epiphanius, the Sethians, the system 
of the "Evangelium Mariae" and that in Iren., I, xxix, 2 sq., 
remains to a certain extent an enigma. The name barbelo, barbeloth, 
barthenos has not been explained with certainty. In any case she 
represents the supreme female principle, is in fact the highest 
Godhead in its female aspect. Barbelo has most of the functions of 
the ano Sophia as described above. So prominent was her place 
amongst some Gnostics that some schools were designated as 
Barbeliotae, Barbelo worshippers of Barbelognostics. She is probably 
none other than the Light-Maiden of the Pistis Sophia, the thygater 
tou photos or simply the Maiden, parthenos. In Epiphanius (Haer., 
xxvi, 1) and Philastrius (Haer., xxxiii) Parthenos (Barbelos) seems 
identical with Noria, whoplays a great role as wife either of Noe or 
of Seth. The suggestion, that Noria is "Maiden", parthenos, Istar, 
Athena, Wisdom, Sophia, or Archamoth, seems worthy of consideration. 

RITES

We are not so well informed about the practical and ritual side of 
Gnosticism as we are about its doctrinal and theoretical side. 
However, St. Irenaeus's account of the Marcosians, Hippolytus's 
account of the Elcesaites,the liturgical portions of the "Acta 
Thomae", some passages in the Pseudo-Clementines, and above all 
Coptic Gnostic and Mandaean literature gives us at least some 
insight into their liturgical practices. 
(a) Baptism 

All Gnostic sects possessed this rite in some way; in Mandaeism 
daily baptism is one of the great practices of the system. The 
formulae used by Christian Gnostics seem to have varied widely from 
that enjoyed by Christ. The Marcosians said: "In [eis] the name of 
the unknown Father of all, in [eis] the Truth, the Mother of all, in 
him, who came down on Jesus [eis ton katelthonta eis Iesoun]". The 
Elcesaites said: "In [en] the name of the great and highest God and 
in the name of his Son, the great King". In Iren. (I, xxi, 3) we 
find the formula: "In the name that was hidden from every divinity 
and lordship and truth, which [name] Jesus the Nazarene has put on 
in the regions of light" and several other formulae, which were 
sometimes pronounced in Hebrew or Aramaid. The Mandaeans said: "The 
name of the Life and the name of the Manda d'Haye is named over 
thee". In connection with Baptism the Sphragis was of great 
importance; in what the seal or sign consisted wherewith they were 
marked is not easy to say. There was also the tradition of a name 
either by utterance or by handing a tablet with some mystic word on 
it. 

(b) Confirmation 

The anointing of the candidate with chrism, or odoriferous ointment, 
is a Gnostic rite which overshadows the importance of baptism. In 
the "Acta Thomae", so some scholars maintain, it had completely 
replaced baptism, and was the sole sacrament of initiation. This 
however is not yet proven. The Marcosians went so far as to reject 
Christian baptism and to substitute a mixture of oil and water which 
they poured over the head of the candidate. By confirmation the 
Gnostics intended not so much to give the Holy Ghost as to seal the 
candidates against the attacks of the archons, or to drive them away 
by the sweet odour which is above all things (tes uter ta hola 
euodias). The balsam was somehow supposed to have flowed from the 
Tree of Life, and this tree was again mystically connected with the 
Cross; for the chrism is in the "Acta Thomae" called "the hidden 
mystery in which the Cross is shown to us". 

(c) The Eucharist 

It is remarkable that so little is known of the Gnostic substitute 
for the Eucharist. In a number of passages we read of the breaking 
of the bread, but in what this consisted is not easy to determine. 
The use of salt in this rite seems to have been important (Clem., 
Hom. xiv), for we read distinctly how St. Peter broke the bread of 
the Eucharist and "putting salt thereon, he gave first to the mother 
and then to us". There is furthermore a great likelihood, though no 
certainty, that the Eucharist referred to in the "Acta "Thomae" was 
merely a breaking of bread without the use of the cup. This point is 
strongly controverted, but the contrary can hardly be proven. It is 
beyond doubt that the Gnostics often substituted water for the wine 
(Acta Thomae, Baptism of Mygdonia, ch. cxxi). What formula of 
consecration was used we do not know, but the bread was certainly 
signed with the Cross. It is to be noted that the Gnostics called 
the Eucharist by Christian sacrificial terms -- 
prosphora, "oblation", Thysia (II bk. of Jeû, 45). In the Coptic 
Books (Pistis Sophia, 142; II Jeû, 45-47) we find a long description 
of some apparently Eucharistic ceremonies carried out by Jesus 
Himself. In these fire and incense, two flasks, and also two cups, 
one with water, the other with wine, and branches of the vine are 
used. Christ crows the Apostles with olive wreaths, begs 
Melchisedech to come and change wine into water for baptism, puts 
herbs in the Apostles' mouths and hands. Whether these actions in 
some sense reflect the ritual of Gnosticism, or are only 
imaginations of the author, cannot be decided. The Gnostics seem 
also to have used oil sacramentally for the healing of the sick, and 
even the dead were anointed by them to be rendered safe and 
invisible in their transit through the realms of the archons. 

(d) The Nymphôn 

They possessed a special Gnostic sacrament of the bridechamber 
(nymphon) in which, through some symbolical actions, their souls 
were wedded to their angels in the Pleroma. Details of its rites are 
not as yet known. Tertullian no doubt alluded to them in the 
words "Eleusinia fecerunt lenocinia". 

(e) The Magic Vowels 

An extraordinary prominence is given to the utterance of the vowels: 
alpha, epsilon, eta, iota, omicron, upsilon, omega. The Saviour and 
His disciples are supposed in the midst of their sentences to have 
broken out in an interminable gibberish of only vowels; magic spells 
have come down to us consisting of vowels by the fourscore; on 
amulets the seven vowels, repeated according to all sorts of 
artifices, form a very common inscription. Within the last few years 
these Gnostic vowels, so long a mystery, have been the object of 
careful study by Ruelle, Poirée, and Leclercq, and it may be 
considered proven that each vowel represents one of the seven 
planets, or archons; that the seven together represent the Universe, 
but without consonants they represent the Ideal and Infinite not yet 
imprisoned and limited by matter; that they represent a musical 
scale, probably like the Gregorian 1 tone re-re, or d, e, f, g, a, 
b, c, and many a Gnostic sheet of vowels is in fact a sheet of 
music. But research on this subject has only just begun. Among the 
Gnostics the Ophites were particularly fond of representing their 
cosmogonic speculations by diagrams, circles within circles, 
squares, and parallel lines, and other mathematical figures 
combined, with names written within them. How far these sacred 
diagrams were used as symbols in their liturgy, we do not know. 

SCHOOLS OF GNOSTICISM
Gnosticism possessed no central authority for either doctrine or 
discipline; considered as a whole it had no organization similar to 
the vast organization of the Catholic Church. It was but a large 
conglomeration of sects, of which Marcionism alone attempted in some 
way to rival the constitution of the Church, and even Marcionism had 
no unity. No other classification of these sects is possible than 
that according to their main trend of thought. We can therefore 
distinguish: (a) Syrian or Semitic; (b) Hellenistic or Alexandrian; 
(c) dualistic; (d) antinomian Gnostics. 

(a) The Syrian School 

This school represents the oldest phase of Gnosticism, as Western 
Asia was the birthplace of the movement. Dositheus, Simon Magus, 
Menander, Cerinthus, Cerdo, Saturninus Justin, the Bardesanites, 
Sevrians, Ebionites, Encratites, Ophites, Naassenes, the Gnostics of 
the "Acts of Thomas", the Sethians, the Peratae, the Cainites may be 
said to belong to this school. The more fantastic elements and 
elaborate genealogies and syzygies of æons of the later Gnosis are 
still absent in these systems. The terminology is some barbarous 
form of Semitic; Egypt is the symbolic name for the soul's land of 
bondage. The opposition between the good God and the World-Creator 
is not eternal or cosmogonic, though there is strong ethical 
opposition to Jehovah the God of the Jews. He is the last of the 
seven angels who fashioned this world out of eternally pre-existent 
matter. The demiurgic angels, attempting to create man, created but 
a miserable worm, to which the Good God, however, gave the spark of 
divine life. The rule of the god of the Jews must pass away, for the 
good God calls us to his own immediate service through Christ his 
Son. We obey the Supreme Deity by abstaining from flesh meat and 
marriage, and by leading an ascetic life. Such was the system of 
Saturninus of Antioch, who taught during the reign of Hadrian (c. 
A.D. 120). The Naassenes (from Nahas, the Hebrew for serpent) were 
worshippers of the serpent as a symbol of wisdom, which the God of 
the Jews tried to hide from men. The Ophites (ophianoi, from ophis, 
serpent), who, when transplanted on Alexandrian soil, supplied the 
main ideas of Valentinianism, become one of the most widely spread 
sects of Gnosticism. Though not strictly serpent-worshippers, they 
recognized the serpent as symbol of the supreme emanation, Achamoth 
or Divine Wisdom. They were styled Gnostics par excellence. The 
Sethians saw in Seth the father of all spiritual (pneumatikoi) men; 
in Cain and Abel the father of the psychic (psychikoi) and hylic 
(hylikoi) men. According to the Peratae there exists a trinity of 
Father, Son, and Hyle (Matter). The Son is the Cosmic Serpent, who 
freed Eve from the power of the rule of Hyle. The universe they 
symbolized by a triangle enclosed in a circle. The number three is 
the key to all mysteries. There are three supreme principles: the 
not-generated, the self-generated, the generated. There are three 
logoi, of gods; the Saviour has a threefold nature, threefold body, 
threefold power, etc. They are called Peretae (peran) because they 
have "crossed over" out of Egypt, through the Red Sea of generation. 
They are the true Hebrews, in fact (the word comes from the Hebrew 
meaning "to cross over"). The Peratae were founded by Euphrates and 
Celbes (Acembes?) and Ademes. This Euphrates, whose name is perhaps 
connected with the name Peratae itself, is said to be the founder of 
the Ophites mentioned by Celsus about A.D. 175. The Cainites were so 
called because they venerated Cain, and Esau, and the Sodomites, and 
Core, and Judas, because they had all resisted the god of the Jews. 

(b) The Hellenistic or Alexandrian School 

These systems were more abstract, and philosophical, and self-
consistent than the Syrian. The Semitic nomenclature was almost 
entirely replaced by Greek names. The cosmogonic problem had 
outgrown all proportions, the ethical side was less prominent, 
asceticism less strictly enforced. The two great thinkers of this 
school were Basilides and Valentinus. Though born at Antioch, in 
Syria, Basilides founded his school in Alexandria (c. A.D. 130), and 
was followed by his son Isidorus. His system was the most consistent 
and sober emanationism that Gnosticism ever produced. His school 
never spread so widely as the next to be mentioned, but in Spain it 
survived for several centuries. Valentinus, who taught first at 
Alexandria and then at Rome (c. A.D. 160), elaborated a system of 
sexual duality in the process of emanation; a long series of male 
and female pairs of personified ideas is employed to bridge over the 
distance from the unknown God to this present world. His system is 
more confused than Basilidianism, especially as it is disturbed 
bythe intrusion of the figure or figures of Sophia in the cosmogonic 
process. Being Syrian Ophitism in Egyptian guise, it can claim to be 
the true representative of the Gnostic spirit. The reductio ad 
absurdum of these unbridled speculations can be seen in the Pitis 
Sophia, which is light-maidens, paralemptores, spheres, Heimarmene, 
thirteen æons, light-treasures, realms of the midst, realms of the 
right and of the left, Jaldabaoth, Adamas, Michael, Gabriel, Christ, 
the Saviour, and mysteries without number whirl past and return like 
witches in a dance. The impression created on the same reader can 
only be fitly described in the words of "Jabberwocky": "gyre and 
gimble on the wabe". We learn from Hippolytus (Adv. Haer., IV, 
xxxv), Tertullian (Adv. Valent., iv) and Clemens Alex. (Exc. ex 
Theod., title) that there were two main schools of Valentinianism, 
the Italian and the Anatolian or Asiatic. In the Italian school were 
teachers of note: Secundus, who divided the Ogdoad within the 
Pleroma into two tetrads, Right and Left; Epiphanes, who described 
this Tetras as Monotes, Henotes, Monas, and To Hen; and possibly 
Colorbasus, unless his name be a misreading of Kol Arba "All Four". 
But the most important were Ptolemy and Heracleon. Ptolemy is 
especially known to fame by his letter to Flora, a noble lady who 
had written to him as Prom Presbyter (Texte u. Unters., N.S., XIII, 
Anal. z. alt. Gesch. d. Chr.) to explain the meaning of the Old 
Testament. This Ptolemy split up the names and numbers of the æons 
into personified substances outside the deity, as Tertullian 
relates. He was given to Biblical studies, and was a man of 
unbridled imagination. Clemens Alex. (Strom., IV, ix, 73) calls 
Heracleon the most eminent teacher of the Valentinian school. Origen 
devotes a large part of his commentary on St. John to combating 
Heracleon's commentary on the same Evangelist. Heracleon called the 
source of all being Anthropos, instead of Bythos, and rejected the 
immortality of the soul -- meaning, probably, the merely psychic 
element. He apparently stood nearer to the Catholic Church than 
Ptolemy and was a man of better judgment. Tertullian mentions two 
other names (Valent., iv), Theotimus and (De Carne Christ, xvii) 
Alexander. The Anatolian school had as a prominent teacher Axionicus 
(Tertullian, Adv. Valent., iv; Hipp., Adv. Haer., VI, 30) who had 
his collegium at Antioch about A.D. 220, "the master's most faithful 
disciple". Theodotus is only known to us from the fragment of his 
writings preserved by Clement of Alexandria. Marcus the Conjuror's 
system, an elaborate speculation with ciphers and numbers, is given 
by Irenaeus (I, 11-12) and also by Hippolytus (VI, 42). Irenaeus's 
account of Marcus was repudiated by the Marcosians, but Hippolytus 
asserts that they did so without reason. Marcus was probably an 
Egyptian and a contemporary of Irenaeus. A system not unlike that of 
the Marcosians was worked out by Monoimus the Arabian, to whom 
Hippolytus devotes chapters 5 to 8 of Book VIII, and who is 
mentioned only by Theodoret besides him. Hippolytus is right in 
calling these two Gnostics imitations of Pythagoras rather than 
Christians. According to the Epistles of Julian the Apostate, 
Valentinan collegia existed in Asia Minor up to his own times (d. 
363). 

(c) The Dualistic School 

Some dualism was indeed congenital with Gnosticism, yet but rarely 
did it overcome the main tendency of Gnosticism, i.e. Pantheism. 
This, however, was certainly the case in the system of Marcion, who 
distinguished between the God of the New Testament and the God of 
the Old Testament, as between two eternal principles, the first 
being Good, agathos; the second merely dikaios, or just; yet even 
Marcion did not carry this system to its ultimate consequences. He 
may be considered rather as a forerunner of Mani than a pure 
Gnostic. Three of his disciples, Potitus, Basilicus, and Lucanus, 
are mentioned by Eusebius as being true to their master's dualism 
(H.E., V, xiii), but Apelles, his chief disciple, though he went 
farther than his master in rejecting the Old-Testament Scriptures, 
returned to monotheism by considering the Inspirer of Old-Testament 
prophecies to be not a god, but an evil angel. On the other hand, 
Syneros and Prepon, also his disciples, postulated three different 
principles. A somewhat different dualism was taught by Hermogenes in 
the beginning of the second century at Carthage. The opponent of the 
good God was not the God of the Jews, but Eternal Matter, the source 
of all evil. This Gnostic was combatted by Theophilus of Antioch and 
Tertullian. 

(d) The Antinomian School 

As a moral law was given by the God of the Jews, and opposition to 
the God of the Jews was a duty, the breaking of the moral law to 
spite its give was considered a solemn obligation. Such a sect, 
called the Nicolaites, existed in Apostolic times, their principle, 
according to Origen, was parachresthai te sarki. Carpocrates, whom 
Tertullian (De animâ, xxxv) calls a magician and a fornicator, was a 
contemporary of Basilides. One could only escape the cosmic powers 
through discharging one's obligations to them by infamous conduct. 
To disregard all law and sink oneself into the Monad by remembering 
one's pre-existence in the Cosmic Unit -- such was the Gnosis of 
Carpocrates. His son Epiphanes followed his father's doctrine so 
closely that he died in consequence of his sins at the age of 
seventeen. Antinomian views were further maintained by the 
Prodicians and Antitactae. No more ghastly instance of insane 
immorality can be found than the one mentioned Pistis Sophia itself 
as practised by some Gnostics. St. Justin (Apol., I, xxvi), Irenaeus 
(I, xxv, 3) and Eusebius (H.E., IV, vii) make it clear that "the 
reputation of these men brought infamy upon the whole race of 
Christians". 

LITERATURE
The Gnostics developed an astounding literary activity, which 
produced a quantity of writings far surpassing contemporary output 
of Catholic literature. They were most prolific in the sphere of 
fiction, as it is safe to say that three-fourths of the early 
Christians romances about Christ and His disciples emanated from 
Gnostic circles. Besides these -- often crude and clumsy -- romances 
they possessed what may be called "theosophic" treatises and 
revelations of a highly mystical character. These are best described 
as a stupefying roar of bombast occasionally interrupted by a few 
words of real sublimity. Traine remarks with justice: "Anyone who 
reads the teachings of the Gnostics breathes in an atmosphere of 
fever and fancies himself in a hospital, amongst delirious patients, 
who are lost in gazing at their own teeming thought and who fix 
their lustrous eyes on empty space" (Essais de crit. et d'histoire, 
Paris, 1904). Gnostic literature, therefore, possesses little or no 
intrinsic value, however great its value for history and psychology. 
It is of unparalleled importance in the study of the surroundings in 
which Christianity first arose. The bulk of it is unfortunately no 
longer extant. With the exception of some Coptic translations and 
some expurgated or Catholicized Syriac versions, we possess only a 
number of fragments of what once must have formed a large library. 
Most of this literature will be found catalogued under the names of 
Gnostic authors in the articles BASILIDES; BARDESANES; CERINTHUS; 
MARCION; SIMON MAGUS; PTOLEMY; VALENTINUS. We shall enumerate in the 
following paragraphs only anonymous Gnostic works and such writings 
as are not attributed to any of the above authors. 

The Nicolaites possessed "some books under the name of Jaldabaoth", 
a book called "Nôria" (the mythical wife of Noe), prophecy of 
Barcabbas, who was a soothsayer among the Basilidians, a "Gospel of 
the Consummation", and a kind of apocalypse called "the Gospel of 
Eva" (Epiph., Adv. Haer., xxv, xxvi; Philastr., 33). The Ophites 
possessed "thousands" of apocrypha, as Epiphanius tells us; among 
these he specially mentions: "Questions of Mary, great and small" 
(some of these questions are perhaps extant in the Pistis Sophia); 
also many books under the name of "Seth", "Revelations of Adam", 
Apocryphal Gospels attributed to Apostles; an Apocalypse of Elias, 
and a book called "Genna Marias". Of these writings some revelations 
of Adam and Seth, eight in number, are probably extant in an 
Armenian translation, published in the Mechitarist collection of the 
Old-Testament apocrypha (Venice, 1896). See Preuschen "Die apocryph. 
Gnost. Adamschr." (Giessen, 1900). The Cainites possessed a "Gospel 
of Judas", an "Ascension of Paul" (anabatikon Paulou) and some other 
book, of which we do not know the title, but which, according to 
Epiphanius, was full of wickedness. The Prodicians, according to 
Clem. Alex., possessed apocrypha under the name of Zoroaster 
(Strom., I, xv, 69). The Antinomians had an apocryphon "full of 
audacity and wickedness" (Strom., III, iv, 29; Origen, "In Matth,", 
xxviii). The Naassenes had a book out of which Hippolytus largely 
quotes, but of which we do not know the title. It contained a 
commentary on Bible texts, hymns, and psalms. The Peratae possessed 
a similar book. The Sethians possessed a "Paraphrasis Seth", 
consisting of seven books, explanatory of their system, a book 
called Allogeneis, or "Foreigners", an "Apocalypse of Adam", a book 
attributed to Moses, and others. The Archontians possessed a large 
and small book entitled "Symphonia"; this possibly extant in 
Pitra's "Analecta Sacra" (Paris, 1888). The Gnostics attacked by 
Plotinus possessed apocrypha attributed to Zoroaster, Zostrian, 
Nichotheus, Allogenes (the Sethian Book "Allogeneis"?), and others. 

In addition to these writings the following apocrypha are evidently 
of Gnostic authorship: 

"The Gospel of the Twelve" -- This is first referred to by Origen 
(Hom. I, in Luc.), is identical with the Gospel of the Ebionites, 
and is also called the "Gospel according to Matthew", because in it 
Christ refers to St. Matthew in the second person, and the author 
speaks of the other Apostles and himself as "we". This Gospel was 
written before A.D. 200, and has no connection with the so-called 
Hebrew St. Matthew or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
"The Gospel according to the Egyptians", i.e. Christian countryfolk 
of Egypt, not Alexandrians. It was written about A.D. 150 and 
referred to by Clem. Alex. (Strom., III, ix, 63; xiii, 93) and 
Origen (Hom. I, in Luc), and was largely used in non-Catholic 
circles. Only small fragments are extant in Clem. Alex. (Strom. and 
Excerp. ex Theod.). Some people have referred the 
Oxyrhynchus "Logia" and the Strasburg Coptic papyri to this Gospel, 
but this is a mere guess. 
"The Gospel of Peter", written about A.D. 140 in Antioch (see 
DOCETAE).Another Petrine Gospel, see description of the Ahmin Codex. 
A "Gospel of Matthias" written about A.D. 125, used in Basilidian 
circles (see BASILIDES). 
A "Gospel of Philip" and a "Gospel of Thomas". According to the 
Pistis Sophia, the three Apostles Matthew [read Matthias], Thomas, 
and Philip received a Divine commission to report all Christ's 
revelations after His Resurrection. The Gospel of Thomas must have 
been of considerable length (1300 lines); part of it, in an 
expurgated recension, is possibly extant in the once popular, but 
vulgar and foolish, "Stories of the Infancy of Our Lord by Thomas, 
an Israelite philosopher", of which two Greek, as Latin, a Syriac, 
and a Slavonic version exist. 
"Acts of Peter" (Praxis Petrou), written about A.D. 165. Large 
fragments of this Gnostic production have been preserved to us in 
the original Greek and also in a Latin translation under the title 
of "Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Peter", to which the Latin 
adds, "a Lino episcopo conscriptum". Greater portions of this 
apocryphon are translated in the so-called "Actus Petri cum Simone", 
and likewise in Sahidic and Slavonic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions. 
These fragments have been gathered by Lipsius and Bonnet in "Acta 
apostolorum apocr." (Leipzig, 1891), I. Though these recensions of 
the "Acts of Peter" have been somewhat Catholicized, their Gnostic 
character is unmistakable, and they are of value for Gnostic 
symbolism. 
Closely connected with the "Acts of Peter" are the "Acts of Andrew" 
and the "Acts of John", which three have perhaps one and the same 
author, a certain Leucius Charinus, and were written before A.D. 
200. They have come down to us in a number of Catholic recensions 
and in different versions. For the Acts of Andrew see 
Bonnet, "Acta", as above (1898), II, 1, pp. 1-127; for "Acts of 
John", ibid., pp. 151-216. To find the primitive Gnostic form in the 
bewildering variety and multiplicity of fragments and modifications 
is still a task for scholars. 
Of paramount importance for the understanding of Gnosticism are 
the "Acts of Thomas", as they have been preserved in their entirety 
and contain the earliest Gnostic ritual, poetry, and speculation. 
They exist in two recensions, the Greek and the Syriac. It seems 
most likely, though not certain, that the original was Syriac; it is 
suggested that they were written about A.D. 232, when the relics of 
St. Thomas were translated to Edessa. Of the greatest value are the 
two prayers of Consecration, the "Ode to Wisdom" and the "Hymn of 
the Soul", which are inserted in the Syriac narrative, and which are 
wanting in the Greek Acts, though independent Greek texts of these 
passages are extant (Syriac with English translation by W. 
Wright, "Apocr. Acts of the Apost.", London, 1871). The "Hymn to the 
Soul" has been translated many times into English, especially, by A. 
Bevan, "Texts and Studies", Cambridge 1897; cf. F. Burkitt 
in "Journal of Theological Studies" (Oxford, 1900). The most 
complete edition of the Greek Acts is by M. Bonnet in "Acta", as 
above, II, 2 (Leipzig, 1903; see BARDESANES). The Acts, though 
written in the service of Gnosticism, and full of the weirdest 
adventures, are not entirely without an historical background. 
There are a number of other apocrypha in which scholars have claimed 
to find traces of Gnostic authorship, but these traces are mostly 
vague and unsatisfactory. In connection with these undoubtedly 
Gnostic apocrypha mention must be made of the Pseudo-Clementine 
Homilies. It is true that these are more often classed under 
Judaistic than under strictly Gnostic literature, but their affinity 
to Gnostic speculations is at least a first sight so close and their 
connection with the Book of Elxai (cf. ELCESAITES) so generally 
recognized that they cannot be omitted in a list of Gnostic 
writings. If the theory maintained by Dom Chapman in "The Date of 
the Clementines" (Zeitschrift f. N. Test. Wiss., 1908) and in the 
article CLEMENTINES in the Catholic Encyclopedia be correct, and 
consequently Pseudo-Clemens be a crypto-Arian who wrote A.D. 330, 
the "Homilies" might still have at least some value in the study of 
Gnosticism. But Dom Chapman's theory, though ingenious, is too 
daring and as yet too unsupported, to justify the omission of 
the "Homilies" in this place. 
A great, if not the greatest, part of Gnostic literature, which has 
been saved from the general wreck of Gnostic writings, is preserved 
to us in three Coptic codices, commonly called the Askew, the Bruce, 
and the Akhmim Codex. The Askew Codex, of the fifth of sixth 
century, contains the lengthy treatise "Pistis Sophia", i.e. Faith-
Wisdom. This is a work in four books, written between A.D. 250 and 
300; the fourth book, however, is an adaptation of an earlier work. 
The first two books describe the fall of the Æon Sophia and her 
salvation by the Æon Soter; the last two books describe the origin 
of sin and evil and the need of Gnostic repentance. In fact the 
whole is a treatise on repentance, as the last two books only 
applyin practice the example of penance set by Sophia. The work 
consists of anumber of questions and answers between Christ and His 
male and female disciples in which five "Ode of Solomon", followed 
by mystical adaptationsof the same, are inserted. As the questioning 
is mostly don by Mary, the Pistis Sophia is probably identical with 
the "Questions of Mary" mentioned above. The codex also contains 
extracts from the "Book of the Saviour". The dreary monotony of 
these writings can only be realized by those who have read them. An 
English translation of the Latin translation of the Coptic, which 
itself is a translation of the Greek, was made by G.R.S. Mead 
(London, 1896). The Bruce papyrus is of about the same date as the 
Askew vellum codex and contains two treatises: 

the two books of Jeû, the first speculative and cosmogonic, the 
second practical, viz., the overcoming of the hostile world powers 
and the securing of salvation by the practice of certain rites: this 
latter book is styled "Of the Great Logos according to the mystery". 
A treatise with unknown title, as the firstand last pages are lost. 
This work is of a purely speculative character and of great 
antiquity, written between A.D. 150 and 200 in Sethian or Archontian 
circles, and containing a reference to the prophets Marsanes, 
Nikotheus, and Phosilampes.
No complete English translations of these treatises exist; some 
passages, however, are translated in the aforesaid G.R.S. 
Mead's "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten". Both the Bruce and Askew 
Codices have been translated into German by C. Schmidt (1892) 
in "Texte u. Unters" and (1901) in the Berlin "Greek Fathers". A 
Latin translation exists of the "Pistis Sophia" by Schwartze and 
Petermann (Berlin, 1851) and a French one of the Bruce Codex by 
Amélineau (Paris, 1890). The Akhmim Codex of the fifth century, 
found in 1896, and now in the Egyptian Museum at Berlin, contains 
a "Gospel of Mary", called in the subscriptions "An Apocryphon of 
John": this Gospel must be of the highest antiquity, as St. 
Irenaeus, about A.D. 170, made use of it in his description of the 
Barbelo-Gnostics; 
a "Sophia Jesu Christi", containing revelations of Christ after His 
Resurrection; 
a "Praxis Petri", containing a fantastic relation of the miracle 
worked on Peter's daughter.
The study of Gnosticism is seriously retarded by the entirely 
unaccountable delay in the publication of these treatises; for these 
thirteen years past we possess only the brief account of this codex 
published in the "Sitzungsber. d. k. preus. Acad." (Berlin, 1896), 
pp. 839-847. 
This account of Gnostic literature would be incomplete without 
reference to a treatise commonly published amongst the works of 
Clement of Alexandria and called "Excerpta ex Theodoto". It consists 
of a number of Gnostic extracts made by Clement for his own use with 
the idea of future refutation; and, with Clement's notes and remarks 
on the same, form a very confusing anthology. See O. 
Bibelius, "Studien zur Gesch. der Valent." in "Zeitschr. f. N. Nest. 
Wiss." (Giessen, 1908). 

Oriental non-Christian Gnosticism has left us the sacred books of 
the Mandaeans, viz., 

the "Genzâ rabâ" or "Great Treasure", a large collectionof 
miscellaneous treatises of different date, some as late, probably, 
asthe ninth, some as early, perhaps, as the third century. The Genzâ 
was translated into Latin, by Norberg (Copenhagen, 1817), and the 
most important treatises into German, by W. Brandt (Leipzig, 1892). 
Kolasta, Hymns and Instructions on baptism and the journey of the 
soul, published in Mandaean by J. Euting (Stuttgart, 1867). 
Drâshê d'Jahya, a biography of John the Baptist "ab utero useque ad 
tumulum" -- as Abraham Echellensis puts it -- not published.
Alexandrian non-Christian Gnosticism is perceptible in Trismegistic 
literature, published in English translation by G.R.S. Mead (London 
and Benares, 1902, three volumes). Specifically Jewish Gnosticism 
left no literature, but Gnostic speculations have an echo in several 
Jewish works, such as the Book of Enoch, the Zohar the Talmudic 
treatise Chagiga XV. See Gförer, "Philo", Vol. I, and 
Karppe, "Etudes sur. ore. nat. d. Zohar" (Paris, 1901). 
REFUTATION OF GNOSTICISM
From the first Gnosticism met with the most determined opposition 
from the Catholic Church. The last words of the aged St. Paul in his 
First Epistle to Timothy are usually taken as referring to 
Gnosticism, which is described as "Profane novelties of words and 
oppositions of knowledge falsely so called [antitheseis tes 
pseudonomou gnoseos -- the antitheses of so-called Gnosis] which 
some professing have erred concerning the faith". Most probably St. 
Paul's use of the terms pleroma, the æon of this world, the archon 
of the power of the air, in Ephesians and Colossians, was suggested 
by the abuse of these terms by the Gnostics. Other allusions to 
Gnosticism in the New Testament are possible, but cannot be proven, 
such as Tit., iii, 9; I Tim., iv, 3; I John, iv, 1-3. The first anti-
Gnostic writer was St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165). His "Syntagma" 
(Syntagma kata pason ton gegenemenon aireseon), long thought lost, 
is substantially contained in the "Libellus adv. omn. haeres.", 
usually attached to Tertullian's "De Praescriptione"; such at least 
is the thesis of J. Kunze (1894) which is largely accepted. Of St. 
Justin's anti-Gnostic treatise on the Resurrection (Peri anastaseos) 
considerable fragments are extant in Methodius' "Dialogue on the 
Resurrection" and in St. John Damascene's "Sacra Parellela". St. 
Justin's "Comendium against Marcion", quoted by St. Irenaeus (IV, 
vi, 2; V, xxvi, 2), is possibly identical with his Syntagma". 
Immediately after St. Justin, Miltiades, a Christian philosopher of 
Asia Minor, is mentioned by Tertullian and Hippolytus (Adv. Valent., 
v, and Eus., H.E., V., xxviii, 4) as having combated the Gnostics 
and especially the Valentinians. His writings are lost. Theophilus 
of Antioch (d. c. 185) wrote against the heresy of Hermogenes, and 
also an excellent treatise against Marcion (kata Markionos Logos). 
The book against Marcion is probably extant in the "Dialogus de 
rectâ in Deum fide" of Pseudo-Origen. For Agrippa Castor see 
BASILIDES. Hegesippus, a Palestinian, traveled by way of Corinth to 
Rome, where he arrived under Anicetus (155-166), to ascertain the 
sound and orthodox faith from Apostolic tradition. He met many 
bishops on his way, who all taught the same faith and in Rome he 
made a list of the popes from Peter to Anicetus. In consequence he 
wrote five books of Memoirs (Upomnemata) "in a most simple style, 
giving the true tradition of Apostolic doctrine", becoming "a 
champion of the truth against the godless heresies" (Eus., H.E., IV, 
vii sqq., xxi sqq.). Of this work only a few fragments remain, and 
these are historical rather than theological. Rhodon, a disciple of 
Tatian, Philip, Bishop of Gortyna in Crete, and a certain Modestus 
wrote against Marcion, but their writings are lost. Irenaeus (Adv., 
Haer., I, xv, 6) and Epiphanius (xxxiv, 11) quote a short poem 
against the Oriental Valentinians and the conjuror Marcus by "an 
aged" but unknown author; and Zachaeus, Bishop of Caesarea, is said 
to have written against the Valentinians and especially Ptolemy. 

Beyond all comparison most important is the great anti-Gnostic work 
of St. Irenaeus, Elegchos kai anatrope tes psudonymou gnoseos, 
usually called "Adversus Haereses". It consists of five books, 
evidently not written at one time; the first three books about A.D. 
180; the last two about a dozen years later. The greater part of the 
first book has come down to us in the original Greek, the rest in a 
very ancient and anxiously close Latin translation, and some 
fragments in Syriac. St. Irenaeus knew the Gnostics from personal 
intercourse and from their own writings and gives minute 
descriptions of their systems, especially of the Valentinians and 
Barbelo-Gnostics. A good test of how St. Irenaeus employed his 
Gnostic sources can be made by comparing the newly found "Evangelium 
Mariae" with Adv. Haer., I, xxiv. Numerous attempts to discredit 
Irenaeus as a witness have proved failures (see SAINT IRENAEUS). 
Besides his great work, Irenaeus wrote an open letter to the Roman 
priest Florinus, who thought of joining the Valentinians; and when 
the unfortunate priest had apostatized, and had become a Gnostic, 
Irenaeus wrote on his account a treatise "On the Ogdoad", and also a 
letter to Pope Victor, begging him to use his authority against him. 
Only a few passages of these writings are extant. Eusebius (H.E., 
IV, xxiii, 4) mentions a letter of Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170) to 
the Nicomedians, in which he attacks the heresy of Marcion. The 
letter is not extant. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) only 
indirectly combated Gnosticism by defending the true Christian 
Gnosis, especially in "Paedagogos", Bk. I, "Stromateis", Bk. II, 
III, V, and in the so-called eighth book or "Excerpta ex Theodoto". 
Origen devoted no work exclusively to the refutation of Gnosticism 
but his four books "On First Principles" (Peri archon), written 
about the year 230, and preserved to us only in some Greek fragments 
and a free Latin translation by Rufinus, is practically a refutation 
of Gnostic dualism, Doectism, and Emanationism. About the year 300 
an unknown Syrian author, sometimes erroneously identified with 
Origen, and often called by the literary pseudonym Adamantius, 
or "The Man of Steel", wrote a long dialogue of which the title is 
lost, but which is usually designated by the words, "De rectâ in 
Deum fide". This dialogue, usually divided into five books, contains 
discussions with representatives of two sects of Marcionism, of 
Valentinianism, and of Bardesanism. The writer plagiarizes 
extensively from Theophilus of Antioch and Methodius of Olympus, 
especially the latter's anti-Gnostic dialogue "On Free Will" (Peri 
tou autexousiou). 

The greatest anti-Gnostic controversialist of the early Christian 
Church is Tertullian (b. 169), who practically devoted his life to 
combating this dreadful sum of all heresies. We need but mention the 
titles of his anti-Gnostic works: "De Praescriptione 
haereticorum"; "Adversus Marcionem"; a book "Adversus 
Valentinianos"; "Scorpiace"; "De Carne Christi"; "De Resurrectione 
Carnis"; and finally "Adversus Praxeam". A storehouse of information 
rather than a refutation is the great work of Hippolytus, written 
some time after A.D. 234, once called "Philosophoumena" and ascribed 
to Origen, but since the discovery of Books IV-X, in 1842, known by 
the name if its true author and its true title, "Refutation of All 
Heresies" (katapason aireseon elegchos) The publication of the Athos 
Codex by E. Miller (Oxford, 1851) revolutionized the study of 
Gnosticism and rendered works published previous to that date 
antiquated and almost worthless. To students of Gnosticism this work 
is as indispensable as that of St. Irenaeus. There is an English 
translation by J. MacMahon in "The Ante-Nicene Library" (Edinburgh, 
1868). Hippolytus tried to prove that all Gnosticism was derived 
from heathen philosophy; his speculations may be disregarded, but, 
as he was in possession of a great number of Gnostic writings from 
which he quotes, his information is priceless. As he wrote nearly 
fifty years after St. Irenaeus, whose disciple he had been, he 
describes a later development of Gnosis than the Bishop of Lyons. 
Besides his greater work, Hippolytus wrote, many years previously 
(before 217), a small compendium against all heresies, giving a list 
of the same, thirty-two in number, from Dositheus to Noetus; also a 
treatise against Marcion. 

As, from the beginning of the fourth century, Gnosticism was in 
rapid decline, there was less need of champions of orthodoxy, hence 
there is a long interval between Adamantius's dialogue and St. 
Epiphanius's "Panarion", begun in the year 374. St. Epiphanius, who 
is his youth was brought into closest contact with Gnostic sects in 
Egypt, and especially the Phibionists, and perhaps even, as some 
hold, belonged to this sect himself, is still a first-class 
authority. With marvelous industry he gathered information on all 
sides, but his injudicious and too credulous acceptance of many 
details can hardly be excused. Philastrius of Brescia, a few years 
later (383), gave to the Latin Church what St. Epiphanius had given 
to the Greek. He counted and described no fewer than one hundred and 
twenty-eight heresies, but took the word in a somewhat wide and 
vague sense. Though dependent on the "Syntagma" of Hippolytus, his 
account is entirely independent of that of Epiphanius. Another Latin 
writer, who probably lived in the middle of the fifth century in 
Southern Gaul, and who is probably identical with Arnobius the 
Younger, left a work, commonly called "Praedestinatus", consisting 
of three books, in the first of which he describes ninety heresies 
from Simon Magus to the Praedestinationists. This work unfortunately 
contains many doubtful and fabulous statements. Some time after the 
Council of Chalcedon (451) Theodoret wrote a "Compendium of 
Heretical Fables" which is of considerable value for the history of 
Gnosticism, because it gives in a very concise and objective way the 
history of the heresies since the time of Simon Magus. St. 
Augustine's book "De Haeresibus" (written about 428) is too 
dependent on Philastrius and Ephiphanius to be of much value. 
Amongst anti-Gnostic writers we must finally mention the neo-
Platonist Plotinus (d. A.D. 270), who wrote a treatise "Against the 
Gnostics". These were evidently scholars who frequented his 
collegia, but whose Oriental and fantastic pessimism was 
irreconcilable with Plotinus's views. 

CONCLUSION
The attempt to picture Gnosticism as a mighty movement of the human 
mind towards the noblest and highest truth, a movement in some way 
parallel to that of Christianity, has completely failed. It has been 
abandoned by recent unprejudiced scholars such as W. Bousset and O. 
Gruppe, and it is to be regretted that it should have been renewed 
by an English writer, G.R.S. Mead, in "Fragments of a Faith 
Forgotten", an unscholarly and misleading work, which in English-
speaking countries may retard the sober and true appreciation of 
Gnosticism as it was in historical fact. Gnosticism was not an 
advance, it was a retrogression. It was born amidst the last throes 
of expiring cults and civilizations in Western Asia and Egypt. 
Though hellenized, these countries remained Oriental and Semitic to 
the core. This Oriental spirit -- Attis of Asia Minor, Istar of 
Babylonia, Isis of Egypt, with the astrological and cosmogonic lore 
of the Asiatic world -- first sore beset by Ahuramazda in the East, 
and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness of Jesus Christ in the 
West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism and 
Christianity with itself. It tried to do for the East what Neo-
Platonism tried to do for the West. During at least two centuries it 
was a real danger to Christianity, though not so great as some 
modern writers would make us believe, as if the merest breath might 
have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as against orthodox, 
Christianity. Similar things are said of Mithraism and neo-Platonism 
as against the religion of Jesus Christ. But these sayings have more 
piquancy than objective truth. Christianity survived, and not 
Gnosticism, because the former was the fittest -- immeasurably, nay 
infinitely, so. Gnosticism died not by chance, but because it lacked 
vital power within itself; and no amount of theosophistic 
literature, flooding English and German markets, can give life to 
that which perished from intrinsic and essential defects. It is 
striking that the two earliest champions of Christianity against 
Gnosticism -- Hegesippus and Irenaeus -- brought out so clearly the 
method of warfare which alone was possible, but which also alone 
sufficed to secure the victory in the conflict, a method which 
Tertullian some years later scientifically explained in his "De 
Praescriptione". Both Hegesippus and Irenaeus proved that Gnostic 
doctrines did not belong to that deposit of faith which was taught 
by the true succession of bishops in the primary sees of 
Christendom; both in triumphant conclusion drew up a list of the 
Bishops of Rome, from Peter to the Roman bishop of their day; as 
Gnosticism was not taught by that Church with which the Christians 
everywhere must agree, it stood self-condemned. A just verdict on 
the Gnostics is that of O. Gruppe (Ausführungen, p. 162): the 
circumstances of the period gave them a certain importance. But a 
living force they never were, either in general history or in the 
history of Christendom. Gnosticism deserves attention as showing 
what mention dispositions Christianity found in existence, what 
obstacles it had to overcome to maintain its own life; but "means of 
mental progress it never was". 

--- In ppiindia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "fauziah swasono" <fauherklots@...> 
wrote:
>
> Mbah Danar ysh,
> 
> Beberapa hari yl saya membaca edisi cetak National Geographic May
> 2006. Salah satu artikel utamanya adalah ttg The Judas Gospel.
> Ternyata ada juga di websitesnya:
> http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/
> 
> Mungkin Mbah Danar sudah membaca?
> 
> Menarik juga bagi saya yang lagi pengen tahu. Bahwa perjalanan 
sejarah
> testamen juga dipengaruhi oleh intrik politik dan kekuasaan (ini
> fenomena umum dimana2, bukan cuma di agama Kristen/Katolik). 
> 
> Sebagai salah satu yang paham mengenai keKristenan, kalau Mbah 
Danar
> berkenan, saya pengen diceritain nih.. Intinya saya ingin tahu
> pendapat mBah pada hal2 ini:
> 
> 1. Jika gospel Judas tsb bisa dianggap otentik, maka apakah ide 
bahwa
> Judas adalah murid terbaik Jesus (melaksanakan perintah Jesus) bisa
> diterima? Mengapa?
> 
> 2. Jika mis. jawaban no 1 adalah iya, maka apa dampaknya bagi 
ajaran
> agama Kristen? Saya kira cukup besar perubahannya, terutama yang
> berkaitan dg makna salvation. 
> 
> 3. Apakah masih terjadi argumen2 untuk membuka kemungkinan bahwa
> testamen baru tidak hanya 4 seperti yang dikenal sekarang? 
misalnya dg
> mempertimbangkan adanya gospel Thomas, gospel Mary, dan gospel 
Peter?
> 
> 4. Seperti apakah Christian Gnosticism itu? apakah masih ada 
sekarang?
> bagaimanakah sikap mainstream Christian skrg thd Gnosticim ini?
> 
> Itu dulu Mbah.. maaf kalau ada salah kata. Saya tidak bermaksud
> berdebat agama. Saya cuma pengen tahu saja. Saya juga bertanya2 
pada
> bbrp teman Kristiani saya yang lain, tapi mereka anak2 muda yang
> ilmunya pastilah tidak semumpuni Mbah.
> 
> Kenapa saya tertarik, karena sepanjang yg saya pahami sbg muslim, 
kami
> percaya bahwa Nabi Isa A.S. tidak disalib. Ternyata di Second
> Discourse of Great Seth ada juga pernyataan ini (yg pasti
> kontroversial). Maaf, sekali lagi bukan mau berdebat kusir, kalau 
bagi
> Mbah pernyataan saya tsb menyinggung, maka anggap saja Nabi Isa 
yang
> saya sebut tidak sama dg (=/) Jesus. Itu cuma salah satu alasan
> mengapa saya tertarik bertanya soal ini pada Mbah.
> 
> Kalau bersedia menjawab, terima kasih ya Mbah.
> 
> salam spring (moga2 anget...),
> 
> fau
>






***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg 
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:

1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi 
4. Satu email perhari: ppiindia-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. No-email/web only: ppiindia-nomail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6. kembali menerima email: ppiindia-normal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ppiindia-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


** Forum Nasional Indonesia PPI India Mailing List **
** Untuk bergabung dg Milis Nasional kunjungi: 
** Situs Milis: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ **
** Beasiswa dalam negeri dan luar negeri S1 S2 S3 dan post-doctoral 
scholarship, kunjungi 
http://informasi-beasiswa.blogspot.com **

Other related posts: