GNOSTIC ORIGINS

BY
R. McL.

WILSON

In a recent contribution
(V.C. viii. 220) R. A. Markus criticised
in passing the view maintained
by F. C. Burkitt, that Valentinus
Christians.
and his fellows were fundamentally
to
According
"The
Christian
Gnostics
now
in
a
much
Markus,
great
appear
to christianise radically Greek
clearer light as men who attempted
and Oriental religion, rather than, as used to be fashionable
to
hold, doing the reverse". In a footnote he adds: "As late as 1932
to
Burkitt wrote: 'The various forms of gnosticism are attempts
and express the ordinary
in
formulate
terms
and
Christianity
categories which suited the science and philosophy of the
and further, that "Burkitt's
view that gnosticism was an essentially
2
was
endorsed
Christian heresy
by Casey as 'undoubtedly
right"'.2
It may however be questioned if this is altogether fair to Burkitt,
or to Casey, and a fresh -examination
of the writings in question
to
confirm
the
To
in a single sentence
serves
doubt.
summarise
only
the argument of a book, or even of an article, is almost inevitably
to distort it, since it is wellnigh impossible to convey the author's
full position. Burkitt did quite frankly uphold the old-fashioned
view, but he did so for a purpose, and within certain limits.3
of Valentinus
Moreover his vindication
of the essential Christianity
the
comment
is accepted as convincing
C.
H.
Dodd.4
by
Again,
made by Markus does not do justice to Casey's careful and balauced
survey of the Gnostic problem. It may be added that criticism of

194
this single point of detail in an ari ;clr' -xtending over thirty pages
is by no means a disparagement
of Markus' contribution
as a whole.
It has been said with truth that "The rise and spread of Gnosticism forms one of the dimmest chapters in Church history",5 and
the character and origins of the movement have been much debated.
The traditional
theory saw in Gnosticism a "Christian deviation",
but already in 1909 Robert Law could write "One fact is clear,
was not, in the proper sense, a 'heresy'. Although it
Gnosticism
influence within the Church, it was an alien
became a corrupting
of Oriental
Gnosticism
is the "result of an irruption
by birth' . 1
world", and consequently
religious beliefs into the Graeco-Roman
"sought to unite in itself two diverse strains, Western intellectuThe point at issue then was simply
alism and Eastern mysticism".
as the stock on
which of these two strains was to be regarded
which the other was grafted. On the one hand, certain scholars
tended to glorify Gnosticism by giving the chief prominence to its
aspect. "The great Gnostics were the first Christian
philosophical
and Gnosticism is to be regarded as, upon the whole,
philosophers;
a progressive
force." To other writers, however, "by much the
in this singular hybrid was Oriental Dualism ...
strain
prepotent
than a progressive
It is far truer to call Gnosticism a reactionary
its
most
eminent
leaders
the
last
and
force,
upholders of a lost
of intellectual
cause, rather than the advance-guard
progress."
Casey's review of the subject is slightly different: the prevailing
that "the essence of Gnosticism
view "from Irenaeus to Harnack",
too
of
to Christiin
the
drastic
Greek philosophy
application
lay
is
criticised
as
at
once
too
narrow
and
too
elastic?
On the
anity",
other hand, the view that Gnosticism is essentially
Oriental "has
to meet the difficulty that there is no evidence that the mythologies
Persia and Egypt underwent
of Babylonia,
such a transformation

195
as would have been necessary to bring them into line with Gnosticin the Hellenistic meltingism". In spite, of "some amalgamation
cults still bear unmistakable
traces of their
pot", the Oriental
in
contrast
to
the
Gnostic
theories.
In point of
sharp
origins,
to
"all
define
Gnosticism
have
darkened
counsel by
fact,
attempts
one
of
some
at
the
aspect
particular
systems
emphasizing
expense
of the wide variety of interests and speculations
and fancies found
'n the evidence".8
It is at this point that Casey "endorses"
the view of Burkitt:
in
"Professor Burkitt is undoubtedly
right
saying that 'the several
are
best
understood
when
considered as Christian
(Gnostic) systems
however
aberrant"'.
as
a matter
Burkitt
of fact was
systems,
of
the
who
are
Gnostics
known
to
us from the
writing primarily
and Hippolytus:
"The Gnostics come before
works of Irenaeus
us historically as Christians".9 The first condition of rightly regarding such teachers as Valentinus and Basilides is "to consider them
as Christians who were striving to set forth the living essence of
their Religion in a form uncontaminated
by the Jewish envelope
in which they had received it, and expressed in terms more suited
and philosophy
of their
(as they might say) to the cosmogony
also says "the
enlightened
age".1 On the other hand, Burkitt
that
theology of the higher Paganism had become so enlightened
it is an open question whether the theological ideas of the Hermetic
of Christian
ideas"."
writings are, or are not, independent
at
of
the
is
a question of
that
It may be
least
part
problem
definition. As Casey says, "Gnosticism is a modern, not an ancient
and "its use has frequently
obscured more than it has
category",
illuminated
the picture of early Christianity".12
But behind it
"a group of theologians
he sees a definite historical reality:
and
their
to
sects characterised
(a) by
(b) by
obligations
Christianity,
the autonomous
quality of their systems which made them rivals
rather than modifiers of it in points of
of orthodox
Christianity
detail, and (c) by a demand for theological
novelty which their

196
have obscured but not
frequent
appeals to a remote antiquity
concealed".
As Dodd has pointed out, "there is a sense in which orthodox
like Clement of Alexandria
and Origen, on
Christian theologians
the one hand, and Hellenistic Jews like Philo, and pagan writers
like the Hermetists,
on the other, should be called Gnostics".13
Among British scholars, on the other hand, the term has commonly
been used in a more restricted sense, in Dodd's words "as a label
for a large and somewhat
amorphous
group of religious systems
described
Irenaeus
and
in their works against
by
Hippolytus
and
similar
from
other sources".14
known
Heresy,
systems
that
and Casey have
It will be immediately
Burkitt
apparent
both employed the word in the narrower sense. It will be apparent
-tiso that the scope for misunderstanding
and confusion is consideris not kept in mind. There is in fact a real
able, if this distinction
need for a greater clarity and precision in the use of the term, and
it would seem therefore advisable to divide the field. In a general
We have on the one hand
way, three stages ; an be distinguished.
the precursors of Gnosticism (in the narrower sense) in Philo and,
it would seem, in Jewish groups of a more or less heterodox character,
including possibly the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls.l5 At the
other extreme we have such systems as Manicheism and Mandeism,
influences seem definitely to be present but
in which "Gnostic"
which are probably to be regarded as more or less distinct. Between
these two extremes we have the Gnosticism opposed by Irenaeus
and Hippolytus, which came into full flourish in the second century
of the Hermetica. 16 AccordA.D., and also the pagan "Gnosticism"

197
ressemblances
avec
ing to Nock, the latter "offrent de frappantes
but he adds "Ce phenomaints 6crits du gnosticisme, chr6tien",
mene parait du, non pas un emprunt direct, mais au fait qu'ils
ensemble d'un meme fonds intellectuel
et r6pondent

d6pendent
des besoins analogues de la sensibilit6 de 1'6poque".11 In other
words both, to say the least, have a common background
in the
of
the
Hellenistic
world.
characteristic
syncretism
At this point reference may be made to certain questions which
One of them is clearly posed in Quispel's
seem to demand attention.
"Dass die Gnosis im Wesen und Ursprung
statement
epigrammatic
nichtchristlich
ist, wird immer klarer; ob sie aber auch vorchristlich
ist, muss noch bewiesen werden" ;lg but in addition to the question
of
clearly posed, two others at least are latent. An examination
these questions may serve to clear the ground, and prepare the
way for advance.
In the first place, in what sense is Gnosticism to be considered
un-Christian ?
From what has been said above it will be obvious
that approach to the problems of Gnosticism in the last-half century
or more has followed two main lines. As Dodd puts it: "On the
as varying
one hand, the typical Gnostic systems are regarded
on
the
who
in
intention
at
least
of
part
accepted
attempts,
people
and refundamental
Christian
beliefs, to expand,
supplement
interpret those beliefs in terms acceptable to the thinking religious
public of the time. On the other hand, Gnosticism is regarded as
and originally indea religious movement older than Christianity,
of
from
the
outset
it, which, being
pendent
syncretistic in character,
its
ideas
into
systems as those beliefs
readily adopted Christian
became known to the wider public",19
are commonly
associated
These two main lines of approach
the
and
the
wider
definition
of the
with
narrower
respectively
terms Gnostic and Gnosticism, but it may be asked if the two
points of view are of necessity mutually exclusive. To quote Dodd
again, "If we ask, Did the Gnostics consider themselves Christians
the answer would seem to be that some did and some did not".2o

198
In other words the solution lies not in a choice between alternatives
but in the recognition
that there is truth on both sides. Historithe
Gnostics
come
before us as Christian
heretics, but in
cally
of
of
a
are
fact
features
"Gnostic"
to
be
found beyond
point
type
the limits of purely Christian Gnosticism,
and such other systems
must also be taken into consideration
so far as they are relevant.
The problem is: are these features evidence for the existence of a
or merely for certain aspects of Hellenistic
pagan Gnosticism,
which
Gnosticism
has adopted, and possibly overstressed?
thought
On the other hand, it would seem to be clear that we can no
since there is no
longer speak in general terms of "Gnosticism",
formula
which
will
cover
all
the
Gnostic systems.
single
adequately
There is indeed a certain common element, a common background,
and there are certain common ideas, but it is doubtful if we are
definitions
as "the acute
justified in using such comprehensive
of Christianity"
or "the radical Christianisation
Hellenisation
of
Greek and Oriental religion". We shall have to consider particular
systems, for which these definitions may be valid. To apply them
to "Gnosticism"
as a whole is to cloud the issue.
At the same time, Quispel's statement
is certainly valid, at least
to this extent, that Gnosticism is fundamentally
un-Christian.
The
truth of this statement
becomes immediately
when
we
apparent
consider the various systems, for whether we regard these teachers
their faith to Hellenistic
as Christians who sought to accommodate
who
to
assimilate
into
or as pagans
sought
Christianity
thought,
a pagan system of belief, the final outcome is certainly not the
faith once delivered to the saints.
The second question is much more difficult, and indeed it may
be impossible to reach a solution. It may be readily admitted that
im Wesens, but is it also so im Ursprung ?
Gnosticism is un-Christian
As Markus observes, the discovery of the Gnostic library at Nag
Hammadi in 1945 has made it clear that the movement with which
we are dealing was something much wider than a Christian heresy. 21
as a world-religion,
Professor Quispel has written of Gnosticism
as a broad. stream flowing through
late antiquity
side by side

199
with Greek philosophy
and with Christianity.22
But are we justified in thinking, at least in the early stages, of anything so definite
as a religion? There would seem to be something
in favour of
"an atmosphere,
H. R. Mackintosh's
comment:
rather than a
To be more specific, it may be suggested that Gnosticism
systems
is possibly to be regarded as a trend in Hellenistic
syncretism.
The Gnostic systems, in the narrower sense of the term, are the
product of a fusion, whether by Christians or by pagans, of Christianity and Hellenistic thought. They represent in one form or anin terms of contemporary
of Christianity
other a re-interpretation
ideas. The general background
is very much the same as that of
Philo and the Hermetica,
with whom these systems have many
things in common. But the very variety of the Gnostic systems
must surely give rise to doubt as to the existence before the coming
of anything we may truly call a movement.
What
of Christianity
made its appearance
in the
is certain is that when Christianity
world it very soon came into contact with what
Graeco-ttoman
has been called "the higher paganism". 24
Duncan rejects as "a gratuitous
the view that in
assumption"
the
had
to
Galatians
Paul
to
contend
with
opponents of a
writing
Gnostic type.25 The First Epistle to the Corinthians,
however,
"does reveal into how congenial a soil the seeds of Gnosticism were
about to fav".* In Colossians and the Pastorals
there are indications that attempts
at assimilation
had been made which were
a danger to the Christian faith, while the
such as to constitute
Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John have a more definitely
Gnostic teaching in view. 27 At the beginning of the second century
Ignatius finds it necessary to combat teaching of a Docetic tenthat the "heresy"
dency,28 but it is only later in the century
reaches its height. By the time of Irenaeus certainly Gnosticism
had developed
into a movement.
Cnostic
Able and influential

200
leaders had gathered
and
groups of disciples, who propagated
sometimes
modified the teachings
of their master. But are we
justified in reading back the situation of the second century into
the first, and speaking of a Gnostic movement
of
independent
and prior to Christianity? 1
the question from another angle, we find an inciApproaching
in Asia Minor in the Epistle to the Colossians
Gnosticism
pient
and in the Book of the Revelation.29
In Syria we have Simon
and
while
in
Palestine
it
others,
Magus
may be that we shall have
to include the Essenes.3 The chief centre from which Gnostic
theories came appears however to be Egypt, which would seem also
to be the region in which the movement enjoyed its longest lease
of life. Once again, are we to think of a single movement
which
in
and
thence
to
the
or
of a
one
others,
spread
began
locality
number of similar but possibly unrelated
outbreaks? 1
The difficulty here arises from the nature of our sources, which
a genealogy
are not sufficient to allow us to construct
of the
Gnostic sects. We know something
of the modifications
in the
Valentinian
system made by the two branches into which that
school was later divided, and it may be that the Nag Hammadi
documents will provide the material for a study of the development
of the Gnostic literature
in another sect.31 It is of interest that
and
also some Hermetica,
are included in
Valentinian
writings,
the library of a Sethian group,32 but we are not yet in a position
between the different groups. In this
to trace the relationships
the early publication
of all the new material
is an
connection
need.
urgent
We have already touched upon the question directly posed by
Quispel, which indeed is closely bound up with the question we
have been discussing. If no evidence can be found for a Gnostic
of Christianity,
then clearly the question
movement
independent
Gnosticism does not arise. Here it is important
of a pre-Christian
that we should be careful in defining our terms, and that we should

201
distinguish what is specifically Gnostic from what is merely common
Hellenistic
theory.
Again, it is possible to trace the ultimate
of
sources
Gnostic ideas in the religions of Egypt and
particular
and Persia, but we are not here concerned with roots
Babylonia
of Gnosticism is a certain combiso far back. What is distinctive
nation of these elements, and the primary task must be to trace
this combination
to its source.
of
Here also everything
points to the characteristic
syncretism
the Hellenistic Age. The evidence of the New Testament
justifies
the provisional
in
Gnosticism
dating of the origins of Christian
the middle of the first century, in the contact of Christianity
with
"the higher paganism".
The failure of eschatology
to which Burkitt
draws attention
have
been
a
factor.
As Knox
may
contributory
"Paul
was
faced
with
the
the
of
says,
necessity
reconstructing
if
he
was
to
to
the
world"
33
intellect of the Gentile
appeal
Gospel,
The same may fairly be said of the Church as a whole, so far as
it was concerned to meet the needs of the contemporary
world.
But whether we can penetrate further back, and trace the existence
of an independent
remains to be seen.
movement,
Friedlander
at the end of last century endeavoured
to prove the
existence of a pre-Christian
Jewish Gnosticism, but his theory did
not meet with general acceptance.34 Some thirty years later Thomas
traced the history of the Palestinian Baptist sects from the beginning
as far as Mandeism.?
Here there are definite traces of a "Gnostic"
of
if these are sufficient
but
it may be questioned
type
thought,
to prove the existence of a movement
of and prior
independent
to Christianity.
More recently the whole question has been reopened by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The sect to whom
these scrolls belonged is generally
identified
with the Essenes,
this
identification
is
although
disputed
by Schoeps and others.36

202
More important
for present purposes is the fact that Schoeps now
claims the existence of a pre-Christian
Jewish Gnosticism.3'
"Die
des Mythos vom descensus angelorum in Genesia 6,
Dogmatisierung
durch den nach ebionitischer
die Damonen
und der
Auslegung
Fiirst der Finsternis
von Gott zur Machtausiibung
zugelassen
wurden, ist der Ursprung der judischen Gnosis, die von den Dead
Sea Scrolls bis zum Sohar reicht.""
"Die Gemeinde, die uns in
den Rollen vom Toten Meer und in der Damaskus-schrift
entgegentritt, die Essaer von Philo und Josephus, die Ossaer des Epiphanius,
die Johannesjiinger
und die Ebioniten
als die Nachkommen
der
Jerusalemer
sind
als
sie
iber
den
Jordan
samtlich,
Urgemeinde
eines apokalyptisch-gnostischen
Judengingen, zu Reprasentanten
tum geworden".39
The possibility of some relationship
between Gnosticism and the
Dead Sea Scrolls will certainly
but this
require investigation,4

203
cannot be considered
question
fully here. Certain considerations
in the first place, Schoeps seems
however may be mentioned:
right in rejecting any suggestion of Iranian influenee.41 The ultimate
source of certain elements may be Iranian, but as already observed
combination
of ideas. In this case
we are looking for a particular
and
a
Judaism
which had made
the intermediary
was Judaism,
its own. On the other
the borrowed
elements characteristically
hand it must be asked if we have to do with a specifically Jewish
Goost; :-ism, or with certain Jewish ideas which the Gnostics later
appears
adopted. The myth of the descensus ;ngelorum admittedly
in the Gnostic systems. An allegorical interpretation
of it is found
in Jewish apocalyptic
in Philo, and it is employed
writings.42
in some way
That the Gnostics derived the myth from Judaism
or other is certain; that it was already employed in a pre-Christian
Jewish Gnosticism
is not so clear. It is sometimes
difficult to
draw a sharp line between apocalyptic
and Gnosticism,
but the
effort must be made. A sufficient explanation
well
be that
may
and
like
of
the type
Judaism,
apocalyptic
"gnostic"
thinking
by Philo, is to be regarded as another of the precursors
represented
of Gnosticism.43 In other words, we have to distinguish
between
a type of thought
which is definitely
Gnostic and one which is
similar to Gnosticism but not to be identified with it. This of course
raises again the problem of definition: what essentially is
Gnosticism ? Simply as a matter of practical convenience,
it would seem
advisable to restrict the field as far as possible. The similarities
which may be found outside our limits may be recognised,
they
of
in
"Is
service
our
but
we
must
ask
may prove
study,
always
or merely something
this Gnosticism,
like it?" It is well known
that some of the early Fathers use language and forms of expression
which in a later age would have rendered them liable to a charge

204
of heresy. If an early Father is rightly not to be branded as an
Arian for employing
"Arian"
terminology
long before Arianism
was ever heard of, so also, it may be suggested, Philo and others
are not properly to be called Gnostics.44 Admittedly
we can trace
in their writings the seeds of later theories, but the seed is not the
plant. Otherwise Heraclitus and the Stoics would have to be called
Christians because of the later development
of the Logos doctrine!
In the light of what has already been said it will be clear that
the existence
of a pre-Christian
remains
a
Gnostic movement
in
but
the
state
of
our
it
is
no
more
possibility,
present
knowledge
than a possibility. It is indeed probable that the evidence advanced
in favour of a pre-Christian
Gnosticism should be regarded rather
What is certain is that Gnosticism
as evidence of a "pre-Gnosis".
as we know it is primarily the result of the contact of Christianity
with the Hellenistic
world. It is reported
that in some of the
documents
from Nag Hammadi
the Christian
element
is very
slight,45 and indeed it would appear that at least in one case we
have evidence of a Christianising
redaction
of an older pagan
work.46 "Der Forscher hat den Eindruck",
says Quispel, "dass dies
auch bei andern Schriften
immer wieder der Fall gewesen ist,
dass Offenbarungen,
die ursprfnglich
dem Grossen Seth oder
in den
einem andern
Christus
Offenbarungstriiger
angehbrten,
Mund gelegt werden".47 This, as Quispel claims, would be of
immense importance,
as proving that Gnosticism was not Christian
ohne griindliche
but pagan in origin. "Es ist aber vorschnell,
zu
Kenntnis des ganzen Materials solche folgenschwere
Folgerungen
ziehen ...
Es muss dabei bleiben, dass die Leute, denen diese

205
Schriften geh6rten, sich mehr oder weniger als Christen gebarden
und vorlaufig als christliche Haretiker betrachtet werden mussen".?
in origin,
Moreover, if Gnosticism were thus proved un-Christian
it would remain to be shown that it was also pre-Christian.
Dodd has set out three "more or less certain facts" : 49 first,
known to us which can with any
there is no Gnostic document
be dated before the period of the New Testashow of probability
ment. Secondly, the typical Gnostic systems all combine in various
ideas derived from Christianity
with ideas
ways and proportions
which can be shown to be derived from, or at least to have affinities
traditions.
And thirdly, the
with, other religious or philosophical
various Gnostic systems differ widely in the way in which they
and combine these disparate
elements.
introduce
These three facts sum up our present knowledge, although the
second, as has been indicated,
may require some modification
from the Nag
should proof of a pagan Gnosticism be forthcoming
Hammadi texts. At the moment we can trace Gnosticism back to
what Casey called "the Hellenistic melting-pot",
but further back
we cannot go. Attempts to recover earlier sources are so far entirely
But we can ask if there is any particular
speculative.
community
world which may have made a special contriin the Hellenistic
of Gnosticism.
bution to the development
"As compared with the Hermetica",
says Dodd, "and even with
Philo, the Gnostic systems are generally speaking less Hellenic,
more oriental, and certainly much more addicted to mythology".50
This verdict is confirmed by Walter Till's comparison of the Coptic
texts which were known before the Nag Hammadi
discovery.51
Till finds it possible to arrange these documents
chronologically,
of doctrine
in the school in
and so to trace the development
war die gnostische
auf
question.
"Ursprunglich
Weltanschauung
Sie
sollte
die
aufgebaut.
philosophischer
Grundlage
?'rage.n bewie
die
wie
trotz
Welt
Gottes
Giite
das Bbse
antworten,
entstand,
in die Welt kam, und wie sich der Mensch davon befreien kann".
A later generation
however was not concerned with these basic

206
"Wenn man aber die Darstellung
der Entfaltung
des
questions.
Alls nicht mehr als Beantwortung
der grossen Grundfragen
ansah,
mussten sie als Phantasiegebilde
Die Phantasie
erscheinen.
besich
daher
immer
mehr
des
Weltbildes
und
von
trieb,
machtigte
keiner
Fessel gehemmt,
in verwirrender
allmahlich
FiiHe die
wunderlichsten
Bluten".52
It would seem that this fairly represents
the "decadence"
of
the Gnostic sects, a process which set in within a century of the
time of Valentinus.
But Quispel raises the question of the relation
of Valentinus and Basilides to the "vulgar" Gnosticism represented
did the two great Gnostics
by these Coptic texts. In particular,
know such writings as the Aprocyphon Johannis,
which Till considers the earliest of the group ? 53 This question Quispel answers
in the affirmative :
"Valentin
und Basilides haben die schon bestehende vulgare agyptische Gnosis hellenisiert und christianisiert".
If this is correct, it becomes possible to conceive of Gnosticism as
"ein grosser Strom, der von der vulgaren
Urgnosis zum Maniauch Marcion,
chaismus fuhrt; Valentin, Basilides, gewissermassen
sind Abzweigungen
des grossen Stromes, die christliches
Gebiet
An
aber
ist
die
eine
fiir
sich
sich
Gnosis
...
durchqueren.
Religion
Eine Weltreligion
ist neuentdeckt".S4
and study of the
A final judgment
must await the publication
new material, but this statement of the significance of the discovery
It may
at Nag Hammadi
seems to raise a number of questions.
be true of the development
of Gnosticism in Egypt, but does it
If it can be proved that
account for the origin of Gnosticism?
can we peneValentinus
is indebted to the Apocryphon Johannis,
trate behind the Apocryphon
itself? Such a theory, again, may
in other
take account of Philo, but what of the similar phenomena
to
what
to
be
the
And
date
is
Aporegions?
assigned
yet again,
if this is indeed the primary source?
cryphon Johannis,
It is not necessary, with Widengren,55 to demand that Iranian,
mediaeval
be taken into consideration.
and Islamic Gnosticism
These belong to the later stages of the movement, not to its origins..

207
In reply to Widengren's
criticisms, Quispel re-iterates his view that
certain of the Nag Hammadi texts, especially the Codex Jung and
possibly also the Apocryphon Johannis, represent a very early form
In particular,
he believes that the
of Christians Gnosticism.56
Gospel of Truth in the Codex Jung can be dated between 135 and
145 A.D.S? In this he may well be right, and in that case the Apocryphon Johanni8 may have to be dated about the end of the first
but we should still be a long way from a clear and concentury;
of the existence of a pre-Christian Gnosticism.
demonstration
vincing
or Mesopotamian
derivation
of Gnosticism
An Iranian
Quispel
in
rightly rejects, since he would find the origins of Gnosticism
Not only Persia,
"die vorchristliche
iidische Religionsgeschichte". ?
but all the countries which came under the sway of Alexander the
in some form to the Graeco-Roman
Great contributed
syncretism.59
The occurrence of Semitic names and titles in the new documents
compels the assumption that the Sethian Gnosis arose not in Egypt,
but somewhere in the Near East.s It has indeed been suggested
first entered Egypt in the form of Gnosticism. 61
that Christianity
However that may be, Quispel is certainly right in saying "So hat
dann angeblich beinahe der ganze Vorderorient
zu den Ahnen des
Gnostizismus
geh6rt". 62
It was for this reason that the suggestion was made above that
Gnosticism is to be regarded as a trend, indeed a major trend, of

208
Hellenistic
syncretism.63 That we have to deal with something
much wider than a Christian heresy is plainly evident, but that
prior to the impact of Christianity
upon the Hellenistic world there
existed a regular Gnostic movement has not yet been conclusively
shown. It is indeed possible, but as yet our available resources
take us back only thus far and no further. The presence in preChristian times of elements which were later to be incorporated
in the Gnostic theories is not in question, but it would seem more
to classify these elements as pre-Gnostic,
rather than
appropriate
as Gnostic in the proper sense.
No single tradition yet known to us is adequate to account for
all the phenomena.
In its origins Gnosticism is not Egyptian,
nor
is it Persian, nor is it Greek, although there are points of contact
to be found in every case. The basic philosophy
which underlies
the Gnostic systems, for example, is that synthesis of Platonism
with the name of Posidonius,
and Stoicism,
usually associated
which formed the common background
of contemporary
thought.
But a philosopher like Plotinus, in the more truly Greek tradition,
found it necessary,
and
despite the affinities of Neo-Platonism
Gnostic thought, to write a polemic against the Gnostics. Again,
as
although Gnosticism in the narrower sense appears historically
a Christian heresy, it is fundamentally
The refutations
un-Christian.
of its Christian opponents are sufficient proof of that. In its fully
was for a period a menace to
form the movement
developed
Of
the
Christianity.
apocryphal gospels recently discovered Quispel
Schriften
atmen einen anderen Geist als die Bueher des
says "Die.
Formeln
einer
Neuen Testaments,
sie gehbren trotz christliche
andern Religion an".64
The line of division between the modern theories is in reality

209
very narrow. It concerns in the long run the single question, whether
a movement which
or not there was before the rise of Christianity
half a
is truly to be called Gnostic. It may be that Friedlander
it
is
that
and
was
Certainly
significant
Quispel
right.
century ago
and
the
a
both
of
Jewish
Gnosticism,
pre-Christian
speak
Schoeps
much
to
commend
it.
has
For
one
thing,
certainly
suggestion
and propagation
Palestine is a strategic centre for the development
of such a movement,
standing as it does on the bridge between
Asia and Egypt. For another, the Jews had been subject in turn
from which they
of various
alien cultures,
to the dominance
seems
to have shown
And
borrowed.
again, Quispel
demonstrably
the
Gnostic
that
Anthropos-concept
goes back to
conclusively
Jewish speculations
Adam.65
more or less heterodox
concerning
Burkitt
offered
a
On the other hand,
very timely warning against
that the occurrence of Hebrew names is proof of
the assumption
Jewish influence. As in the case of the name Sabaoth, it may be
that we have evidence only of the use of the Greek Old Testament
by a pagan who knew little or nothing of the Jewish faith.16 So
also Reitzenstein
observes, with reference to the use of Jewish
names and formulae in magic: "Sie zeigen nicht die Bekanntschaft
oder christlicher
mit jidischer
Religion, sondern die Kenntnislosigkeit".6'
of the Hellenistic
The character
of the Judaism
age is itself a
debated question. On the one hand it is claimed that there is no
evidence for any widespread
syncretism
among the Jews, while
is
laid
the
the
on
other emphasis
upon
many points of contact
between Judaism
and other systems of belief. Here two things
must be borne in mind: we must ask, in the first place, not only
whether the Jews took over elements from the cultures of other
peoples, but also what use was made of the elements thus adopted.
It is fairly clear that in Judaism there was none of the wholesale
characteristic
of the Oriental religions, and that the
syncretism
ideas adopted were pressed into the service of the Jewish faith.
This is most evident in Philo, who for all his Greek culture and
philosophy is quite certainly intent on making Judaism "intellectu-

210
in the eyes of the contemporary
world.68 And
ally respectable"
we
must
not
influence
secondly,
investigate
only pagan
upon the
Jews but also the influence exercised by Judaism upon its environment.69 Dodd for example has cogently demonstrated
the infiltration
of Jewish thought
in the Hermetica,
and his comment
deserves attention:
"The old question whether these heresies (in
Colossians and the Pastorals) were of Jewish or pagan origin loses
much of its point when we recall that Hellenistic Jewish thought
and pagan thought of the Poimandres
type were already drawing
together".7
Philo himself offers a clear illustration
of this convergence,
although it is by no means certain how far he is to be considered
of the Dispersion.
At many points,
as typical of the Judaism
however, he seems to foreshadow the later Gnostic doctrines, and
it would not be difficult to imagine a group of thinkers who went
to Hellenistic
Judaism
even further than he in accommodating
a
had
we
evidence
for
its
Such
existence, might
group,
thought.
and it may be that Philo gives a
well form a Jewish Gnosticism,
hint in his reference to those who neglect the letter of the law by
reason of their insistence on the spirit.71 This is obviously akin to
of the Gnostic avevuaTIXOt', but this one reference is
the attitude
too slender a thread upon which to hang a theory.
that the Essenes were affected by alien influences
The probability
has long been recognised, and the evidence of recent discoveries
seems now to make it certain.72 This may involve some re-adjustment
of our views of Judaism in the Hellenistic period, since it is clear
that this sect considered itself particularly
scrupulous in observance

21 1
of the law. Here again, as with Philo, it is not hard to conceive
of others who went even further than the Essenes appear to have
done.
One further point may be added: it is notorious that not all the
level of a Valentinus.
Gnostic sects moved on the philosophic
Some of the systems are much more akin to magic, and the Jews
world had a reputation
as magicians.
in the Hellenistic
There
must be borne in mind.
however the warning already mentioned
We have to consider the possibility of pagan borrowings from the
with little understanding
of
sacred bocks of the Jews, probably
their meaning.
Our knowledge of the Hellenistic world is at many points defective,
what were the methods by which
We cannot say with certainty
or what were the possithe Mystery Religions were propagated,
with the religious ideas of
bilities for men to gain acquaintance
the other nations. We know of the early Christian mission, and
and the religious
in a general way of the itinerant
philosophers
of Abounoteichus
like Alexander
and Simon Magus.
charlatans
Hellenistic cities there must have been ample
In the cosmopolitan
and spread of a movement
such as
scope for the development
Gnosticism.
in
So far as our present knowledge goes, however, Gnosticism
of Christianity
the strict sense appears first after the entrance
itself
upon the stage of the wider world. The New Testament
evidence
of
an
which
the
second
affords
incipient movement,
by
and constituted
a real
century had grown into a world-religion
are
danger to the Christian faith. The origins of this movement
it seems to derive from
obscure, but in so far as it is pre-Christian
of a more or less unorthodox
character.
It is
Jewish speculation
that this "pre-Christian"
Jewish
or
however suggested
Gnosis,
more
not
classified
as Gnosticism but
naturally
pagan, would be
as pre-gnosis.
St. Andrews,

St. Mary's

College.