According to Irenaeus, who were the Gnostics?

[Peter Kirby]

Revisiting some of the references to 'gnostics' and 'knowledge' in book 1 of Against Heresies.

... that they may appear more perfect than the perfect, and more knowing than the very Gnostics ...

They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it. ...

They further hold that the consummation of all things will take place when all that is spiritual has been formed and perfected by Gnosis (knowledge); and by this they mean spiritual men who have attained to the perfect knowledge of God ...

... while from Anthropos and Gnosis that Tree was produced which they also style Gnosis itself. ...

Such, then, is their [Valentinian] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. ...

[Marcus...] For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him. ...

It happens that their [following Marcus] tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible ... this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God ... They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. ...

These [following Marcus] hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. For since both defect and passion flowed from ignorance, the whole substance of what was thus formed is destroyed by knowledge; and therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This, however, is not of a corporeal nature, for the body is corruptible; nor is it animal, since the animal soul is the fruit of a defect, and is, as it were, the abode of the spirit. The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption. ...

Consider then for example the Gospel of Truth:

Hence, if one has knowledge, he is from above. If he is called, he hears, he replies, and he turns toward him who called him and he ascends to him and he knows what he is called. Since he has knowledge, he does the will of him who called him. He desires to please him and he finds rest.

The Tripartite Tractate:

The promise had the teaching and the return to what they were from the beginning, from which they have the drop in order to return to him, which is what they call “the redemption.” And it is the freedom from imprisonment and the power of freedom. The imprisonment of those who were captives of ignorance reigns in its places. But the freedom is the knowledge of the truth that existed before ignorance came to be in a position of power, eternally without beginning and end, since it is what is good and salvation of things and a release from the enslaved nature in which they have suffered.

The Excerpts of Theodotus (78.2) by Clement of Alexandria:

But it is not only washing that sets one free, but also the knowledge of who we were, what we have become, where we were, where we were placed, where we are going ...

Or perhaps the Gospel of Thomas:

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."

What we see here, in various ways, is an idea of the redemptive power of knowledge. And since 'knowledge' is the Greek word 'gnosis', and since teaching about the importance of 'knowledge' for salvation is a key point about the 'gnostics', and given the pattern in Irenaeus about who is clearly called 'gnostic', then could this not be what a 'gnostic' was for Irenaeus?

And what's in a name?

Well, for one thing, considering whether Against Heresies considered the Marcionites to be 'gnostics' could shed light on both.

We already see in the first post some clues from what Irenaeus writes about why some were styled 'gnostics'. Their claim to 'perfect knowledge' (gnosis) was not just bragging, as Irenaeus sometimes suggests, but had an important function in their overall theology. Their idea of redemption was bound up with the idea of receiving knowledge through the revealer of the heavenly Father above all. This soteriology really has nothing to do with the cross. If this is the unifying concept of those called 'gnostics', their belief in the redemptive function of knowledge, that could shed light on how Irenaeus is describing those groups that he calls 'gnostic'.

If some heretics here were not strictly 'gnostic', this would help support such a reading of the term 'gnostic' in Irenaeus. At some level, we need to decide whether 'gnostic' was just an abusive catch-all term with no meaning or if Irenaeus was capable of distinguishing between 'gnostic' heretics and those that aren't styled 'gnostic.' Some details do suggest that Irenaeus was aware of what he was doing when calling some 'gnostic'. For example, when Irenaeus tells the story of how 'gnosis falsely so-called' goes back to Simon, he tells a story about Simon that we have not yet heard before in Acts or in Justin's first Apology. In this story, Simon makes himself out to be a gnostic redeemer, in a way parallel to the gnostic version of Jesus. In telling this story, Irenaeus is undermining 'gnostic' systems generally by showing how they derive from the false claims of a charlatan, Simon.

And if 'gnostic' is a term that has some meaning, beyond just being associated with heretics, then those that are not clearly 'gnostic' in Irenaeus may not fall into the same doctrine for Irenaeus as those that are called 'gnostic.' This then could open the way to allowing us to consider non-'gnostic' doctrine for those heretics not in the 'gnostic' category. For instance, we can take seriously the idea that the Marcionites had a different soteriology, which didn't line up with the 'perfect knowledge' from the gnostic revealer Jesus story of redemption that is find among the 'gnostics.' We can pay special attention to those indications that the Marcionites had a 'ransom theory' of atonement, as an idea that could have been significant in their system. Unlike the 'gnostic' idea of redemption, as outlined by Irenaeus, it is possible to consider that the Marcionites had a special place in their theology for the cross.

The first three posts in this thread provide more detail on Irenaeus, but this is what the OP is talking about.

[rgprice]

What I'm saying is that I think understanding "Gnostics" has to do with the origins of the cult as a mystery religion, that then "escaped" into the wild.

Irenaeus and Justin are, I think, late commers who were never a part of the mystical origins of the cult. Why were there so many of these groups that claimed certain secret mysteries and interpretations? Why does Irenaeus think its all bunk?

Think about a modern religion like Scientology. Supposedly, and I myself don't really know about this, but supposedly with Scientology there are these secret teachings that are only part of the inner circle. About Xenu and such.

But there are also published works of Scientology, like Dianetics, etc.

Now, imagine that someone is half way deep into Scientology and they get their hands on some "secret writing" that talks about beliefs that are not described in Dianetics and not part of the popular and well known claims of Scientology. And they publish a version of these writings.

But you have "low level" Scientologists who read this stuff, who have never heard the "inner secrets" and they look at it and say, "No, this is crazy! This is NOT what Scientology is about!"

So they then go on a campaign to "defend Scientology" against these crazy claims about Xenu and Raelians and alien mothers and so on (or whatever). And they say, "No, you hear people claiming to be Scientologists who say stuff like there is some guy Xenu and when you die you get reincarnated as a child of Xenu and you eventually get born onto a new planet, etc. but that's just a bunch of crazy nonsense, that's not what Scientology is "really" about. It's really just about controlling your desirers and learning to self actualize, and etc., etc." (The stuff they teach in the newbies, whatever that is.)

These other people claim to "know secrets", but they really don't, its just a mumbo jumbo and lies, supposedly.

I think that's what going on here. There was a secret mystery cult. Irenaeus was not part of the mystery cult. Irenaeus was working from materials that originated in the cult, but had been released against the intentions of the cult. And from the perspective of Irenaeus and others like him, the "inner teachings" of the cult sounded crazy.

So these people that Irenaeus calls "Gnostics" are people who essentially claim to know the inner teachings of the cult. People like Irenaeus, however, are clinging to a straight forward interpretation of materials, without knowledge of the interpretive teachings that went along with them.

[Peter Kirby]

What I'm saying is that I think understanding "Gnostics" has to do with the origins of the cult as a mystery religion, that then "escaped" into the wild.

Irenaeus and Justin are, I think, late commers who were never a part of the mystical origins of the cult.

These other people claim to "know secrets", but they really don't, its just a mumbo jumbo and lies, supposedly.

I think that's what going on here. There was a secret mystery cult. Irenaeus was not part of the mystery cult. Irenaeus was working from materials that originated in the cult, but had been released against the intentions of the cult. And from the perspective of Irenaeus and others like him, the "inner teachings" of the cult sounded crazy.

So these people that Irenaeus calls "Gnostics" are people who essentially claim to know the inner teachings of the cult. People like Irenaeus, however, are clinging to a straight forward interpretation of materials, without knowledge of the interpretive teachings that went along with them.

Please hit 'New Topic', connect this to what I have been writing about in this thread, or start again in reply to what I've written.

[Leucius Charinus]

In book 2, Irenaeus has a reference re: "these same arguments will apply against the followers of Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, and the rest of the Gnostics." This might seem to imply that Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates were gnostics.

Birger A. Pearson makes reference to Book 2 of Irenaeus in the following paper, along with many references from other ancient heresiological sources and from modern scholars.

Pearson argues that Gnosticism is highly related to Platonism.

From ancient times it has been averred that the Gnostics derived their basic ideas from the Greek philosophers, especially Pythagoras and Plato. For example, Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 2.14) argued that the Valentinian Gnostics borrowed their doctrines of the pleroma and kenoma from Democritus and Plato. Hippolytus (Ref. 1.11), more systematically, tried to show that the founders of the Gnostic heresies borrowed most of their ideas from Greek philosophy and religion. The Valentinian brand of gnosis, Hippolytus (Ref. 6.21-29) argues, is derived from the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato. [1] Tertullian (Praesc. 7) claimed that all of the heresies were based on Greek philosophy. Valentinus is stated specifically to be "of the school of Plato."

Plotinus (Enn. 2.9.6), the reputed founder of Neoplatonism, claimed in a famous tract that his doctrinal opponents, whom he did not identify but who were obviously Gnostics, [2] based their doctrines on a misunderstanding of Plato. Porphyry's Life of Plotinus 16 provides us with more information on the Gnostic opponents of Plotinus, and refers to them "sectarians from the ancient philosophy," i.e., Platonism.

In our own times scholars have referred to Gnosticism as a kind of Platonism. Willy Theiler calls the Gnosticism of the Imperial period, both Christian and pagan (Chaldean Oracles, Hermetica), "Proletarier platonismus." [3] Simone Petrement portrays Gnosticism as "un platonisme romantique"; [4] A. D. Nock prefers the designation "Platonism run wild." [5] John M. Dillon refers to the Gnostic and Hermetic writings and the Chaldean Oracles as "the 'underworld' of Platonism." [6]


It can hardly be doubted that the ingredients of the Gnostic religion in its origins and early history included a substantial dose of popular Platonism. [7]


Gnosticism as Platonism: With Special Reference to Marsanes (NHC 10,1)
Author(s): Birger A. Pearson
Source: The Harvard Theological Review , Jan., 1984, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 55-72
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/1509519

[Peter Kirby]

In book 2, Irenaeus has a reference re: "these same arguments will apply against the followers of Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, and the rest of the Gnostics." This might seem to imply that Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates were gnostics.

Birger A. Pearson makes reference to Book 2 of Irenaeus in the following paper, along with many references from other ancient heresiological sources and from modern scholars.

Pearson argues that Gnosticism is highly related to Platonism.

I have a post I'm writing just now about some ideas advanced by those called 'gnostics' may be related to "popular Platonism" and/or Pythagoreanism. I think you've given one of the better answers in this thread regarding: "who were the Gnostics?" The answers vary.

I suppose my thread doomed itself with its title, hastily misread as it can be. The primary emphasis is not on using Against Heresies to understand who the gnostics were. The emphasis is on using Against Heresies to understand who the author thought "the gnostics" were. These are very different questions, which can have completely different answers.

For example, if we were in this thread trying to figure out who the gnostics were, one possible strategy would be to set aside Against Heresies as confused in one way or another and not worry about it. Another idea would be that the category is not necessarily a valid one as a description of a historical group if it is in some way problematic as such. Or we could use the text of Against Heresies against itself, trying to reveal the reality of who the gnostics were despite the ignorance of the author of the true answer. We could suggest the reality is reflected only in certain clues, thus parsing out those clues and discarding the rest of the text. Etc.

I think the starting point with respect to Against Heresies is understanding the text itself. Who are the "gnostics" of Against Heresies? That is the explicit subject of the thread. So far nobody else has addressed this question IMO. Some replies come close to maybe doing so, but I have a hard time distinguishing between the modern author's voice regarding who the gnostics were and the (barely referenced) supposed voice of Against Heresies in these posts.

[Peter Kirby]

In book 2, Irenaeus has a reference re: "these same arguments will apply against the followers of Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, and the rest of the Gnostics." This might seem to imply that Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates were gnostics.

Birger A. Pearson makes reference to Book 2 of Irenaeus in the following paper, along with many references from other ancient heresiological sources and from modern scholars.

Pearson argues that Gnosticism is highly related to Platonism.

Here is the post I was working on regarding Numenius, an influential Platonist.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11697

[rgprice]

Just want to point out that wile Irenaeus railed against these people who claimed to have attained "perfect knowledge" of God, he also claims that the Gospels he possessed were written by people with "perfect knowledge".

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book III Chapter 1 ~180 CE

So Irenaeus was not merely railing against people who claimed to have perfect knowledge, Irenaeus was claiming that the authors of the scriptures he used had "perfect knowledge", but that since the claims of the heretics contradicted what he read in his Gospels, their claims of "perfect knowledge" had to be false.

[davidmartin]

the best way to know who the gnostics were is from the gnostic texts
i mean if you want to know what they are, just read their texts and go from there. problem solved ,right?
why go off secondary sources when we have primary ones.

what the church fathers thought of them is they are some screwballs that are wrong about everything
the problem that I see is these fathers try to pin the blame on Simon having founded it and this doesn't stack up
why would the fathers try to project gnosticism's origins earlier than they actually were?
it seems to me they are trying to develop Simon's caricature just as much as they are trying to undermine the Gnostics by making him their progenitor
of course, in a historicist approach there is no Simon he doesn't exist

[andrewcriddle]

IMHO for Irenaeus the paradigm or archetypal Gnostics are the Barbeloites

Besides those, however, among these heretics who are Simonians, and of whom we have already spoken, a multitude of Gnostics have sprung up, and have been manifested like mushrooms growing out of the ground. I now proceed to describe the principal opinions held by them. Some of them, then, set forth a certain Æon who never grows old, and exists in a virgin spirit: him they style Barbelos

who used the Apocryphon of John

Irenaeus calls other heretical groups Gnostics to imply a resemblance to and/or borrowing from the Barbeloites.

Andrew Criddle

[Ken Olson]

one problem is the gnostic texts in the NHL library fail to hat-tip Simon at all as their founder, and on the contrary some are seen to oppose him outright

Yeah, don't worry, I also am not impressed with the legend regarding Simon. It's not the point of the OP.

A more serious problem is Irenaeus claim in Against Heresies 1.25.6:

AH 1.25.6. Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under [the episcopate of] Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.

Irenaeus suggests that Gnostic is a label that the adherents of the Gnostic sect use to identify themselves, though IIRC none of the Nag Hammadi works use the word. (IIRC there is one work that uses the label, but I'd have to do some digging to find it). In the larger context of AH 1.25 Irenaeus appears to be classifying the Carpocratians as Gnostics.

In AH 1.11, however, Irenaeus describes Valentinus and the Valentinians as having adopted the principles of the heresy called Gnostic for his own school, so they are apparently distinct from the Gnostics but derived from their principles from the Gnostics.

AH 1.11.1: Let us now look at the inconsistent opinions of those heretics (for there are some two or three of them), how they do not agree in treating the same points, but alike, in things and names, set forth opinions mutually discordant. The first of them, Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called Gnostic to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows:

and there are others still:

AH 1.11.55. Others still, however, have called their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad by the following names: first, Proarche; then Anennoetos; thirdly, Arrhetos; and fourthly, Aoratos. Then, from the first, Proarche, there was produced, in the first and fifth place, Arche; from Anennoetos, in the second and sixth place, Acataleptos; from Arrhetos, in the third and seventh place, Anonomastos; and from Aoratos, in the fourth and eighth place, Agennetos. This is the Pleroma of the first Ogdoad. They maintain that these powers were anterior to Bythus and Sige, that they may appear more perfect than the perfect, and more knowing than the very Gnostics! ['more Gnostic than the Gnostics'].

Best,

Ken