Talk:Gnosticism/Archive 3

Definitions
I can not call myself a gnosticologist, however the sugestion "gnosticism expounds the belief that the world was created by an imperfect god" may be a bit silly. Am I wrong to say manicheans believed the world was created by a series of the good gods emminations (his is the third evocation to my knowledge composed of three beings Jesus, the Column of glory and someone else) Mandaens believe similiarly that the world was created by Hiwel Ziwa who likewise created the world of light. If my memory serves me right even some Cathars believed the world was created by satan a fallen angel. Does someone here know loads about Gnosticism so they can give a more meaningfull definition. I know the definitions of gnosticism can be multifaceted and open to debate, but the current articles definition of Gnosticism is a bit short. --Zaharous (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is already covered by "trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god" in the intro. Even groups that weren't super dualistic believed that the material world was created by a demiurge who was a bit dumb.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bloody, there are at least five members of the third evocation, my Intellect is astounding! But a good question is weather or not an evocation is a god or not, some may define the six Amesha Spentas as gods others may not. However I do not know the exact nature of Hiwa Ziwa presently. Nevertheless in Manicheism the elect were sometimes even called gods as the liberated light from darkness as Augustine derisively said through their belches. --Zaharous (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Classical Texts:Acta Archelai. Now, he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests he says is the archont of Darkness, and the Christians, Jews, and pagans (ethnic) are one and the same, as they revere the same god. For in his aspirations he seduces them, as he is not the god of truth. And so therefore all those who put their hope in the god who spoke with Moses and the prophets have (this in store for themselves, namely) to be bound with him, because they did not put their hope in the god of truth. For that one spoke with them (only) according to their own aspirations. Page 76 LoveMonkey (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to mark this up properly in accordance with wiki rules, but this 'imperfection' claim seems unfounded to me; 1) doesn't jive with my understanding of what the gnostics are about and 2) is not suggested in any of the given sources or more importantly; from the gnostics themselves (unless there is info in this direction that we're not aware of). otherwise i would scrap this as it is highly emotive and meaningful of itself, yet not appear to be supported. can someone just delete the phrase please? is that wikilegal? :D many thanks all and it's great to see a level of interest in such things! R.Owen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.136.55 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the article doesn't jive with your understanding about what the gnostics were about (they've been dead a long time, even if some modern hippie groups like to call themselves gnostic), then you probably need to relook at how you view Gnosticism. The deal about imperfection of the world is from their writings.  Check the Nag Hammadi codexes out.  Here are links to Hypostasis of the Archons, On the Origin of the World, and the Apocryphon of John, Gnostic creation stories which are pretty explicit in the view that the material world was created by an imperfect being. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh 2
A discussion of Modern Gnosticism might be interesting:

Belief in the spiritual connectivity of all things living. That is, the absence of a deity that created the universe, nor is there a deity who destiny.

Belief that all sentients are connected as one in a spiritual sense -- one with the Divine and we are the Divine.

Belief that the nature of the Universe is revealed through the pursue of knowledge. That knowledge is best pursued through scientific means (the pursuit of knowledge through observation and experimentation), as well as through introspection and self-awareness.

Respectfully, PXCampbell (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You want either the New Age or Agnosticism articles. Gnosticism is very much based on the idea that a deity created the universe, and that said deity is imperfect.  Other living things may be an illusion, and are trapped if they aren't.  The second point (one with the Divine) is just pantheism, not specifically Gnosticism.  The last paragraph is very much against Gnostic tradition, science is empirical, and the Gnostics were extreme idealists, the empiricism necessary for science would have disgusted them.  Agnosticism is not related to Gnosticism except that they both use some of the same Greek roots.  Modern Gnosticism is epitomized by Philip K Dick, whose view of science was that it was only one means among many to understand the universe.  Gnosticism isn't just some term to be thrown around, it refers to a specific strain of religious thinking, which you don't seem to understand the qualities of.  If you have any sources for your views, provide them, but otherwise, the article does an excellent job of summing up Gnosticism.  If the article doesn't match up with your personal beliefs that you happen to call Gnosticism, that's your problem, just as if I started worshipping twenty goddesses who wanted me to eat pork and shellfish and wanted to call it Judaism, that wouldn't be Judaism, that would just be my problem.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present"
I saw this in the lead, thought it was interesting, and wanted to know more. It doesn't seem very plausible, though. If there are still gnostic communities left, then presumably they have their own traditions of (some of the) texts, and then presumably people would write about that. Unfortunately the article says nothing at all about this. Apparently the information was added in this edit by Kwertii.

Does anybody know what it is referring to? Hans Adler 20:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Gnosticism in modern times and also scroll down to the bottom of Kwertii's edit and you'll find several modern day Gnostic church website links. Alatari (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how your response is relevant to my question. This article and Gnosticism in modern times both agree that gnosticism was revived in the 19th century. But the lead uses the word continue, i.e. it claims a continuous tradition of people practising gnosticism since antiquity. Since this is not very plausible for the reason I stated (if it were true, they would likely have their own text tradition, and then they would of course be mentioned alongside the discoveries of old manuscripts), it appears that it is simply false. Hans Adler 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was directing you to the modern websites to see if any claim to have existed since the 4th century. But the literal reading of kwerti's edit is not supported so I'll reword the phrase.  Alatari (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually looked at them. Most are in America, one has disappeared, and the most promising one has a confusing site structure where you first have to choose a location unless you want to read the information in Dutch. So I gave up. Hans Adler 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only group to have survived continuously from the 1st century CE into modern times is the Mandaean sect of Iraq and Iran. This group has about 15,000 members (one source says 1,500), and can trace their history continuously back to the original Gnostic movement.  It was easy to find... Alatari (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. As a quick fix I have replaced "a few isolated communities" by "a few Mandaean communities". Hans Adler 08:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something more specific like the only known surviving communities were the Mandaeans but thats fine too. I would like to find another source where they claim to be Gnostics and was scouring the Mandaean article but I have to goto bed. cheers. Alatari (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that there aren't many left, that they are not writing about themselves, and that they don't think of themselves as Gnostics (in these terms), or at least didn't until modern scholars found the connection. Good night! Hans Adler 08:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Definite POV bias reflected in statements about the canonization of the New Testament
The following paragraph from the section on "Christianity and Gnosticism" is very biased, and patently inaccurate:


 * NT scripture was largely unwritten, at least in the form of canon, existing in the practices, customs and teachings of the early Christian community. What largely was communicated generation to generation was an oral tradition passed from the apostles to the Bishops and from Bishops and priests to the faithful through their preaching and way of life.[77] Constantine’s call for unity in the building of the new Roman Church led to his request for Eusebius to produce some 50 copies of manuscripts. These were approved and accepted by the emperor, which later influenced the final stages of canonization.[78]

Though this statement is footnoted, it doesn't accurately represent even the point of view contained in the referenced sources (which are broad and vague to begin with). The statement is really just a summary of the historical revisionism which has been popularized by that great biblical scholar Dan Brown--in other words, it's nothing more than modern mythology. Even a cursory examination of the actual history of New Testament canonization will reveal the above statement seriously distorts the facts. Just a few examples:

Even the most liberal scholars agree that the earliest letters of the apostle Paul were written no more than 20 years after the death of Jesus, and (setting aside the question of the disputed letters of Paul for the moment) all the undisputed Pauline epistles were completed prior to his death around 70 A.D., a mere 40 years after the death of Christ. The Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s A.D. (30 years after the crucifixion), and Matthew and Luke followed in the 70s or 80s (Acts was also written during this period). The Gospel of John and Johannine epistles were completed before the close of the first century. Even if you accept the dating of certain New Testament documents currently being espoused by the most liberal scholars, nonetheless all the New Testament writings were completed by the first half of the second century (though the majority of scholars now assume a much earlier date for the majority of NT writings).

There is also attestation in early Christian literature that the writings of Paul and the four canonical gospels were already widely in use by the various churches by the mid second century. While it is true that there was some disagreement over whether certain books should be canonized (such as Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc.) as late as the third and early fourth century, all the books had been written and circulated well before that time (like one to two centuries or more previously). The only thing that happened at the beginning of the fourth century was the church finally decided to set into stone what was already generally agreed upon and practiced as the writings already in use in the church at large.

Therefore the section in question needs to be significantly revised to more accurately reflect scholarly consensus and not simply the POV of Dan Brown and others who apparently wish to revise history. Spiritquest (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only one way to handle this. Put sources behind your assertions in the above statements and then go from there.  If this Dan Brown's opinion is significant and notable it still needs representation under WP:NPOV  I put fact templates where I read and would like to see a source.  Controversy is nothing new to these pages. Google Scholar search is a great friend in source searching and some of the existing sources may well support your POV. Alatari (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"The exact tenor of Gnostic beliefs and their relation to the post-Easter Church and the Gospel tradition remains a matter of active speculation among historians. Scholars agree that the earliest undisputed Pauline letters were written no more than several decades after the death of Jesus, and that the four canonical gospels were completed before 100 CE (with the synoptic gospels traditionally dated to ca. 70-80 CE). REF For this and what follows, see the relevant essays in The Cambridge companion to the Gospels, ed. Stephen C. Barton. Cambridge University Press, 2006; for the dating of the gospels, see the individual discussion pertinent to each; for 2nd century use, see p. 34. The writings of early Church figures like Irenaeus attest to the fact that the Letters of Paul and the four canonical gospels were widely used in Christian communities by the mid second century. Thus, the Gnostic tradition represented by the Hammadi texts stood in sharp contrast with beliefs held elsewhere in the early church."
 * Comment User:Spiritquest's statement is certainly accurate. The sourcing is simple - every mainstream text of biblical criticism will provide an overview that says as much in noting the state of the historiography. I would perhaps quibble with the idea of using language like "even the most liberal scholars" since that reflects a US-centric bias (it supposes a liberal vs. conservative split between traditional and "evangelical" seminaries, but that is almost exclusively a US issue whereas biblical scholarship remains centred around German research and is indifferent to such concerns). As for the sourcing, I personally would use a basic text and note "for this and what follows, see ..." but you could if you wanted cite each specific page from the same source. The point is that everything Spiritquest has written is taken as a consensus mainstream view in modern scholarship. I'll go ahead and make the change, with thanks to the editor for taking time to improve this mess. Eusebeus (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Post-scripta - Having now looked closely at the section, it is simply incomprehensible. I would summarise the above opint as follows

However the section as a whole is an alarming blend of the inaccurate with the incoherent; it needs to be reconstructed from scratch (or else there may be an earlier version that can be restored). As it stands, this gives our readers "information" that has almost no correlation to the mainstream academic view. Luckily, its POV is tempered by its illiteracy, so few readers will end up understanding much, if anything, of what they are reading. Eusebeus (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Gnosticism
I would like to make a suggestion that there be a Wikiproject for Gnosticism. Despite the fact that Gnosticism is not in itself a Monolithic religious doctrine and is victim to syncreticness, Such an underlying project may be of help. I think that such a Wikiproject would allow a directed effort for the improvement of articles related to Gnosticism. In noting Manicheism, once the most widespread Gnostic faith, it despite its importance I do not think that enough people are interested in it alone to justify a seperate project for it, however a general colaberation on Gnosticism I think would cover many more subjects.--Zaharous (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * there is a proposal for the creation of Wikiproject:Gnosticism, Its scope will include all gnostic faiths and will serve as a nexus for the improvement of Gnosticism related articles on Wikipedia, If any one would like to join or comment it is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnosticism --Zaharous (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Manichaeism "mostly" dead??
I just thought that it was dead as the bones of the last theropod, not "mostly" dead. Dead and revived, maybe, but very-very-dead and then possibly walking again like a zombie. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Thomasine" gnosticism
I think "Thomasine gnosticism" is nonexistent. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Was, is, up to possibly excluding will be! I mean. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

minor change, but necessary and important
i changed some thing in the line that read something like "the only way to resolve gnostic morality is thru the Early Church Fathers".....I changed that, you might want to compare, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonKing22 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can Someone Write A Clear Intro Paragraph???
The current introductory paragraph is complete nonsense, it looks like it was written by an over enthusiastic undergraduate just out of their religious studies class for the day. This paragraph should give a QUICK summary of what gnosticism is WITHOUT using terms defined in Gnosticism itself or other religious studies, e.g., do NOT use Yaldabaoth, demiurge, pneuma, Pleroma, Yahweh, syncretistic etc... Tell us what Gnosticism is in mainstream terms appropriate to a newspaper article or general interest encyclopedia. All that esoteric verbiage currently in the intro belongs, if at all, in a detailed subtitle or book on the subject, not in an introductory paragraph meant for a reader looking to find a quick definition. Example, "Christianity is a broad religious term for people who believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ." What is gnosticism? I read the article and I still don't know. Leidseplein (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ;-) Like if it was that easy! I'll just cite what I'm just reading in my isagogy book (translation from Swedish):
 * ...the Gnosticism appears as a very changeable and inapprehensible phenomenon, "En bok om Nya Testamentet", ISBN 91-40-61019-5, page 195, chapter "GNOSIS", second sentence, second subclause.
 * If I myself be up to write a book on gnosticism (which is a plausible thought, considering I've been a gnostic myself), I would say: "Gnosticism" is:
 * the cosmological model that we're spiritual refugees in this Evil world, doomed to eternaly be stuck here unless we find Gnosis,
 * the universe is created by an evil defect creator god, named Yaldabaoth, counterparting the Judeo-Christiano-Islamic god Yahweh/Elohim/Allah/God,
 * the only way to get rid of this world and like small glowing fireflies return to our original source, the true invisible God, is to learn the esoteric knowledge of this Gnosis,
 * this esoteric Gnosis is in fact infinite ramblings of diddley-do and diddley-that, all of it with no connection, nor practicability in this evil world – just learn and become liberated! – also: this Gnosis is essentially different from factual knowledge, and also from your common sense, it is also different from those fool mystics, but those mystics are actually gnostics in disguise, it comes by meditative insight yet by rote learning, yada-yada-yada... and have nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation experience of those evil lost so called Christians or Jews
 * the world is ruled by an evil conspiracy trying to surpress the gnostic insights – it is not that former gnostics got enought and bailed out, so the thought that gnosticism is by itself impossible to maintain, is a part of this evil conspiracy...
 * Just for your info, that is. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just add: there are a variety of opinions different than mine, perhaps claiming that gnosticism is the combination of mysticism with psychological techniques (Jung), that it is the will to transform the world (Voegelin), and yet lesser founded ideas. I stick to Irenaei definition. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If gnosticism was contemporaneous with the early development of Christianity before it (Christianity) was consolidated, then comparing the gnostics against the "Christian God" and Islam in particular, is historically invalid and inaccurate (and intentionally pointed, and not even based on the modern scholarly research of the works it cites, such as the Nag Hammadi researches). Not only that, but there is an entire list of gnostic texts mentioned in this article (most from Nag Hammadi), and few if any specifically mention the term "yahweh" as being equivalent to some single all-encompassing gnostic "demiurgus". Thus, this article's textual/historical analysis is flawed from beginning to end.Jimhoward72 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're factually wrong. I cannot pinpoint exactly where the sources are, except somewhere on http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html in one of the translated original gnostic texts, but as a gnostic I always had the idea that Yaldabaoth equals Jahweh, and that it was supported by the primary sources. For example, one original gnostic treatise described the fall of Adam thusly:
 * the evil Yaldabaoth forbade Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, but the Serpent, that is Jesus according to the text, knew that if they ate fruits from the tree, they would attain exactly the knowledge necessary to challenge the evil Yaldabaoth.
 * The conclusion that Yaldabaoth equals Jahweh can be made by any goof by a simple comparison with the Bible, so there is no research needed in order to come to that conclusion. A permanent characteristic of the original gnostic text, except those that are regarded as Valentinian, is their systematic blasphemism. On the other hand, Irenaeus writes in Contra Heresiae that the Valentinian heretics borrowed their systems from the gnostics, so for that reason and a couple of others I maintain the minority opinion that Valentinians weren't gnostics proper. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look here: On the Origin of the World, not as clear as I described it, but the story is repeated similarly in other places. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong link. Instead On the Origin of the World. Sorry. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and after reading that text, do I still need to point out that it doesn't say anything about some kind of sweeping generalization that "yahweh" the "god of the Jews" is identified with the "evil creator god". This gnosticism article should specify what the texts actually say, instead of some kind of questionable interpretation or paraphrase.  If James M. Robinson is recognized as the authority on Nag Hamadi, why no quotes from him, an actual scholar of the texts?  I don't even have to look in his works to know that he would not endorse a statement such as "The demiurge is frequently identified with Yahweh the God of the Judea-Christian faiths", or numerous other statements/generalizations in this article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "This gnosticism article should specify what the texts actually say, instead of some kind of questionable interpretation or paraphrase."

No, the article has to comply with WP:Verifiability, which means that the article has to be based on reliable secondary sources. That's the rules to article creation here at Wikipedia. By using secondary valid sources it keeps Wikipedia from being a place where original research gets posted which is not what Wikipedia is for nor does it by policy allow. Individuals are not supposed to post their opinions here on Wikipedia, they are supposed to post what is and can validated by scholarly secondary sources. What about George W. MacRae for example? Is he to be considered a valid source and or scholar?, Or Encyclopedia Britannica LoveMonkey (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of what is being said here I moved the Gershom Scholem quote about this to the introduction. As the book sourcing the quote also confirms the statement in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Statements such as this: "Gnosticism is a set of diverse, religious movements united in the teaching that the world was created by an imperfect god, Yaldabaoth"; "the demiurge is frequently identified with Yahweh the God of the Judea-Christian faiths" are simply not true. Gnostic texts, and gnosticism as a whole, are not united by their use of "yaldabaoth" and by identifying the evil god as "Yahweh". If this were true, it would appear in the article itself (and the other articles) when the actual texts/schools are discussed. The articles Yaldabaoth, Demiurge, and Yahweh make no statements to that affect, either.  By making such generalized, inaccurate statements at the beginning of this article, it has become a victim of someone trying to make an (invalid) point. There are not even any gnostic texts that use the word "yahweh", and that "yaldabaoth" is a play on "Yahweh" is not clear at all.  It could just as well come from "yalda" - Aramaic for "child", from "sabaot" (not a true Hebrew word anyway, more a Hellenization), or any number of other possibilities.  These are all discussed in any detailed scholarly work (secondary source) on gnosticism.Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please source your assertions with sources that are considered valid sources. If not your just posting your opinion which has no place here. Also WP:No POV is when issues are unbalanced or whitewashed. All significant sides of a subject should be represented.

LoveMonkey (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1."the demiurge is frequently identified with Yahweh the God of the Judea-Christian faiths" are simply not true.
 * I have posted sources that say otherwise.
 * 2.The articles Yaldabaoth, Demiurge, and Yahweh make no statements to that affect, either.
 * Wikipedia can not be used to source Wikipedia.
 * 3.Gnosis is not evil (only when its knowledge to control people like in cults is it evil). The term gnostic is used by EO theologians to describe themselves (i. e. St. Clement) that vilification thing is a Western Christian (out of ignorance) thing so generalization like you point out is a two way street.
 * 4.There are not even any gnostic texts that use the word "yahweh", and that "yaldabaoth" is a play on "Yahweh" is not clear at all.
 * Nope sources say otherwise here's yet another and  next you'll be attacking John D. Turner. Again please start posting sources. It is the burden on you to do so, not other editors.


 * How about this: "Gnosticism was a group of ancient religions that combined different elements from Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism, Neoplantonism, and eventually Buddhism and early Christianity. It taught that some esoteric knowledge (or Gnosis) was necessary for salvation from the material world, which was created by some intermediary figure (or demiurge) instead of God.  In some systems, the demiurge was considered evil, in others merely imperfect.  Different gnostic schools sometimes identified the demiurge as Adam, Ahriman, the Logos, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, or Yahweh.  Many schools inverted traditional interpretations of Jewish scriptures, leading Gershom Scholem to call Gnosticism "the Greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism."(Reference)  However, some scholars have argued that Jewish mysticism such as Kabbalah are Gnostic.  Later religions influenced by these ideas have also been called Gnostic, to varying degrees of acceptance among scholars." - This covers Alexandrian and Persian Gnosticism, Manichaeism, the Sethians, Barborites, Cainites, Cathars (even though they're medieval), Basilideans, Valentinians, Simonians, Ophites... Pretty much any group that has been mostly agreed to fit under the label "Gnosticism," and allows for interpreting some other groups (Mithraism, Martinism) as being Gnostic or not.
 * As for Clement of Alexandria and Gnosis, there is a difference between those who believe(d) in some ill-defined concept called Gnosis and the Gnostics (who specifically saw salvation coming from Gnosis). The western Church accepted Clement, and didn't censor his writings that mentioned Gnosis, but I don't recall any instance where he identifies as a Gnostic, and he is typically classed as an early Christian rather than a Gnostic or Gnostic Christian.
 * Per WP:LEDE, the intro actually should be a summary of the article, and should be general enough to not need sources. "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body"
 * Most of what I've suggested are already sourced in the article, and we don't need to cite again. Running through the Manichaeism and Gnosis articles, and others in the Gnosticism category should provide citations for most of the rest.  The Logos part I believe I'll need to find another source for, but I remember a few books I should be able to cite when I have the time.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please insert your intro, it is much more balanced, historically/textually accurate, and in compliance with Wikipedia standards than the article as it currently stands.Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stick in front of the current intro, turn the current intro into a new "Overview" deal, or just replace the old intro with mine? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well sort of..But good I mostly agree for a Western Christian perspective. In the East there is no "gnosticism" there is pagan fatalism or determinism and that's the perspective of EO. Heres a gnostic source and an EO one . Please understand why the Father hypostasis is called the son of chaos. The slavophils taught almost the same thing as Voegelin about this pagan fatalism from the Kush.. "Gnosticism" in the East is pagan (fatalist) syncretism, metaphysical (relio-philosophical) cosmology mystery religion systems people contemplate in order to obtain or rationalize spiritual existence -Hierophants and all (aka anti-Jewish pro fates pagan Orientalism). A better definition is simply the knowledge (gnosis) of this "gnosticism" is the arcana or occult, magic and conspiracy theories of the old Mystery Religions of the Mediterranean and Middle East. Allot of these tenets are really just teachings to get people to reject the Judeo-Christian God (creator) as evil and to reconcile Judeo-Christian cosmology to the fates and philosophy's heart and soul- metaphysic cosmological myth systems (like Hesiod's Theogony for one), which is what all these gnostic creation myths (gospels if you will are taught to really be) and are really doing..LoveMonkey (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional notes. Freedom and free will are the same thing in EO theology (they fall under the term personal freedom or the Westernization of the term rendered as civil liberties). Judeo-Christianity is in essence the teaching that each person should be free and that (the energy or activity of) freedom as an uncreated thing can not be rationalized, and just because it can not be rationalized does not mean that it does not exist. Example people born into pagan caste societies as slaves are fated or were destined to that existence and to teach otherwise (libertarianism) is against the truth (natural order) of the elite chosen by the Gods to have good fortune i.e. as what is virtuous is that might is right and the weak are here to fall for the glory of the elite or chosen. Richard Wagner was real big on the Aryanism covered in Blavasky's secret doctrine. It would be more obvious for people to see what it means to vilify the God of Free will by way of "gnosticism" if one reads the novel We. As this novel was written after "gnosticism" as political cult (read James H. Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith) took over Russia. This fatalist pagan deterministic "gnosticism" has killed and repressed more than any group that they claim to be victims of according to the sources I have posted here. This is not my opinion this is what the sources I have posted say. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What you are arguing is a very very specific, more political, religious, literary, and antagonistic view of Gnosticism rather than a general, detatched historical and academic view. While some of the material you have could be incorporated into the article, it's not introduction material.
 * In the different schools of Gnosticism, the archons typically came in sets of 7, connecting them with the 7 classical planets, putting them in control of astrology (making them the agents of fate, or at least negative fates that one opens oneself to by choosing poorly). As I recall, Hypostasis of the Archons featured one of the Aeons (Pistis, if I remember correctly) raising the repentant Sabao to the newly created eighth heaven for rebelling against Iao when Iao attempted to bind humanity to fate.  During the rebellion, Iao was bound to the wheel of fate himself.  There's also how Augustine turned to a belief in predestination after rejecting Manichaeism.  The Gnostics were as split on the issue of fate vs free-will as Christianity has been.
 * Furthermore, most post-Christian Gnostic schools (except for the Mandaeans) believed the Christian God and the Jewish God as two different figures. In their eyes, they weren't villifying the Christian God.
 * Regarding your sources individually:
 * Determinism in Gnosticism is a personal website. Personal websites are not considered reliable sources except for gathering information about the website's author, or when the author is a recognized authority on the subject.  I can find no indication that he is, unless the Michael Hoffman who designed that site is Michael A. Hoffman II, a revisionist historian and general paranoid.  The rest of the egodeath website indicates that Hoffman is a drugged out nut, not a scholar.
 * The Dogma on Creation does not mention fate or free-will. Also, using modern EO sources is like using modern Catholic sources, only useful for summarizing the Church's views on Gnosticism.  Ancient sources would be useful for being contemporary sources.
 * "Dostoevsky and the Idea of Russianness" is NOT about Gnosticism. You're only engaging in original research by bringing this in.
 * Blavatsky was not an academic writer but someone who reinterpreted interpretations of interpretations of Gnosticism based on little and poorly understood evidence, all in an attempt to argue that all world religions proved the religion she came up with. She didn't have access to the Nag Hammadi codexes, the Jewish magical papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the archaeological evidence about mystery religions we have now, and probably didn't have access to the Greek magical papyri.  At any rate, what you are citing doesn't mention Judaism.  The source she quotes in her footnotes does mention Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) and the Essenes (a Jewish sect) as being a sources for Gnosticism (although her source is poor as well, neither she nor her source show anti-semitism in the portion of the book you've pointed us to).
 * Furthermore, Wagner's notes indicated that he studied Schopenhauer, not Blavatsky. The word "Aryan" appearing in connection to both is not a connection between them, since they used them differently (Blavatsky thought that most of modern humanity is "Aryan," while Wagner specifically understood it to be white people).  You don't have any sources connecting them.
 * The mystery-religions: a study in the religious background of early Christianity appears to be an academic source. I fail to see how it supports your argument, though.  It really only supports the view that the Gnostics saw Gnosis as necessary for salvation.  It doesn't say anything about antagonism to Judaism by the mystery religions, just competition with Christianity.
 * We isn't specifically about Gnosticism. It's just your interpretation that it has anything to do with it. Philip K. Dick (who is more openly considered a modern Gnostic) would have argued that the novel's totalitarian society was a product of the archons, and in his own works he portrays Gnosis as freeing one from corporate and government influence.
 * Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith doesn't appear to be about Gnosticism either (without going into conspiracy theory territory), but politics again. Again, you're engaging in original research by bringing this in.
 * While the lede does need to be simplified, it is not the space to put axe-grinding original research. Just pointing to some sources does not disqualify something from being original research. It IS your opinion that that's what your sources say, because none of them say that by themselves. You have assembled your interpretation from them, and read them into those sources.  That is original research.  If you can provide something that meets WP:RS that pretty much says what you have to say, then we can include it in the body of the article.  It is not neutral enough, academic enough, or general enough to be the focus of the introduction. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'The Gnostics were as split on the issue of fate vs free-will as Christianity has been.
 * Source that please. At best you have Bardaisan. But that's really pseudo free will.
 * 1.To your first point agreed but it is more a common understanding in academia than some seem to be willing to admit.
 * 2.To your second point yes cosmology systems that absolve mankind of freedom and responsibility for his actions and behavior (i.e. fatalism and determinism based on a necessitarianism of man versus nature). Systems that state that mankind is not in whole or in part responsible for the condition of his existence, nous, which is also called the 2nd emanation or demiurge (like philosophical idealism as our consciousness creates our reality, in pagan philosophy Zeus the creator is the God of the mind). As Plotinus taught that our consciousness comes from, is sourced from, white light (the one or Monad) and will return to that light at death when we lose our nous or consciousness (henosis). In these Oriental systems mankind did not corrupt reality when he choose to be separated from God. In paganism mankind in born into a world already corrupted (has evil) by its very design i.e. designer (i.e. it has "evil" gods in it by design). This is the Neoplatonism label when it is applied to Patristic text as Origen has a very clear history with this though he did not call it "gnosticism" rather it's Orientalism. Here is Professor Moore's article about his book on Origen and how he refers to the teaching as it was in and around the time of Origen and Plotinus. Though readers being modern and Western Moore uses the word "gnosticism". Also isn't that what Augustine said about Manicheanism (as Augustine never referred to it as gnosticism) in Confessions? However Augustine is not accepted as a theologian in the EO because of what you point out. One of his opponents in that conflict was the Eastern Orthodox Saint John Cassian and his position is the one considered correct about the matter not Pelagius nor Augustine. And Semipelagianism just like gnosticism and Palamism is a modern Western creature and not used in the ancient church.
 * 3.To your third point "no" this is what causes the Christians like Irenaeus to reject them (the gnostics of pagan fatalism) as not Christian, since the God of the old testament was Christ's "father" as Irenaeus taught that the Christian God was Yahweh (meaning you are denying the theology of the Ophites and the Sethians etc etc).
 * 4.Personal websites are not considered reliable sources. I agree I posted it as not my opinion but opinion of someone whom themselves professes to be a gnostic and what that entails to them.
 * 5.To your point "The Dogma on Creation does not mention fate or free-will." So now your denying the article is named "The transferal of the terms “essence”, “energy” and “person” into Theology. ('The problem of freedom)." And that theodicy is not about fate or free-will?
 * 6.As for the comment about Dostoevsky and WP:Original Research, they are not.I never suggested that it be put in the article per se, anyway. Notice how Dostoevsky doesn't refer to this as gnosticism but instead the name Manicheanism is used in relation to his premise. I only suggested that there is a much more obvious history of cults and their heresies (gnostics) and what they have caused. As the Dostoevsky point is that the Paulicians and Bogomils were persecuted for causing wars in the Eastern Empire and that's bad but what Muhammad (which is the same thing) did under Islam is to be ignored. As there is no difference in the minds of those at the time in fighting one or other both warred against the Empire and did so as sectarians. As the Islam won so it was somehow treated differently which is hypocrisy.
 * 7.And your contradicting yourself as you have pointed out that "Michael A. Hoffman II, is a revisionist historian and general paranoid." But you seem to miss this very same thing about Philip K. Dick. ie. that he suffered from paranoia and schizophrenia.
 * 8.As to Blavatsky OK but it does not account for her as she as seen in the East nor for her associate Yuliana Glinka as their Aryanism being what it is.
 * 9.For Wagner can you please provide a source?
 * 10.As for your comment about the mention of the Mystery Religions source. Please clarify what point you believe I was trying to make and it missed. I used it to show that gnosticism is just the Mystery religions and how they have interfaced with Judeo-Christianity. As the source does indeed dedicate a good section of the book on the subject of the anti-Semitic character of the ol Pagan culture of the time and the Mystery Religions.
 * 11.As for James Billington's book it does mention how Leninism is another ism or gnostic movement. And it also ties these revolutions to gnosticism by using the names of the cults in specific. Like say the Manicheanism.
 * 12.As for your other comments that are trying to criticize me as someone with an axe to grind and someone engaging in Original Research. You one, are trying to personalize this when I have made no such comments toward you. You then two are now engaging in the assumption that I am not editing in good faith. You are dictated by policy here to do the opposite (WP:Assume Good faith]]). I understand that this is probably a long protracted and not over quickly interaction. You characterizing me as you have which is Ad hominem which will do nothing to remove the positions that the sources I gave represent.
 * It is only fair that all major sides of this be represented in the article. Rather than attacking me simply provide academic sources (Hint hint Pagels) that can address and balance out some of this. I have no problem with that. Although Pagels makes terrible mistakes in her work and that should be noted as well. As for axes to grind as a personal issue I think people have free will and should be free to believe what they want to believe as long as it is not hurting anybody else. However this does not mean that any of us are above criticism. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First and second points: Wikipedia goes for the academic understanding, not biased ones. We follow the Neutral Point of View guidelines, not the Eastern Orthodox Point of View Guidelines.  Wikipedia can state what the EO view is, but it is not written from that perspective.  Although I agree in free-will over fate, many Christians have believed in a more fatalistic view of the universe.
 * Regarding Moore: he would be a worthwhile source in the article body. However, it's not general enough for the lede.
 * Third point: You're not getting it. According to the Gnostics, they did not see themselves as rejecting the Christian God.  According to the neutral point of view guidelines, it's not for the editors to make the article to decide whether or not they worshipped or rejected him.
 * Regarding the Mystery Religions text: Citations are neither horseshoes nor hand grenades, close doesn't count. Provide the page that makes your point.  However, despite the chapter title "Ancient Anti-Semitism," it doesn't mention antisemitism in Gnostic or Mystery religions specifically, but just in gentile culture in general.  Half of the reasons were secular, trade and rebellion.  Where does it comment on an anti-Semitic nature in the mystery religions specifically?  I'm not seeing that.  Do you have a specific passage to quote or page to point to?  There are sections of the book that have both the words "mystery religion" and "anti-semitism" in them, but that doesn't mean the author connects them.
 * Regarding Dostoevsky: what you presented initially was original research.
 * Regarding Hoffman and Dick, Dick is actually accepted as a modern Gnostic writer. Hoffman is not accepted as a Gnostic writer but a revisionist historian.  Regardless, it does counter your use of Hoffman.
 * Regarding Wagner: Pretty much any thing written about Wagner will tell you he read Schopenhaur.
 * Regarding Billington: he is not a scholar of religious history, he's a speechwriter. If he was notable for his views on Gnosticism, we might include them in the article, but he's not.
 * Regarding personalization: How about this, I'll accept it if someone else says my calling your work original research is unfair if you accept that your work is original research if someone else says your work is original research. Assuming good faith does not mean we can not point out mistakes.  YOu misunderstand ad hominem attacks.  Ad hominem attacks would be saying "Because Ian.thomson is a Baptist, he should not edit the Gnosticism article since there's no way he can be neutral."  It would be perfectly acceptable and not an ad hominem attack to show me being biased in some way, though, and then point that out. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First and second points: Wikipedia goes for the academic understanding, not biased ones.
 * The No POV policy does not state that. It states No POV is to include not to be used to exclude.
 * Regarding Moore: he would be a worthwhile source in the article body. However, it's not general enough for the lede.
 * Fair enough.
 * Third point: You're not getting it. According to the Gnostics, they did not see themselves as rejecting the Christian God.
 * Wrong your not assuming good faith and what you say is not reconciled with the Sethian and Ophites to name a few let alone the Mandaeism and their view of Jews. There is no such consistency as you state among them and their cosmologies. I have more so than you sourced even what I have stated here on the talkpage. You have done no sourcing and yet keep stating what I have posted and sourced is opinion.
 * Regarding the Mystery Religions text: Citations are neither horseshoes nor hand grenades, close doesn't count. Provide the page that makes your point.  However, despite the chapter title "Ancient Anti-Semitism," it doesn't mention antisemitism in Gnostic or Mystery religions specifically, but just in gentile culture in general.  Half of the reasons were secular, trade and rebellion.  Where does it comment on an anti-Semitic nature in the mystery religions specifically?  I'm not seeing that.  Do you have a specific passage to quote or page to point to?  There are sections of the book that have both the words "mystery religion" and "anti-semitism" in them, but that doesn't mean the author connects them.
 * Maybe if you treat the book as in a vacuum but that a characterization as I have already provided Jewish sources in the article that make the connection between gnosticism's vilification of the Yahweh and anti-Semiticism, anti Judaism to some extent. As the Sethian satire of Yahweh under the guise of Yabloath is still very academic. It seems that now Kurt Rudolph is not valid either.
 * Regarding Dostoevsky: what you presented initially was original research.
 * No that's an attempt to disregard the point and it fails as gnosticism in Russian lit has a history. A very current example is Vladmir Sorokin and his novels like Ice you are saying that Manicheanism for example and its under pinnings are not acknowledged in the East and I am saying they are as gnosticism is tactics not an actual movement from the EO perspective similar to the Tempelhofgesellschaft. They as tactics of the ol occultist pagans are still alive and well and never went away.
 * Regarding Hoffman and Dick, Dick is actually accepted as a modern Gnostic writer. Hoffman is not accepted as a Gnostic writer but a revisionist historian. Regardless, it does counter your use of Hoffman.
 * And yours of P.K. Dick.
 * Regarding Wagner: Pretty much any thing written about Wagner will tell you he read Schopenhaur.
 * Still claiming original research for me when I provide sources and instead dodging when requested to provide sources yourself. This means that what you post and don't source will treated as original research.
 * Regarding Billington: he is not a scholar of religious history, he's a speechwriter. If he was notable for his views on Gnosticism, we might include them in the article, but he's not.
 * That is character assassination toward James H. Billington as he is considered an historian and is the librarian of Congress. He is also an academic whom engages in historical and theological peer review . So NO that characterization you just used will not bode well here on Wikipedia. That is it makes you look like you have an axe to grind and no matter how valid the source or scholar you will engage in whatever behavior in order to discredit them. But I will assume good faith and hope you just are uninformed about who he actually is.
 * Regarding personalization: How about this, I'll accept it if someone else says my calling your work original research is unfair if you accept that your work is original research if someone else says your work is original research.
 * How about sticking to Wikipedia Policies which is what we are supposed to be doing. As your bias is now showing. And finding someone else whom agrees with your bias to say whatever about me proves nothing.
 * Assuming good faith does not mean we can not point out mistakes. YOu misunderstand ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks would be saying "Because Ian.thomson is a Baptist, he should not edit the Gnosticism article since there's no way he can be neutral." It would be perfectly acceptable and not an ad hominem attack to show me being biased in some way, though, and then point that out.
 * You have yet to show something very critical that would validate your argument that I was engaging in Original Research. What you would have to show is that I actually made this stuff up and that I was not actually getting the information from other people. At best you have that I am misinterpreting it. But then you have two problems in how you presented yourself. 1. You have yet to provide any sources for your comments here. And I have not called your contributions Original Research. 2. You have to assume that I will run out of resources to validate my statements as I have already been sourcing them. However I have been posting pretty common stuff so far, so there are plenty of sources to validate my positions and please note according to WP policy I only need two sources for a statement. Source that are valid academic sources. If you decide to go ahead and ask an administrator to intervene I would actually help, because again, I can source what I post as none of this is my opinion per se. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Inclusion" is not "replacement." "Inclusion" is also based on due weight presented by reliable sources (which means academic sources get more weight).
 * The Sethians and Ophites believed that Christ was sent by a higher God. Like Marcion, they believed there was a distinction.  It doesn't matter if we think that the Jewish God and Christian God are the same being, they believed there was a distinction.  Wikipedia does not place value judgements, it only reports what the sources say.  It's funny that you bring up the Mandaeans, because it shows you didn't pay attention tomy earlier comment "Furthermore, most post-Christian Gnostic schools (except for the Mandaeans) believed the Christian God and the Jewish God as two different figures."  If you were paying attention, you shouldn't twist my words about.
 * As for treating the book as a vacuum, that's where you're getting into original research, interpreting sources in connection to others, rather than finding singular sources that support singular points. Citations are point for point, not "grab an idea from this book, read another book with this idea, get this conclusion, read this other book with that conclusion in mind, and arrive at something else."
 * Whup-dee-doo about Russian literary theory, it's not historical research! As an English major, I'm quite familiar with how literary interpretation works, and it's quite common to appropriate terms from other fields to describe ideas, and it is also common to give the impression to those unfamiliar with literary interpretation that new interpretations are eternal truths just because they are applied to older texts.
 * Wordpress blogs are not acceptable. The Googble book you've provided is by a pseudohistorian.  Not even that, Joseph P. Farrell thinks the pyramids were created as weapons.
 * If it's that important to you to point out that the sky is blue with Wagner (because anyone that knows anything about Wagner knows he read Schopenhaur), fine:
 * Wagner, Richard (trans. Andrew Gray) (1992) My Life, Da Capo Press. Pages 508–510 - WAGNER HIMSELF said Schopenhauer was life-changing for him. You never provided anything to say that he was into Blavatsky, and I didn't go after you nearly this much.  You should review WP:WIN and your own behavior regarding this.
 * Magee, Bryan (1988) Aspects of Wagner, Oxford University Press. Pages 77–78
 * Magee, Bryan (2001) The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy, Metropolitan Books. Pages 133–134, 251–253, 276–278
 * What is my bias? You've admitted that you're pushing for a political and non-academic understanding of Gnosticism, and you didn't deny that the view you're trying to introduce is antagonistic instead of neutral.
 * As for original research, none of your sources support your entire conclusion. You are taking piecemeal parts and making connections.  That is synthesis.  You're showing major misunderstandings of WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NOR.  If I wasn't trying to assume good faith, I would assume that you were rules-lawyering and poorly.  I'm going to find the appropriate third party for this.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Whup-dee-doo back at you, please do. You HAVE TO PROVIDE SOURCES. All you've done is attack mine (as if Billington is a speech writer and doesn't use the library of Congress for peer review sourcing). If you don't get a third party that is not sympathetic but is objective to this subject I can guarantee you I will open an ANI. You attack my sourcing and don't provide any of your own. That's edit warring. As for the Blavasky and Wagner for the record what I was quoting from was Richard Noll and the cult of Jung and his ariosophist. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You said Wagner read Blavatsky, not the other way around. ("Richard Wagner was real big on the Aryanism covered in Blavasky's secret doctrine"). This reversal of your position makes it very hard for me not to doubt either your ability with English or good faith. Also, that you don't know what edit warring is makes it hard for me to assume you're not just grabbing terms from policies to rules-lawyer. Edit warring is reverting edits to articles beyond 3 times, especially without discussion, such as showing why certain sources are not acceptable. That you continue to push for introducing inappropriate sources to slant the article to a non-academic and biased understanding, that you accuse me of a bias without being able to point to it, that you hark on about me bringing in sources for every little point like this is a game... All of this... I don't see how you're here to help the encyclopedia anymore. I believe you are nothing but a POV-pusher and you should not edit this article. Know what? You go on and file a report at ANI, make your actions known to people who have the power to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I am saying that Wagner and Blavasky shared a common belief in what is called Ariosophy. Your sarcasm does not strength your case. Still not one source for your comments. My answer to you is I have agreed to you adding the introduction you have suggested. You can be sarcastic and when we get an administrator involved I will stick by the sources I have provided. I will also point out your sarcastic remarks which are acts of cowardice and show that you can not engage in discussion without attempting to inflame or frustrate people and that will not bode well for you. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Gnosticism
As Voegelin taught- and... There are various sources like Scholem and this one for example that state there is a connection between anti-semitism and gnosticism. Also things like Helena Blavatsky's disciple Yuliana Dmitrievna Glinka being depicted as one of the authors of the Protocols of Zion in Russia and the whole Aryanism of Blavatsky might warrant a mention in the article. I don't know to what extent but if there are articles like the Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše and the Iron Guard it only seems fair in the spirit of full disclosure to post some mention of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * frankly, I think that's getting rather far away from the basic topic. In several different directions. `
 * Fair enough DGG. However it is not original research. Nor is it bias as I pointed out that such connections can be made of other organizations. If that is setting the scope of the article too wide then thats understandable. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Voegelin was a political philosopher, he was not a formal religious historian. While he is notable, to take his views over those of historians would be like taking Richard Dawkins's views on early Christianity over those of historians who specialized in antiquity.  He gave a very specific definition of Gnosis, which was not based on historical classification.  Instead, he borrowed the term from history to use as political jargon to describe "a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection" caused by alienation from one's society.  In other words, the Dunning–Kruger effect compounded with dissatisfaction with one's situation.  Scholem is already covered.  The endtimepilgrim website is a personal website and does not meet the reliable source guidelines (will you just read them already?).  The Protocols of Zion was written in 19th century Russia, not in the ancient Roman Empire or surrounding areas.  Hardly qualifies as Gnostic, and as I recall, doesn't really contain any Gnosticism.  Blavatsky misused ideas and terms from Gnosticism the same way she misused Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism, and Sufi Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Voeglin is under the subject of gnosticism. This article is not that specific to exclude him (right or wrong in his position on it). It is an article about gnosticism not just religious gnosticism but gnosticism in general (as if there is such a thing as a separation between how a cult controls people and what it teaches as it's cosmology). I would like to also point out that a general title for a be all have all end to cover all forms of mysticism. And as they apply to this way of approaching reality beyond their origin in the mystery religions. Would be better suited to just say "secular mysticism". As mysticism is a very good thing and needs to be treated as a separate thing. As it is the most precious and important of all things and it should be treated with the highest respect. As gnosticism has this whole Aryan elite race of or Sethianism (lost tribe of Israel mythos) to it that is not the same as what the mystery religions actually taught. I think this is to give a fake history and linage a false narrative. As this is about this subject then lets try and address it according to this subject not mysticism in general. As there is in this history (of mysticism) a clear conflict between those whom treat metaphysics as mysticism and those whom see mysticism as gnosiology or revelatory. There are those who do not make such a distinction and that is just not how reality is. As I will never believe Plotinus was a gnostic who thought he was a chosen one from the lost tribe of Israel etc. etc.. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Voegelin is in Gnosticism in modern times. Maybe that might suffice. The talk page discusses that he might have abandoned his deviant and political definition of gnosticism. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Article
I find this artice to be excellent. It is very objective and is not biased. Kudos --PiOfFive 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends on one's POV, I suppose. The article's statements about the canonization of the New Testament are very biased in my view, as I will explain in a new section below.Spiritquest (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good but "excellent" is taking it a bit far. Gingermint (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed intro
Ok, I'm considering taking the current lede and turning it into an "overview" section, and replacing the intro with this:


 * Gnosticism was a group of ancient religions that combined different elements from Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), Neoplantonism, and eventually Buddhism and early Christianity. It taught that some esoteric knowledge (or Gnosis) was necessary for salvation from the material world, which was created by some intermediary figure (or demiurge) instead of God. In some systems, the demiurge was considered evil, in others merely imperfect. Different gnostic schools sometimes identified the demiurge as Adam, Ahriman, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, or Yahweh. Many schools inverted traditional interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, leading Gershom Scholem to call Gnosticism "the Greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism." However, some scholars have argued that the Jewish mysticism Kabbalah is Gnostic. Later religions influenced by these ideas have also been called Gnostic, to varying degrees of acceptance among scholars.

JimHoward has expressed approval for a previous form of this. What's there should either be supported by something else in this article, or in one of the other articles. Does anyone just want the old intro completely scrapped? I removed the Logos because it's not general enough. Are there any other suggestions? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that endorsement as long as the line "However, some scholars have argued that the Jewish mysticism Kabbalah is Gnostic." can be properly sourced. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Points to Gnosticism and the sourced information there). Ledes are supported by article text, only bringing in new sources as necessary.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add it. I will just source tag it, after no source has been found over a month or so I can remove the statement. As even with what you said, anyone can see the part of the article also lacks having a source for the like statement. Also I think that some of the teachings of the oldest still remaining sect of gnostics the Mandaeism should have a mention in the article intro. Their view of Judaism should be included -View of Jerusalem. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ... Did you not read WP:LEDE and the multiple summaries of it on this page? The lede is supported by the article text.  But fine, I will unnecessarily recopy the sources used in the article so you don't even get to tag them, because you want to win Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, your intro should replace the old one, which doesn't state any worthwhile information not already stated more correctly elsewhere.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove it, I'll agree to and protect that edit, but I'm not dedicated enough to the position to remove it myself unless an additional editor says it'd be a good idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I thin using such terminology as Gershon';s in the introduction is inappropriate and confusing. It should be seen as just one of the possible interpretations later in the article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The main thrust of gnosticism as a phenomenon was not "anti-Semitism".  It was a wide range of schools, and only certain ones (Marcion, etc.) had specific interest in negating Judaism/Hebrew bible, or in describing Demiurge in specific ways.  This article (like any article) should first and foremost present a clear, historically and textually accurate portrayal of Gnosticism.Jimhoward72 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NO I disagree with DGG. I think that if a movement or concept has a history of being used to promote a very negative thing then that needs to be pointed out. If DGG is saying that it should not be addressed in the article I oppose him and I say he is wrong. If DGG is saying that maybe thats a bit of a heavy thing to say in the lead of the article as it might cloud people's perception of the subject I disagree again and I can do that. DGG can choose to ignore that.


 * However my point is, to deny that the very concept at the heart of gnosticism is the vilification of the Jewish God as not being a cornerstone to the subject (and is what actually makes the subject novel or unique) is wrong. To do such a thing is to shy away from the truth of this concept or subject as an underlying theology to various blatant anti-Semitic movements like say the Tempelhofgesellschaft, and is to engage in disinformation. As allot of Neo-Nazi, paganism in Europe and in Russia right now is driven by this thing called gnosticism and to say that its not fair or biased to point that out like Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke and his Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) has done, is wrong. Again its more common in academia to have a negative opinion of this subject and here's just one example why. As for Goodrick-Clarke if I am not mistaken he is actually a fan of the occult so I am not quoting someone whom has an axe to grind per se. I think that people don't want to draw attention to this because they don't want to feed it. Or at least not the hatred that it can manifest in some people.


 * Thats all intrinsic to the subject and is actually the heart and soul of the subject. That being that idea that Jewish people worship the devil or at least the God of evil. Thats a pretty big thing and that's the actual novel characteristic that makes this subject what it is. As I have already pointed out that without this unique characteristic everything else in this subject pretty much just becomes Orientalism. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This line of argument is completely incorrect, and results from ignoring a critical historical/textual perspective (which is the standard academic approach, and also the approach of wikipedia). You cannot use modern movements from modern times to sort of "retro-actively" analyse gnosticism.  The phenomenon of gnosticism must be described in the historical time period close to the developement of early Christianity.  Modern movements have nothing to do with describing the phenomenon of gnosticism as it developed 2000 years ago. If a critical textual/historical approach was applied to this article, there would be nothing wrong with it.Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If we were going to characterize ancient Gnosticism as inherently anti-semitic because some political writers, literary critics, occultists, and conspiracy theorists describe certain modern groups by completely misusing a historical term they know little about, then we might as well describe Christianity as homophobic because of the Westboro Baptist Church, or white-supremacist because of the Christian Identity groups. Also, Wikipedia doesn't make value judgements, to do so is POV-pushing.  Calling for putting value judgements into this article is POV pushing.  Even for groups that are commonly regarded as evil, we describe their deeds, we describe reactions to their deeds, and any thinking individual can reach their own conclusion. From the NPOV guidelines: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." You should also see Neutral point of view/FAQ and Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.  If you want a website to advocate your own views, I recommend making a blog somewhere else.  If Gnosticism was inherently villifying the Jewish God, then it would just be called "Anti-Judaism."
 * LoveMonkey, you've made it clear that you just want to push a POV (and a non-academic one at that) and that you're not interested in cooperating with the site's guidelines or any editor that doesn't give you your way. If you want to cooperate, I'd like to see that, but otherwise you're welcome to leave and write somewhere else.  I'm not going to look for a third party unless your edits become disruptive.  You can go on to ANI if you want.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not my POV. I am posting a critical group and what they have stated. I have used both sides to support the analysis. As if Hans Jonas is not considered a scholar on the subject of gnsoticism and that he did not know Gershom Scholem personally. Let alone what Steven Bayme says about it on the book used in the article. And please don't try the tired old they where before the Nag Hammadi nonsense. The only POV here is character assassination because people here don't like any critical approach to the subject, because their obvious POV is that any criticism of the subject is done because somebody is just against what they like. Sorry but I did not invent these people nor their positions that I have quoted. Also enough with people teaching Neoplatonism as gnosticism they are not the same thing. The nous, or demiurge as consciousness is not evil as Plotinus pointed out attacking sanity as an evil thing or the cause of evil will just make people go crazy it will trigger psychosis. Is that not something that is obvious to the subject and a consistent problem people out about the occult?  Let alone treating the Jewish God by way of satire as the devil and what happens when a few misguided souls see that as a literal statement? As if no one is supposed to address this. And as if no one has.. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To the question about new lede: the text provided is too short. It is neutral and acceptable but too short. I instead propose that the current one is rewritten to provide the meaning that your text expresses. The method of making a lede a new overview by providing a heading, is a method of messing up the article to repepepeatatatat itself infinitely, or one must delete something, which increases the risk of unintended fact holes. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was leaning toward removing the old lede completely, but I thought that there was some material worth reincorporating and that it would be easier to do so with it remaining in the article. I'll go and bring in some of the stuff concerning differing views of the messiah(s), and the last part of the geographic history.  Any other suggestions?  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While there is a long list of recently discovered texts within the article (such as the Nag Hammadi material), it doesn't seem that the insights of modern scholarship are present in the article itself. Hopefully more up-to-date scholarly references can be included.  Just one example - the section on Manichaeism uses completely outdated, biased views from Christian authors (and ancient Christian polemics), and completely ignores summarizing the modern scholarly views of Manichaeism based on 20th century discoveries, which picture Manichaeism as a unique world religion. Simply put, a few of the most modern scholarly works should be referred to, quoted, and cited throughout the article, and especially in the intros/summaries.Jimhoward72 (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The term

 * Coming in late on this, (idle browsing I'll be honest), and I boldly edited before seeing that there is actually (unusally for this sort of subject area) actual intelligent thoughtful discussion editing going on, so apologies for what is probably a disruptive edit. Feel free to reverse. In fact I'll do it myself in a second. But the section the term needs to be there. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, okay you reverted it before I could revert it myself, no worries. But please include this:

____________________________________________________________________________
 * The term
 * The term derives from the use of the term Gnostic by Irenaeus to describe the school of Valentinus as he legomene Gnostike haeresis "the heresy called Gnostic". The term "Gnosticism" does not appear in ancient sources. The term Gnosticism was first coined by Henry More in a commentary on the seven letters of the Book of Revelation, where More used the term "Gnosticisme" to describe the heresy in Thyatira.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian >> 113,355 bytes) (Restoring holistic lede. If we're gonna define Gnosticism just as a term early Church historians used, we might as well define Christianity as "Jewish atheism" since that's how the Romans saw it. The lede summarizes the article.) (undo) <<

Gnosticism isn't a term early church historians used, Gnostic was a term Irenaeus used of Valentinus. And then "Gnosticism" became a term used after Henry Moore. The lede does summarize the article, but the article doesn't make clear about why these various Christian "heresies" are being lumped together. Or does it, I don't know. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the first line of the lede actually true?
Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) was a group of ancient religions that combined different elements from Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), Neoplatonism, and eventually Buddhism and early Christianity.
 * Was it? Was Gnosticism a group of ancient religions? Who grouped them? (partly playing devil's advocate here in asking this question, excuse me, but it isn't clear... who did group who? and why?) CheersIn ictu oculi (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was out to lunch. I see you've added the term para back in that's fine.

The Manichaes, Sethians, Barborites, Cainites, Cathars (even though they're medieval), Basilideans, Valentinians, Simonians, and Ophites have variously been called Gnostic by different scholars, but they present different, sometimes conflicting views. Kabbalah, Hermeticism, and Mithraism have also been included in studies on Gnosticism to varying degrees of acceptance. The only common theme are that these groups offered some type of Gnosis meant to save the follower from the world created by an imperfect demiurge.
 * What is Gnosticism? By Karen L. King includes:
 * "1. all varieties of early Christianity that are characterized by these discourses as having too little or too negative an appropriation of Judaism;
 * 2. an outside contamination of pure Christianity, either as the force that contaminated Christianity (as in theories of Gnosticism as an independent religion) or as a form of contaminated Christianity (here Gnosticism is understood to be a secondary deviation from the pure Gospel);
 * 3. any of a number of traditions said to be closely related to this contaminated Christianity, whether or not they contain explicitly Christian elements, such as Hermeticism, Platonizing Sethianism, Mandaeism, Manichaeism, the Albigensian heresy, or the tenets of the medieval Cathars."
 * Gnosticism: beliefs and practices By John Glyndwr Harris treats it as a single subject ("Gnosticism may be used of a form of redemptive knowledge which is expressed through a complex speculative religious and philosophical movement") but does admit elsewhere that it manifest as different schools of thought.
 * Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity By Birger A. Pearson treats Gnosticism as a religion independant of Christianity that further developed in Christian circles, and continues by summing it up in much the same way the current lede does: salvic gnosis being important, the real God is transcendant, the world-maker is an imperfect demiurge. He does differ in defining Gnosticism as parasitic religion that manifest within other religions.
 * Although a bit outdated, occasionally fantastic, and slightly slanted to different ends, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten by G.R.S. Mead and The Gnostics and Their Remains by C.W. King both agree on Gnosticism as a collection of schools influenced by different religions (the mystery religions, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity).
 * While the term did arise only in the past few centuries, it is so useful in properly understanding a related set of schools that it is a scholarly reality. While a few scholars question this category, even they have to use it to question it, and they fail to find any replacement.
 * Would you be happier with "group of ancient religions" being replaced with "group of ancient religious schools?" Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian Thanks for reply, and again apologies for bold edit while browsing before seeing that the talk page was live. "group of ancient religions" being replaced with "group of ancient religious schools" might be a good change, but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make. It still begs "who grouped them"? Was it Irenaeus? or was it Adolf Harnack? It's evidently part of the modern study on this area, per Karen L. King of Harvard etc. to examine "Gnosticism" first as a construct of the describers of "Gnosticism" Irenaeus to Adolf Harnack etc. And only then examine objectively what there is in source texts for each of the 20 or 30 groups that have had this label flung at them 1700-1900 that really has commonality. In particular Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathars, is there any real commonality with Valentinus? Or Nag Hammadi? It's a question. I think at least looking at King (Karen not Charles William) there ought to be words in the lede that reflect the section 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category, and 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category, would probably be better as the second section after etymology/first use of the term. This article then could be read after reflecting debate about the validity of the grouping "Gnosticism" as an academic construct. (BTW Personally I'd move anything by Charles William King (may not be anything) and George Robert Stowe Mead (one ref) in the article down to Gnosticism in modern times.) That's my suggestion, FWIW. CheersIn ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just picking up on this >Although a bit outdated, occasionally fantastic, and slightly slanted to different ends, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten by G.R.S. Mead and The Gnostics and Their Remains by C.W. King both agree on Gnosticism as a collection of schools influenced by different religions (the mystery religions, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity).< again that says more about Charles William King and George Robert Stowe Mead and Victorian/Edwardian parlour religion than it says about Buddhism. If we remove such sources can we still connect Buddhism with Valentinus and Nag Hammadi?In ictu oculi (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Re the "group of" issue, it's not just been grouped by a single individual, those schools have been grouped together by various post-More scholars, and it's pretty much academic reality.
 * Karen King presents the three main views of Gnosticism as a solid group. Since we just summarize what the sources say, those three views together (along with the "not a good category" view) would be represented in the article.  The easiest way to handle that in the lead is to represent the different groups called Gnostic as different religions.
 * I agree that the Lede could use additional material on how the category is now disputed. However, the dispute is rather recent and still not the majority.
 * I didn't go through the article for those refs, but did a quick check on Google Books and Sacred-texts.com. The King and Mead sources were examples of how Gnosticism as a single grouping has been accepted without question for some time, and how long the influence of those religions has been accepted.  But while we're on the subject, the mead reference in the article is for the statement "the numbers of these pairings varied from text to text, though some identify their number as being thirty."  Although writing for theosophical interests, Mead tried to stick to the sources available (at least with that work).  Seems reasonable enough.
 * As for it being reflective of Victorian beliefs about Buddhism, Manichaeism openly acknowledged Buddhist influence. Before that Bardaisan discussed conversations with Sramanas (which would include Buddhists and Jains) in his writings.  Elain Pagels also points out Buddhist influence on the Gospel of Thomas, and other scholars (such as Edward Conze) have pointed out Buddhist influence on Gnosticism.
 * I acknowledge that the entire concept of "Gnosticism" may be completely wrong, and can be seen as an oversimplification and combination of syncretism between ancient religions and cosmic paranoia. But Wikipedia just summarizes what's already been written, and will always be behind the ball.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed.71.48.255.230 (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian
 * Thanks, but the question would remain about whether this opening sentence
 * "Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) was a group of ancient religions that combined different elements from Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), Neoplatonism, and eventually Buddhism and early Christianity."
 * Is behind the ball of mainstream modern patristic/post-Nag Hammadi scholarship?
 * I would have thought
 * (1) "Gnosticism (from Greek: γνωστικός gnōstikos, "of knowledge") was more accurate.
 * (2) "was a group" is highly debatable, other than Irenaeus may have grouped them all as heretics.
 * (3) "of ancient religions" = 2nd Century Christian sects.
 * (4) "that combined different elements from.. especially Zurvanism"? What percentage of the Christian sects enumerated in On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called were influenced by Sassanid religion?
 * (5) "Buddhism" - given that this is a somewhat fringe connection not recognised by mainstream scholarship this shouldn't really be mentioned in lede.
 * ....also the article should probably be cleaned/checked of all statements where the sole source is Elaine Pagels.

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

NB, I've removed this here to Talk > Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early Christianity. - ref: J Bentley, "Old World Encounters" OUP. "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" < This appears to be a casual statement by a scholar writing about Marco Polo and Columbus. It's not a sensible source for Irenaeus/Nag Hammadi. And it doesn't even (I think) refer to Gnostics. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Gnosis is the root for Gnostikos. If you check the Christianity article, it says that Christianity derives from Khristos, not Khristianos.
 * 2) What else would you call a number of things with some relation to each other? These different religions had the common themes of Gnosis, and this has been discussed by various scholars for quite some time.  This is behind the ball
 * 3, 4) Again, would you have us define Christianity as nothing but atheistic Jewish sect? That's what the earliest outside sources tend to view it as.  For Gnosticism, are we limited only to a single Church Father's polemics of select groups, or can we accept modern historians' research into the works of other religions of the time?  Because other religions at the time were concerned with Gnosis, thought the material world was made by an imperfect demiurge, etc... It's generally acceptable within modern academic circles to refer to these religions as "Gnostic," the same as it's acceptable to refer to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as "the Abrahamic religions," and those and Zoroastrianism, Bahai, and Sikhism as "monotheistic religions."  It is not unacceptable for ancient religions to be addressed in terms not used contemporarily.  Mithraists likely refered to themselves as "syndexioi," for example, and the Pythagoreans called themselves Mathmatikoi or Akousmatikoi.  The Cathars called themselves "Good (men/women/Christians)."  These are all academic constructs, but that were created because they help classify common groups.  It is acceptable within academia to refer to Manichaeism as a "Gnostic religion."  You have brought in sources to the article which point out non-Christian (specifically Jewish) Gnostic sects, I don't see how you can possibly treat Gnosticism as only a few Christian heresies.
 * 5) Manichaeism admits its own influence from Buddhism and there is no more denying influence from that or Zurvanism than there is denying the influence of the Hebrew religion on Christianity. I offered Pagels as an example of one of the many accepted scholars who believes Buddhism and Gnosticism were related.  She's the professor at Princeton, worked at Barnard, and studied at Stanford and Harvard (where she worked with the Nag Hammadi codexes).  She is a reliable source, an academic one, not a fringe source. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, thanks for the time to answer these queries.
 * 1) hah, well it's hardly surprising that the Christianity article's etymology is wrong (etymology isn't exactly Wikipedia's strong suit is it), the English noun Christianity comes from christianos not Christos. But the issue is more nuanced here in that the -ικός adjective formation does actually change the meaning. γνωτός is "known", γνωστικός is "learned". I suppose one could say (carelessly) that grammaticism ultimately comes from the noun γράμμα "letter", when in fact it actually comes from the adjective γραμματικός "lettered, knowing one's letters". My point is that it wouldn't be too difficult to make the lede more correct would it? e.g. (from γνωστικός "learned", which comes from γνῶσις "knowledge") what's the problem with having the correct etymology in the lede?
 * 2) on this I don't have a preference, but I'm sure there must be a better way of saying it than "was a group", when there wasn't a group.
 * 3) On this I'm afraid I don't follow this at all, sorry. Christianity isn't an "atheistic Jewish sect". ("Jewish sect" is true, evidently Christianity was a haeresis of Second Temple Judaism) Where does atheistic' come into it?
 * If the question is why would "of early Christian sects" be better than "of ancient religions", the answer would be since these are "early Christian sects," not "ancient religions". Perhaps my problem is (my?) confusion about the article. Is it Gnosticism in ancient religions, or is it Gnostic Christianity? Seems that the article is almost entirely about Christian sects, give or take 1 para on Manicheanism.
 * 4) Well that's the question isn't it. Since the Christian sects called "Gnostic" by Irenaeus and Epiphanius are syncretic, some of them cleared adopted ideas about a demiurge from earlier sources. It's a question (meaning that I'm asking) regarding specific Sassanid demiurge etc., because it doesn't appear particularly well documented by refs in the article.
 * 5) I'm afraid I do need a second source for anything where Pagels is the sole source (that's just my feeling, no one has to share it, but I still have it). Which is why I'm asking who are the modern scholars who believe that the groups listed as Gnostics by Irenaeus and Epiphanius were influenced by Buddhism? And what specifically in Gnostic thought can only be explained by Buddhism rather than e.g. Greek/Egyptian influence, which appears to be documented? I see the The Eastern Buddhist Society 1981 has a paper "This paper is an initial attempt to follow up Pagels' call for a comparative study of the Nag Hammadi tractates and Indian sources,6 by considering some of the similarities in theory and practice which are present in certain Nag Hammadi texts, in certain Buddhist wisdom scriptures, and in the works of two second to third century cE Mahayana Buddhist philosophers, Nagarjuna and Aryadeva." Call me sceptical, but this sort of thing brings to mind Arthur Little. As it stands I think the Buddhism section is worth leaving as a curio. But to bracket Buddhism as an influence in the lede... it'd be nice to see support in the article for every statement in the lede.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what the main confusion is, now. Why is an article simply titled "Gnosticism" to be limited only to Christian Gnosticism, when the concept is applied to other religions of the era?  There was Jewish Gnosticism, pagan Gnosticism, and Manichaeism.  That the article mainly discusses Christian Gnosticism indicates need of expansion (or if we want to take the easy way out, a rename to "Christian Gnosticism" and removing the Manichaeism stuff).
 * There are some works in the Nag Hammadi Codexes that cannot readily be identifed as Christian (c.f. Allogenes), but definately can be identified as Jewish (c.f. Apocalypse of Adam).
 * How about we divide the article into "Christian Gnosticism," "Jewish Gnosticism," "Hermetic/Pagan/Neoplatonic/Philosophical Gnosticism," and "Manichaeism?" The latter sections will need expansion, and in expanding the article, we'll develop enough material to warrant having Gnostic Christianity be more than a redirect to Fathers of Christian Gnosticism.
 * Your questions regarding Buddhism and Zurvanism have been a bit frustrating because they are bringing up connections that the article doesn't make. The article does discuss Manichaeism, which was influenced by Buddhism and Zurvanism.  I don't get why you keep ignoring Manichaeism in the article.
 * And although tangential, the Romans saw Christians as atheists, and I would have assumed that Christos was the word Christianos was derived from. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian,
 * Yes. I think it's the article's remit which is the problem. The searching for origins/parallels outside the actual Christian sects that were called gnostic by Irenaeus and Epiphanius and then calling those origins parallels may well be mainstream scholarly behaviour in this area (at least 1850-1950), but it's still very sloppy and confusing, and hasn't helped the article.
 * >How about we divide the article into "Christian Gnosticism," "Jewish Gnosticism," "Hermetic/Pagan/Neoplatonic/Philosophical Gnosticism," and "Manichaeism?" < Sounds like an extremely good idea to me.
 * >Nag Hammadi Codexes that cannot readily be identifed as Christian (c.f. Allogenes), but definately can be identified as Jewish (c.f. Apocalypse of Adam).< Well that's true of the Bible as well. 64 books can be identified as Jewish, and 39 as very Jewish. OTP like Apocalypse of Adam are present in almost all early Christian communities, since Christianity is a syncretic outgrowth from Hellenistic Judaism, so finding them at Nag Hammadi, or at a Georgian monastery, or in a Mormon book kiosk, is to be expected. Likewise Christian and Jewish texts are found in medieval Muslim libraries... use of an OTP like Apocalypse of Adam by a 4thC Christian sect doesn't make them Jewish, any more than a chapel of Welsh Methodists singing psalms is a synagogue. :)
 * Yes, my questions regarding Buddhism and Zurvanism are frustrating for me too because they are bringing up connections that the article doesn't make. Yes. But the thing is Buddhism and Zurvanism are mentioned in the lede. And then the article fails to evidence in the case of Buddhism any connection other than a few 19thC fringe theories. I'm going to be BOLD and remove Buddhism from the lede. If anyone strongly objects they can restore it. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)