What do you think?
Rate this book
Gnosticism and Early Christianity
Six lectures on the history of religions sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies delivered in 1957-58. They "attempt to explain Gnosticism as arising out of the debris of apocalyptic-eschatological hopes which resulted from the fall or falls of Jerusalem...Only after this disaster do we encounter Gnosticism in its various systematic forms." p. viii
Includes both an index & bibliography.
Includes both an index & bibliography.
- GenresReligion
251 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1959
30 people want to read
About the author
Robert M. Grant
41 books5 followersRobert McQueen Grant was an American academic theologian and professor.
There are more authors with this name in this data base. This one is Robert M.^^Grant. For the strategic management expert go to Robert M. Grant.
There are more authors with this name in this data base. This one is Robert M.^^Grant. For the strategic management expert go to Robert M. Grant.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 3, 2025
gnostic neoplatonism..:(::
May 24, 2015
My undergraduate thesis at Grinnell College was an overview of the scholarly literature as regards the origins of what has been commonly called "Gnosticism". For this project I read an enormous amount and came up with six rubrics as regards the origins question.
Grant's book is representative of the thesis that what he calls "systematic" Gnosticism only arose after the disappointment of apocalyptic hopes after the Roman reconquest of Jerusalem in the seventies of this era. In other words, it was in its roots connected to what we now call "Judaism", most particularly to its eschatologically inclined adherents. This might include, of course, "God-fearers", gentiles who subscribed to some, but not all, cult practices and certainly came to include what came to be known as "the Way" and later the "Christian" movement, ranging between both its gentile and Jewish wings. Clearly, such an argument rests substantially upon what one means by "systematic Gnosticism". Here Grant allows himself an out as relevant texts dated to a time prior to a.D. 70 may be called "gnosticizing" and deemed insufficiently systematic.
My conclusion as regards the debate and the proponents of the various positions took account of the fact that no one recognized anything as a "Gnostic religion" until modern scholars started employing such terms, but accepted the rather minimalist position that "gnosticism" with a small "g" might be used meaningfully to describe beliefs claiming a soteriological efficacy to certain kinds of obtainable knowledge or insight. Beyond this and as regards supposed systems one really has to talk about individual teachers such as Valentinus or texts such as the Hypostasis of the Archons--all of which are certainly gnostic in such a broad sense, but few of which were entirely in harmony, one with another.
Consequently, I take somewhat of a "perennial philosophy" stance as regards gnosticism, allowing Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other variants to represent such tendencies. Heck, even a prehistoric mushroom cultist might, by my lights, be considered gnostic if the insight of his or her practice was one of self-transcendent identification with the cosmos.
Whatever. Grant was a serious scholar and his work still merits attention.
Grant's book is representative of the thesis that what he calls "systematic" Gnosticism only arose after the disappointment of apocalyptic hopes after the Roman reconquest of Jerusalem in the seventies of this era. In other words, it was in its roots connected to what we now call "Judaism", most particularly to its eschatologically inclined adherents. This might include, of course, "God-fearers", gentiles who subscribed to some, but not all, cult practices and certainly came to include what came to be known as "the Way" and later the "Christian" movement, ranging between both its gentile and Jewish wings. Clearly, such an argument rests substantially upon what one means by "systematic Gnosticism". Here Grant allows himself an out as relevant texts dated to a time prior to a.D. 70 may be called "gnosticizing" and deemed insufficiently systematic.
My conclusion as regards the debate and the proponents of the various positions took account of the fact that no one recognized anything as a "Gnostic religion" until modern scholars started employing such terms, but accepted the rather minimalist position that "gnosticism" with a small "g" might be used meaningfully to describe beliefs claiming a soteriological efficacy to certain kinds of obtainable knowledge or insight. Beyond this and as regards supposed systems one really has to talk about individual teachers such as Valentinus or texts such as the Hypostasis of the Archons--all of which are certainly gnostic in such a broad sense, but few of which were entirely in harmony, one with another.
Consequently, I take somewhat of a "perennial philosophy" stance as regards gnosticism, allowing Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other variants to represent such tendencies. Heck, even a prehistoric mushroom cultist might, by my lights, be considered gnostic if the insight of his or her practice was one of self-transcendent identification with the cosmos.
Whatever. Grant was a serious scholar and his work still merits attention.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews