What do you think?
Rate this book
A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism
An eminent French scholar examines the fascinating myths and ideas of Gnosticism, discussing all of its doctrines and themes. Petrement's analysis of these and other Gnostic documents constitutes a comprehensive new introduction to the ideas of the Gnostics that sheds fresh light on New Testament studies.
- GenresReligion
560 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1993
4 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
About the author
Simone Pétrement
6 books3 followersSimone Pétrement, née le 6 juin 1907 à Nemours et morte le 15 décembre 1992 à Margency, est une philosophe française spécialisée dans les origines chrétiennes du gnosticisme.
Étudiante au lycée Henri IV dans la khâgne d'Alain, elle fut camarade de classe de Simone Weil. Elle a été élève de l'École normale supérieure (promotion L1927 ; l'une des trois premières femmes en lettres, avec Clémence Ramnoux et Suzanne Roubaud), agrégée de philosophie (1931) puis docteur ès lettres (Paris, 1947). Elle a exercé les fonctions de Conservateur à la Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Son essai Le Dieu séparé a été couronné en 1985 par le prix Montyon de l'Académie française, qui lui avait déjà précédemment décerné en 1974, le prix Broquette-Gonin pour sa biographie La vie de Simone Weil.
Étudiante au lycée Henri IV dans la khâgne d'Alain, elle fut camarade de classe de Simone Weil. Elle a été élève de l'École normale supérieure (promotion L1927 ; l'une des trois premières femmes en lettres, avec Clémence Ramnoux et Suzanne Roubaud), agrégée de philosophie (1931) puis docteur ès lettres (Paris, 1947). Elle a exercé les fonctions de Conservateur à la Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Son essai Le Dieu séparé a été couronné en 1985 par le prix Montyon de l'Académie française, qui lui avait déjà précédemment décerné en 1974, le prix Broquette-Gonin pour sa biographie La vie de Simone Weil.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
November 22, 2022Comment:
Yet another excellent thick fat book on gnosticism that I cannot recommend to a general audience. Our authoress, Simone Pétrement deserves to be proud. I believe I first became aware of her thanks to Bataille who, in his "Theory of Religion" (I think that is the book), mentions her with admiration. This book by Pétrement, like the book by Cyril O'Regan ("Gnostic Return In Modernity"), is very learned, and she continually cites supporting (and even counter) evidence to her thesis. (Of course, while trying to show how the counter evidence is likely wrong.) People who are interested in gnosticism either to merely applaud it or denounce it will likely find either book tedious.
Now both these books are interested to the point of obsession with the Christian-Gnostic nexus. O'Regans interest is in the nexus here in modernity, while Pétrements interest is in the nexus at its origin. He wishes to extricate present day Christian orthodoxy from gnostic heterodoxy, she wishes to show that nascent gnostic tendencies in first century Christianity became the real deal (genuine full-blown gnosticism) in the second and third centuries. It is very interesting to read each of these books in the light of the other.
Regarding the book by Pétrement, I most especially enjoyed her seeing the hellenized Christian (and, I would add, Jewish) milieu as the source of gnosticism. In the New Testament Itself she finds traits and tendencies that will become genuine gnosticism a few decades later. First at Corinth, with some of the followers of Apollos; then in the fourth Gospel too. Now, she is not maintaining that the fourth Gospel is gnostic; rather she claims that "the mode of expression is such that one can deduce the principles of gnosticism from it." She even conjectures that Apollos may have had a hand in the fourth Gospel! Apollos was from Alexandria; and that city was where Philo first attempted to marry monotheism and platonism. Apollos may not have written the fourth Gospel, "but he might at least have been the main inspiration of the circle from which that Gospel emerged." And, let us not forget that Apollos, for similar reasons, has been put forward as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Martin Luther himself.
Apollos is certainly an intriguing character. He appears to us to stand at a crossroads where Hellenized Jews, first generation Christianity and (proto-)gnosticism collide. I think it likely that if Christianity today were to transform itself into a 'Third Age of the Spirit' as Hegel (and Joachim) hoped, Apollos would be given a role to play. However, FF Bruce holds up a moderating hand (in his "Peter, Stephen, James & John") pointing out that "Apollos may indeed be the only Alexandrian Christian known to us from the New Testament Age, but there could have been others, similarly gifted, whose names have not been preserved. (p. 83)" I would like to read more on Apollos and his reception in not only ancient times, but in later times too.
Most concede that the hellenization of Egypt and the Levant was crucial to the rise of gnosticism. Our author only questions the timing. In her mind, proto-gnosticism always first appears in Christian circles; and from that point it eventually grafts pagan and eastern elements onto itself. Thus the Syncretism that all can see was, for our author, a later post-New Testament development.
Unless I am mistaken, modern scholarship first became interested in the Christian-gnostic nexus thanks to the work of Adolf von Harnack. His "History of Dogma" was published around the turn of the last century, and I think that is when the relationship between these two became problematic. Before Harnack, the Church Fathers / Apologists were taken pretty much at their word regarding gnosticism.
Yet another excellent thick fat book on gnosticism that I cannot recommend to a general audience. Our authoress, Simone Pétrement deserves to be proud. I believe I first became aware of her thanks to Bataille who, in his "Theory of Religion" (I think that is the book), mentions her with admiration. This book by Pétrement, like the book by Cyril O'Regan ("Gnostic Return In Modernity"), is very learned, and she continually cites supporting (and even counter) evidence to her thesis. (Of course, while trying to show how the counter evidence is likely wrong.) People who are interested in gnosticism either to merely applaud it or denounce it will likely find either book tedious.
Now both these books are interested to the point of obsession with the Christian-Gnostic nexus. O'Regans interest is in the nexus here in modernity, while Pétrements interest is in the nexus at its origin. He wishes to extricate present day Christian orthodoxy from gnostic heterodoxy, she wishes to show that nascent gnostic tendencies in first century Christianity became the real deal (genuine full-blown gnosticism) in the second and third centuries. It is very interesting to read each of these books in the light of the other.
Regarding the book by Pétrement, I most especially enjoyed her seeing the hellenized Christian (and, I would add, Jewish) milieu as the source of gnosticism. In the New Testament Itself she finds traits and tendencies that will become genuine gnosticism a few decades later. First at Corinth, with some of the followers of Apollos; then in the fourth Gospel too. Now, she is not maintaining that the fourth Gospel is gnostic; rather she claims that "the mode of expression is such that one can deduce the principles of gnosticism from it." She even conjectures that Apollos may have had a hand in the fourth Gospel! Apollos was from Alexandria; and that city was where Philo first attempted to marry monotheism and platonism. Apollos may not have written the fourth Gospel, "but he might at least have been the main inspiration of the circle from which that Gospel emerged." And, let us not forget that Apollos, for similar reasons, has been put forward as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Martin Luther himself.
Apollos is certainly an intriguing character. He appears to us to stand at a crossroads where Hellenized Jews, first generation Christianity and (proto-)gnosticism collide. I think it likely that if Christianity today were to transform itself into a 'Third Age of the Spirit' as Hegel (and Joachim) hoped, Apollos would be given a role to play. However, FF Bruce holds up a moderating hand (in his "Peter, Stephen, James & John") pointing out that "Apollos may indeed be the only Alexandrian Christian known to us from the New Testament Age, but there could have been others, similarly gifted, whose names have not been preserved. (p. 83)" I would like to read more on Apollos and his reception in not only ancient times, but in later times too.
Most concede that the hellenization of Egypt and the Levant was crucial to the rise of gnosticism. Our author only questions the timing. In her mind, proto-gnosticism always first appears in Christian circles; and from that point it eventually grafts pagan and eastern elements onto itself. Thus the Syncretism that all can see was, for our author, a later post-New Testament development.
Unless I am mistaken, modern scholarship first became interested in the Christian-gnostic nexus thanks to the work of Adolf von Harnack. His "History of Dogma" was published around the turn of the last century, and I think that is when the relationship between these two became problematic. Before Harnack, the Church Fathers / Apologists were taken pretty much at their word regarding gnosticism.
January 25, 2025
Dante makes Simon Magus a real character just as early canonical Christian writers did. Basilides (150 AD), an early Gnostic, does too and Petrement (the author) does also. The Book of Acts is fan-fiction and at best stretches credulity to its limits. The author takes Acts as serious history and uses it to support her major thesis. That is troublesome at best.
The early church fathers only become canonical after they get chosen through post-hoc rationalization. The text that mostly remain are the ones who get smoothed into the story that the gate-keepers want to tell. Even after keeping only the stories that told the meta-narrative the gate-keepers such as Eusebius (325 AD) wanted to tell, the Gnostics and Docetism get shot down because they are still troublesome.
The author says that Gnostics are a sect of Christians and that for them to know by special intuitive knowledge was equivalent to the Christians’ faith. There is no heterodox Christianity by 100 AD (nor is there today!). There is no coherent unified way to think about what is ‘true’ Christianity. The author sneaks that certainty into her story by harmonizing what we know today into her ideal Chrisitan entity. This statement should not be controversial, all one need do is read the NT cover-to-cover and there is an obvious difference between the Jerusalem Christian sect, and the seven authentic Pauline letters and Hebrews to Revelations, and Gnosticism pops out through Paul, Hebrews, John, and the John epistles. Is it salvation by faith alone, or by works, use the NT and pick your side.
It is just as easy to make the statement that Christianity flows from Gnostic thought and that the Gnostics came first. Paul speaks of the ‘archons of this aeon’ (the rulers of this age) in his authentic letters (55 AD). He goes to ‘third heaven’ in his own words after his visitation from Christ. The smoothing out of the meta-narrative takes time to unwind. Paul’s Christ is different from Jesus until harmonized with later holy spirit rose-colored glasses but read without the ‘spirit glasses’ Paul seems like a Gnostic at times, and the Gospel John, and Hebrews do too.
Petrement has a footnote that Plotinus was very Gnostic in his viewpoint but in mid-stream claims that he is not a Gnostic. I’ve read Plotinus (or more accurately his student’s book on his philosophy) and I got the same feeling that he was really a Gnostic and not even aware of Christianity (I don’t think he even mentions Christians except at best in passing). Plotinus (250 AD) would say that what Parmenides (400 BC) meant with his One was that knowing is being and being is truth and truth is the Good. For a Gnostic existence would be participating with the Good through their special relationship with the truth through their inherent knowledge, and as one reflects on what Plotinus says one sees the Gnosticism within his statement.
I enjoy the scholarly approach the author applies and the Nag Hammadi findings are intriguing for what the Gnostics believed. I think the author’s thesis is too simplistic and I suspect more recent experts would have more nuance things to say about who the Gnostics were. Most of what is presented at Nag Hammadi are fictional books writing about a fictional book that depended on another fictional book. Basilides writing about Simon Magus who appears in Luke’s fan-fiction of Paul, Acts, who speaks of meeting fictional Christ in a vision and linking it back to the first man, Adam. The Gnostics and Christians both rely on fictional stories written by people and they get harmonized such that we call them Christians today by taking out the yucky parts. The God of the OT is a monster and the Gnostics want to make Him a demi-urge, but the Christians want their monster and put him back-in.
The early church fathers only become canonical after they get chosen through post-hoc rationalization. The text that mostly remain are the ones who get smoothed into the story that the gate-keepers want to tell. Even after keeping only the stories that told the meta-narrative the gate-keepers such as Eusebius (325 AD) wanted to tell, the Gnostics and Docetism get shot down because they are still troublesome.
The author says that Gnostics are a sect of Christians and that for them to know by special intuitive knowledge was equivalent to the Christians’ faith. There is no heterodox Christianity by 100 AD (nor is there today!). There is no coherent unified way to think about what is ‘true’ Christianity. The author sneaks that certainty into her story by harmonizing what we know today into her ideal Chrisitan entity. This statement should not be controversial, all one need do is read the NT cover-to-cover and there is an obvious difference between the Jerusalem Christian sect, and the seven authentic Pauline letters and Hebrews to Revelations, and Gnosticism pops out through Paul, Hebrews, John, and the John epistles. Is it salvation by faith alone, or by works, use the NT and pick your side.
It is just as easy to make the statement that Christianity flows from Gnostic thought and that the Gnostics came first. Paul speaks of the ‘archons of this aeon’ (the rulers of this age) in his authentic letters (55 AD). He goes to ‘third heaven’ in his own words after his visitation from Christ. The smoothing out of the meta-narrative takes time to unwind. Paul’s Christ is different from Jesus until harmonized with later holy spirit rose-colored glasses but read without the ‘spirit glasses’ Paul seems like a Gnostic at times, and the Gospel John, and Hebrews do too.
Petrement has a footnote that Plotinus was very Gnostic in his viewpoint but in mid-stream claims that he is not a Gnostic. I’ve read Plotinus (or more accurately his student’s book on his philosophy) and I got the same feeling that he was really a Gnostic and not even aware of Christianity (I don’t think he even mentions Christians except at best in passing). Plotinus (250 AD) would say that what Parmenides (400 BC) meant with his One was that knowing is being and being is truth and truth is the Good. For a Gnostic existence would be participating with the Good through their special relationship with the truth through their inherent knowledge, and as one reflects on what Plotinus says one sees the Gnosticism within his statement.
I enjoy the scholarly approach the author applies and the Nag Hammadi findings are intriguing for what the Gnostics believed. I think the author’s thesis is too simplistic and I suspect more recent experts would have more nuance things to say about who the Gnostics were. Most of what is presented at Nag Hammadi are fictional books writing about a fictional book that depended on another fictional book. Basilides writing about Simon Magus who appears in Luke’s fan-fiction of Paul, Acts, who speaks of meeting fictional Christ in a vision and linking it back to the first man, Adam. The Gnostics and Christians both rely on fictional stories written by people and they get harmonized such that we call them Christians today by taking out the yucky parts. The God of the OT is a monster and the Gnostics want to make Him a demi-urge, but the Christians want their monster and put him back-in.
June 16, 2025
Solid work; difficult read because translated and is fairly dense philosophical work. Worth picking up if you’re unfamiliar with this idea.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews