What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gnostics: The First Christian Heretics
Gnosticism is the name given to various religious schools that proliferated in the first centuries after Christ, nearly becoming the dominant form of Christianity, but was eventually branded as heretical by the emerging Christian church. The long and diverse history of Gnosticism is recounted here, as well as reasons for its continued relevance today. Although some Gnostic beliefs are close to mainstream Christianity, others examined here include that the world is imperfect because it was created by an evil god who was constantly at war with the true, good God; that Christ and Satan were brothers; that reincarnation exists; and that women are the equal of men. Also covered is the influence Gnostics had on the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, psychologist Carl Jung, the Existentialists, the New Age movement, and writers as diverse as William Blake, W. B. Yeats, Albert Camus, and Philip K. Dick.
160 pages, Paperback
First published September 28, 2006
21 people are currently reading
177 people want to read
About the author
Sean Martin
65 books35 followersAuthor of bestsellers The Knights Templar: The History & Myths of the Legendary Military Order, The Gnostics: The First Christian Heretics and The Cathars: The Rise & Fall of the Great Heresy. My new book, A Short History of Disease, will be published in June 2015.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
January 19, 2012
If ever you venture around Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain these magnificent stones just stand blankly staring at you and keeping their history very close to their dolerite hearts but those who create the Visitors centre are determined to prise, if not the truth, than lots of wondrous theories. The commentary is peppered with ' it is thought' s or' people believe' or 'many wonder' or even ' perhaps...'. This magnificent monument stands inscrutable against the Wiltshire sky and no-one knows why it is there. This is a long preamble to saying that Sean Martin sounds a tad 'Visitorcentre-eze' in his discussion of the Gnostics. His account is littered with 'it is thought' type phrases but sometimes one gets the impression that he is presenting it as more fact and proven then is really possible to state.
Having said all that the book itself is an interesting investigation of the history and development of Gnosticism from its emergence from the mists of pre-history to its influences, as he sees it, upon modern culture and literature. I found it an interesting trawl through the Gnostic history supported by his examination of the library found buried under the desert at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in December 1945 but I almost put the book down 20 pages in with total exasperation when Martin and his editors showed themselves to be fairly evidently flawed in their knowledge of mainstream Christianity when he, on page 29, wrote
'The Catholic Church adds the caveat of receiving the sacraments in addition to faith, while Protestantism stresses the vital importance of good works'.
though the one line summary of anything is often far too simplistic to have any real value, in this case he has stated the exact opposite to the old reformation battle cry. Catholics were seen as emphasizing good works, Protestants werre seen as decrying them. To get such a fundamental fact wrong seemed rather to undermine any claim he might have to scholarship if he couldn't even bother to check such an easily checkable fact.
Nevertheless I continued but then ran into the rather odd sentence on page 37 where Martin stated that the Gnostics had the idea that ' Stories, even Biblical ones, do not have to have actually happened in order for them to have profound meaning for us all. ' Eh yeah....i am a committed practising catholic and I too, amazingly Mr Martin along with the vast majority of thinking Christians, do not actually believe literally everything in the Bible.
At one point Martin speaks of a gnostic thinker and writer called Bardaisan and goes on to say how he
'invented the genre of the Christian hymn and composed around 150; his work was later plagiarized by the Church Father Ephraim of Edessa who claimed them as his own while denouncing their real author as a heretic'.
Nowhere in his narrative does he offer a scrap of evidence to support this 'fact'. It may be true, i have no idea, but Martin simply states it as a fact and then moves on. If you are going to overturn something as fraudulent or disingenuous then surely you need to show it, rather than just say 'ITS TRUE SO THERE' !
At another point he states how the Gospel of Thomas, a version discovered at Nag Hammadi from the fourth Century, 'may have dated from as early as the first half of the second Century.......Indeed the Gospel of Thomas, in its earliest oral form, could date from 50-100CE' but again, nowhere does he give any evidence to support this theory. It is fine to offer it but without any supprting evidence it is a pointless ramble and wish. And then a final gripe, he declares on page 108 how a letter from Athanasius, the Christian patriarch of Alexandria, condemned the gnostics and their books. This, he states, 'result in book burning becoming widespread, the most notorious example being the burning of the great library at Alexandria in 391'.
It is only by going to the footnotes gathered at the back of the book that you read
'This was not due to Athanasius' letter, however, but the orders of Roman Emperor Theodosius I'.
The book was interesting and it was fascinating to read the excerpts from these long hidden books but his lazy scholarship, his axe grinding and his fairly badly camouflaged agenda was annoying and struck me as disingenuous.
The appalling behaviour of mainstream Christians towards the Cathars, a Gnostic-ish community in the 13th Century, is an infamous blot on any written history of Christianity and he writes this clearly and well and his last long chapter on the influence and legacy of the gnostic world view is thought provoking and surprising in its, to him, far-reaching stretch. I am not sure if all the writers and thinkers gathered in by him would wholly concur but it is a perfectly legitimate reflection but I just wish he had been more the scholar he claimed and less the polemicist.
Having said all that the book itself is an interesting investigation of the history and development of Gnosticism from its emergence from the mists of pre-history to its influences, as he sees it, upon modern culture and literature. I found it an interesting trawl through the Gnostic history supported by his examination of the library found buried under the desert at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in December 1945 but I almost put the book down 20 pages in with total exasperation when Martin and his editors showed themselves to be fairly evidently flawed in their knowledge of mainstream Christianity when he, on page 29, wrote
'The Catholic Church adds the caveat of receiving the sacraments in addition to faith, while Protestantism stresses the vital importance of good works'.
though the one line summary of anything is often far too simplistic to have any real value, in this case he has stated the exact opposite to the old reformation battle cry. Catholics were seen as emphasizing good works, Protestants werre seen as decrying them. To get such a fundamental fact wrong seemed rather to undermine any claim he might have to scholarship if he couldn't even bother to check such an easily checkable fact.
Nevertheless I continued but then ran into the rather odd sentence on page 37 where Martin stated that the Gnostics had the idea that ' Stories, even Biblical ones, do not have to have actually happened in order for them to have profound meaning for us all. ' Eh yeah....i am a committed practising catholic and I too, amazingly Mr Martin along with the vast majority of thinking Christians, do not actually believe literally everything in the Bible.
At one point Martin speaks of a gnostic thinker and writer called Bardaisan and goes on to say how he
'invented the genre of the Christian hymn and composed around 150; his work was later plagiarized by the Church Father Ephraim of Edessa who claimed them as his own while denouncing their real author as a heretic'.
Nowhere in his narrative does he offer a scrap of evidence to support this 'fact'. It may be true, i have no idea, but Martin simply states it as a fact and then moves on. If you are going to overturn something as fraudulent or disingenuous then surely you need to show it, rather than just say 'ITS TRUE SO THERE' !
At another point he states how the Gospel of Thomas, a version discovered at Nag Hammadi from the fourth Century, 'may have dated from as early as the first half of the second Century.......Indeed the Gospel of Thomas, in its earliest oral form, could date from 50-100CE' but again, nowhere does he give any evidence to support this theory. It is fine to offer it but without any supprting evidence it is a pointless ramble and wish. And then a final gripe, he declares on page 108 how a letter from Athanasius, the Christian patriarch of Alexandria, condemned the gnostics and their books. This, he states, 'result in book burning becoming widespread, the most notorious example being the burning of the great library at Alexandria in 391'.
It is only by going to the footnotes gathered at the back of the book that you read
'This was not due to Athanasius' letter, however, but the orders of Roman Emperor Theodosius I'.
The book was interesting and it was fascinating to read the excerpts from these long hidden books but his lazy scholarship, his axe grinding and his fairly badly camouflaged agenda was annoying and struck me as disingenuous.
The appalling behaviour of mainstream Christians towards the Cathars, a Gnostic-ish community in the 13th Century, is an infamous blot on any written history of Christianity and he writes this clearly and well and his last long chapter on the influence and legacy of the gnostic world view is thought provoking and surprising in its, to him, far-reaching stretch. I am not sure if all the writers and thinkers gathered in by him would wholly concur but it is a perfectly legitimate reflection but I just wish he had been more the scholar he claimed and less the polemicist.
December 25, 2022
A quick summary of Gnostic history and ideas that's pretty good when it talks about the origins of Gnosticism (as influenced by Zoroastrianism and Judaism) and the probable mainstream Christian smear campaign against the gnostics - only to become weird at the end.
In short, the Gnostics were a bunch of groups of people who formed in the first century CE and who believed that the Good God didn't so much create, but emanate a light which became more materialistic the further it went. Due to shenanigans, a second, creator God, believed himself to be almighty and created the world - but this second God is a false God, and humans must return to the true God through gnosis, a sort of mystical personal experience/knowledge.
It's all pretty weird, and most of it was forgotten except from the POV of the mainstream Church, which criticized and smeared the Gnostics.
The context for these groups and their downfalls is pretty well documented, even if it's very succint and it's easy to lose track of who's who and what they believe in.
But then we move through time at a breakneck speed. The medieval age vanishes into the Renaissance, the 19th century whooshes through and we slam head-first into the modern era, where we're suddenly reading a lot about Philip K. Dick's work, since he was influential and his work can be read as Gnostic (it's weird that we're going into literary criticism, but OK).
The conclusion, however, is a true masterstroke of apopleptic strokes. It says that some important scriptures were rediscovered in 1945, "arguably the worst year in human history", and this is meaningful in a spiritual way. Which is like... come the fuck on. Are you saying that the literal genocide of Jewish people should lead people to convert to what is essentially a pretty Christian belief? Are you really saying that, Sean Martin? Have you really thought it through?
Also, this shit, commenting on the fact that someone said that our culture cannot accept difference, but wants to destroy it:
"This seems to be exactly the mindset that has created trouble in the Middle East - and Iraq in particular - and that also, according to the more conspiratorially inclined, is the mindset that will drive the President of the United States to initiate, in conjunction with Israel, Armaggedon in order to fulfil Biblical prophecy. Gnostics would scoff at such a notion, were the threat not so real."
First of all, not everything is about you America.
Second of all, "were the threat not so real" - the threat of Armaggedon? Are we really doing this? ARE WE.
And third of all, what's all this mystical woo about Gnosticism returning to us in our hour of need and saving us or whatever? I don't look for salvation at the end of my scholarly books, for all the gods' sakes. Just because I'm reading about the Gnostics doesn't mean I'm on my knees and opening mymouth soul wide ready to receive the emanations of God directly, or whatever. I'm just trying to learn about a historical topic. Can we not.
In short, the Gnostics were a bunch of groups of people who formed in the first century CE and who believed that the Good God didn't so much create, but emanate a light which became more materialistic the further it went. Due to shenanigans, a second, creator God, believed himself to be almighty and created the world - but this second God is a false God, and humans must return to the true God through gnosis, a sort of mystical personal experience/knowledge.
It's all pretty weird, and most of it was forgotten except from the POV of the mainstream Church, which criticized and smeared the Gnostics.
The context for these groups and their downfalls is pretty well documented, even if it's very succint and it's easy to lose track of who's who and what they believe in.
But then we move through time at a breakneck speed. The medieval age vanishes into the Renaissance, the 19th century whooshes through and we slam head-first into the modern era, where we're suddenly reading a lot about Philip K. Dick's work, since he was influential and his work can be read as Gnostic (it's weird that we're going into literary criticism, but OK).
The conclusion, however, is a true masterstroke of apopleptic strokes. It says that some important scriptures were rediscovered in 1945, "arguably the worst year in human history", and this is meaningful in a spiritual way. Which is like... come the fuck on. Are you saying that the literal genocide of Jewish people should lead people to convert to what is essentially a pretty Christian belief? Are you really saying that, Sean Martin? Have you really thought it through?
Also, this shit, commenting on the fact that someone said that our culture cannot accept difference, but wants to destroy it:
"This seems to be exactly the mindset that has created trouble in the Middle East - and Iraq in particular - and that also, according to the more conspiratorially inclined, is the mindset that will drive the President of the United States to initiate, in conjunction with Israel, Armaggedon in order to fulfil Biblical prophecy. Gnostics would scoff at such a notion, were the threat not so real."
First of all, not everything is about you America.
Second of all, "were the threat not so real" - the threat of Armaggedon? Are we really doing this? ARE WE.
And third of all, what's all this mystical woo about Gnosticism returning to us in our hour of need and saving us or whatever? I don't look for salvation at the end of my scholarly books, for all the gods' sakes. Just because I'm reading about the Gnostics doesn't mean I'm on my knees and opening my
May 3, 2013
Met expectations. Gave me a good general understanding of the Gnostics, focusing on those areas that most interested me. I liked the way the author opened the book, giving it the area of mystery and excitement that it surely must have created on the discovery of the discovery of the manuscripts. A good read.
July 25, 2022
A great concise and short overview of the Gnostics, the first christian heretics. In many ways, they were more evolved and modern in thinking than the traditional christians at the time. Some notable passages are as follows:
“The term Gnostic' has traditionally referred to the various groups which flourished in the early centuries of the Common Era and which stressed the importance of gnosis- direct inner knowledge of God - above dogma.” // Pg.15
“The Gnostic schools had other hallmarks in addition to their gospels. They were, in the main, anti authoritarian and anti-hierarchical, with some, such as the Valentinians, taking it in turns to officiate during services. If that wasn't bad enough in the eyes of the Church Fathers, they also regarded women as the equal of men and had female priests. Women were therefore drawn to Gnosticism as it offered them a genuine chance to participate. Others who did not enjoy the status of first-class citizen, such as the poor and outcast, were also welcomed. Gnosticism drew those who were disaffected and appealed especially to city dwellers who felt that conventional forms of religious expression had little or nothing to offer them.” // Pg.21
“Current research tends to suggest the middle dates, making Zoroastrianism the world's oldest revealed religion, a religion that ‘has probably had more influence in mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith.’ Zoroaster was ‘the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, heaven and hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body.’ All of these ideas were to infidence Gnosticism (to say nothing of Judaism, Christianity and Islam).” // Pg.24
“Where [the Gnostics] differ from the orthodox is in their interpretation of Eve and the Serpent, and also in their reading of the story not as history, but as myth. For the Gnostics, the Serpent is the wisest of all creatures (some accounts have him being guided by the wisdom of Sophia), whose urging of Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge does not cause the Fall of mankind, but its awakening. What Adam and Eve have gained is gnosis, which makes them aware that the true God is not the deity who banished them from Eden. Furthermore, as Eve was the first human to gain gnosis, Gnostic texts generally paint her as being superior to Adam.” // Pg.35
‘Truth didn't come into the world naked
but in types and images. Truth is received only
that way. There is rebirth and its image.
They must be reborn through image.’ — The Gospel of Philip (quoted on page 37)
“The object of Gnostic sacrament is not merely temporary sanctification, as in the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental grace, but rather a total transformation, a change into the essence of the Godhead. The perfected Gnostic is not a follower of Christ, but a deified human being; he is another Christ.” // Pg.59 - The author referencing Stephen Holler’s words)
“Although [The Matrix film] contains elements drawn from mainstream Christian tradition- Neo is referred to repeatedly as 'the One' (a redeemer figure long prophesied), the rebels' ship is called the Nebuchadnezzar and their stronghold is Zion - the film seems to draw more on Gnostic sources. Indeed, near the beginning of the film, Neo falls asleep in front of his computer. He is woken by a mysterious message that appears on the screen, which reads ‘Wake up, Neo.’ This is essentially the theme of the film, and needless to say, it is Gnostic. Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) are, as they instruct and aid Neo in waking up, playing aeonic roles as opposed to the archonic Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who attempts to keep Neo inside the Matrix and therefore asleep to ultimate reality. The film employs terms that are also found in Gnostic texts, such as blindness, sleep, ignorance, dreaming, darkness and night which stand in opposition to seeing, waking, knowing and light. It is these latter states to which Neo travels and ultimately attains.” // Pg.142
“The term Gnostic' has traditionally referred to the various groups which flourished in the early centuries of the Common Era and which stressed the importance of gnosis- direct inner knowledge of God - above dogma.” // Pg.15
“The Gnostic schools had other hallmarks in addition to their gospels. They were, in the main, anti authoritarian and anti-hierarchical, with some, such as the Valentinians, taking it in turns to officiate during services. If that wasn't bad enough in the eyes of the Church Fathers, they also regarded women as the equal of men and had female priests. Women were therefore drawn to Gnosticism as it offered them a genuine chance to participate. Others who did not enjoy the status of first-class citizen, such as the poor and outcast, were also welcomed. Gnosticism drew those who were disaffected and appealed especially to city dwellers who felt that conventional forms of religious expression had little or nothing to offer them.” // Pg.21
“Current research tends to suggest the middle dates, making Zoroastrianism the world's oldest revealed religion, a religion that ‘has probably had more influence in mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith.’ Zoroaster was ‘the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, heaven and hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body.’ All of these ideas were to infidence Gnosticism (to say nothing of Judaism, Christianity and Islam).” // Pg.24
“Where [the Gnostics] differ from the orthodox is in their interpretation of Eve and the Serpent, and also in their reading of the story not as history, but as myth. For the Gnostics, the Serpent is the wisest of all creatures (some accounts have him being guided by the wisdom of Sophia), whose urging of Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge does not cause the Fall of mankind, but its awakening. What Adam and Eve have gained is gnosis, which makes them aware that the true God is not the deity who banished them from Eden. Furthermore, as Eve was the first human to gain gnosis, Gnostic texts generally paint her as being superior to Adam.” // Pg.35
‘Truth didn't come into the world naked
but in types and images. Truth is received only
that way. There is rebirth and its image.
They must be reborn through image.’ — The Gospel of Philip (quoted on page 37)
“The object of Gnostic sacrament is not merely temporary sanctification, as in the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental grace, but rather a total transformation, a change into the essence of the Godhead. The perfected Gnostic is not a follower of Christ, but a deified human being; he is another Christ.” // Pg.59 - The author referencing Stephen Holler’s words)
“Although [The Matrix film] contains elements drawn from mainstream Christian tradition- Neo is referred to repeatedly as 'the One' (a redeemer figure long prophesied), the rebels' ship is called the Nebuchadnezzar and their stronghold is Zion - the film seems to draw more on Gnostic sources. Indeed, near the beginning of the film, Neo falls asleep in front of his computer. He is woken by a mysterious message that appears on the screen, which reads ‘Wake up, Neo.’ This is essentially the theme of the film, and needless to say, it is Gnostic. Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) are, as they instruct and aid Neo in waking up, playing aeonic roles as opposed to the archonic Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who attempts to keep Neo inside the Matrix and therefore asleep to ultimate reality. The film employs terms that are also found in Gnostic texts, such as blindness, sleep, ignorance, dreaming, darkness and night which stand in opposition to seeing, waking, knowing and light. It is these latter states to which Neo travels and ultimately attains.” // Pg.142
October 9, 2023
A basic overview which mostly works as a primer if you desire to look a bit deeper with other works. While covering the origins of Gnosticism that potentially stretch back to Zoroastrianism, the book gives a relatively quick account of some of the main Gnostic Gospels that were discovered at Nag Hammadi and prior to that, as well as looking at the movements that followed on and became heretical after the Council of Nicae vote, and then there's a short overview of the subsequent influences leading into modern writers like Blake and P.K. Dick.
November 23, 2018
A nice overview of Gnostic ideas, in their origins, their texts and their influences on our contemporary culture, and their continuing ability to provide a counterpoint to the orthodox church and its controlling doctrines based on blind faith, rather than considered knowledge. The literary influences in Kafka, Hesse, Jung and Philip K Dick, was particularly insightful for me to see, given I have found many of their ideas very impactful in my own life and thinking.
December 4, 2024
I am giving it a 1 for 2 reasons. 1st is to get your attention. 2 is I actually didn't read the whole book ( 2nd time for any book I have posted on Goodreads) only enough to get out of the book I wanted. I have problems reading books that have lots of "factual " type trivial details that don't fill in the information I want to get. I'm not sure who will actually like this book. I can imagine who but in my life I have never met someone I think would love it. I could see hardcore Christians losing their minds over it ( just looking at the jacket but never really reading it much like the books they want banned). I got the gist and skimmed enough after reading parts that explained the basics of Gnostics and basic treads of beliefs. To me, it seemed no different than the way the "mainstream " religions of now are similar/different. I caught how the gnostic groups declined or disappeared. I see at the end how the basic principles resonate now in writing and movies. The basic concept made sense to me and if I was searching for something to ground me, I can see the basic concepts appealing. ( and in many ways, the way I think presently as no religion I know of checks all the boxes for me to follow). I would suggest this to those of you who love religious trivia, or someone who sees the present offerings lacking to see what other thoughts are out there. As I was reading, thoughts of Monty Python's Life Of Brian popped up in my head. That as religions develop and splinter and the finger pointing of who is right and righteous and who is not is very unclear. The interpretation is in the minds of the believers. After reading what I wanted. All I can say is any religion is clear as mud. But how I want to believe is more clear because of what I read in the book.
December 28, 2022
Sean Martin’s The Gnostics is an intriguing and informative read on the history of the Gnostics and their teachings. Martin starts off by discussing the ancient roots of the Gnostics, beginning with the teachings of the Mystery Schools, and then going into their various sects and the scriptures they wrote.
He then goes on to discuss the various interpretations of the Gnostic teachings, from the early Christian works to the modern day. Along the way, Martin provides interesting tidbits of information about the Gnostics, such as their methods of interpreting scripture, their views on salvation and redemption, and their beliefs about the afterlife.
The book is well-written and easy to read, making it both an entertaining read and an educational one. Martin’s writing is engaging and entertaining, but also informative. He provides plenty of background information on the Gnostics and their teachings, and he also explores the various interpretations of their teachings. This allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the Gnostic beliefs, and to see how they have been interpreted throughout the centuries.
As someone who has been reading a lot about Islamic mysticism and also Carl Jung's analytical psychology, I was more than pleased to find that Sean also drew similarities between Gnostic beliefs and these subjects. Simply because, in my own reading, I have found much similarities as well.
While it is important to note that Gnosticism is generally seen as heresy in orthodox Christianity, the story behind them runs far deeper than most people assume. This book is an excellent read for anyone interested in learning more about the Gnostics and their teachings.
He then goes on to discuss the various interpretations of the Gnostic teachings, from the early Christian works to the modern day. Along the way, Martin provides interesting tidbits of information about the Gnostics, such as their methods of interpreting scripture, their views on salvation and redemption, and their beliefs about the afterlife.
The book is well-written and easy to read, making it both an entertaining read and an educational one. Martin’s writing is engaging and entertaining, but also informative. He provides plenty of background information on the Gnostics and their teachings, and he also explores the various interpretations of their teachings. This allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the Gnostic beliefs, and to see how they have been interpreted throughout the centuries.
As someone who has been reading a lot about Islamic mysticism and also Carl Jung's analytical psychology, I was more than pleased to find that Sean also drew similarities between Gnostic beliefs and these subjects. Simply because, in my own reading, I have found much similarities as well.
While it is important to note that Gnosticism is generally seen as heresy in orthodox Christianity, the story behind them runs far deeper than most people assume. This book is an excellent read for anyone interested in learning more about the Gnostics and their teachings.
August 28, 2019
In this book, Sean Martin recounts the long and diverse history of Gnosticism, and argues for its continued relevance today.
Gnosticism - derived from the Greek word gnosis (to know) - is the name given to various religious schools that proliferated in the first centuries after Christ.
The main competitor to the official church, Gnosticism was branded heretical and its practicioners persecuted.
Although some Gnostic believes were similar to Christianity, Gnosticism held that the world is imperfect as it was created by an evil god who was constantly at war with the true, good God; Christ came to teach liberating knowledge and that women are the equal of men.
The Gnostics held the Feminine Aspect of God - whom they named Sophia (Wisdom) - in very high regard.
They also stressed that we have a Divine spark inside us which, when recognised and developed, will ultimately liberate us from the prison of the material world.
Gnosticism - derived from the Greek word gnosis (to know) - is the name given to various religious schools that proliferated in the first centuries after Christ.
The main competitor to the official church, Gnosticism was branded heretical and its practicioners persecuted.
Although some Gnostic believes were similar to Christianity, Gnosticism held that the world is imperfect as it was created by an evil god who was constantly at war with the true, good God; Christ came to teach liberating knowledge and that women are the equal of men.
The Gnostics held the Feminine Aspect of God - whom they named Sophia (Wisdom) - in very high regard.
They also stressed that we have a Divine spark inside us which, when recognised and developed, will ultimately liberate us from the prison of the material world.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 21, 2020
Written with a clear anti-Christian bias, but still a good insight into the false doctrines the apostles refer to in the New Testament epistles. I recommend it as a resource if you want to have a richer cultural/historical background when reading the Bible.
September 24, 2020
The Gnostics is one of the best introductions to Gnosticism. It is complete with summaries of Gnostic writings and resources available on line. The book also introduces the presence of Gnosticism in contemporary literature, philosophy and film.
April 28, 2022
the easiest way to get into gnosticism. great for people who want a starting point before they start learning more about the religion and also for people just interested in what it is :) it also recommends lots of books to move on to for further research !
January 22, 2024
The book is simple and well written, it is very compact, I suggest you read this one first then go for Hans Jonas and others to understand what Gnosticism is about, great understanding and simplicity, well done.
May 19, 2023
What a terrible and obviously biased book.
January 16, 2024
Small book with all the essentials you would like to know about the (Christian) Gnostics.
August 21, 2024
Gnosis : To know
November 28, 2016
Good beginning for researching the subject...
January 29, 2016
A fascinating look at Gnostic history from the time of Christ until today. If there is any fault in the book, it's that the author is undeniably skewed towards Gnostics and against the origins of Christianity as we know it today. While I largely agree with him, I feel he alienates many who might read this. Regardless, this is an excellent entry point into various Gnostic teachings and gives a great overview of many Gnostic texts. I will definitely go back to reference it in the future.
December 22, 2011
I have the translation in Greek, from Archetypo publications, with an Introduction by K. Zarras.
August 25, 2016
Basarisiz tercume
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews