By the end of the first century A.D.^[1] and the beginning of the early second century A.D. Judaism was in disarray^[2] due to Rome’s devastation of Judaea.

Though Paul’s Christians had multiplied from Jerusalem throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and as far as Rome^[3] his Christian groups of converted pagans were considered by even his "most loyal followers" to be "unworkable communities."^[4] Brown points out the "painful fact that Christians had disagreed profoundly with each other since the days of Saint Paul."^[5]

Fowden notes that during the same period of time, on the secular side there was a tendency for educated Hellenistic and Roman individuals who were denied social and political influence to "renounce the world and proclaim a new, transcendent set of values."^[6] These secular pagan groups all taught that salvation came through "knowledge." Fowden does not specify the nature of the knowledge these pagan groups referred to but states that the knowledge could be "imparted suddenly, by revelation" or it "might be earned by long study as among the Platonists…." It was, thought to be "always the possession of an elite."

So small study groups were common among secular aspects of the culture and the society of the times. It seems, therefore, almost a given that those who, toward the end of the first century A.D., wished to adopt the Christian religion, values, and beliefs would gravitate toward the type of social structure already in existence-small study groups.

Early Christian Small Study Groups

Thus, about the beginning of the second century A.D., it was already common for Christians to form small groups of individuals who wished to seek a life of meaning. Not only did these Christian individuals have the example of members of secular society who sought purpose and meaning in life forming small groups to pursue their quest, they also had the example of Paul’s Christians who, though their groups may have been "unworkable," were also basically small groups pursuing their Christian beliefs.

Fowden^[7] elaborates that the milieux of small groups had a two-tier structure. He specifies that during this time period of history, there were some individuals who could be categorized as teachers, the elect; these "elect" teachers took responsibility for a much larger group, the followers, who were also called listeners. Brown^[8] refers to these groups as didaskaleion,^[9] small study groups composed of men and women disciples that collected around a spiritual guide. The spiritual growth of the members of these small groups "depended on close, face-to-face consultation" with teachers who were highly revered.^[10]

These early Christian small study groups were not consistent in their teachings. That is, a group would form around a particular teacher who elucidated his own ideas; one teacher’s ideas were often not exactly the same as the ideas of another group that formed around another teacher. Rudolph^[11] states that the Church Fathers were aware of a "frightening variety" of Gnostic teachings, comparing this variety to the "many-headed hydra of Greek legend." Rudolph confirms that such a "picture is…fully and completely confirmed by the Nag Hammadi texts." He goes on to state that the "gnostics seem to have taken particular delight" in expressing their teachings in multiple ways. Layton specifies more definitely^[12] that the "formulation of the Gnostic myth ultimately drew on Platonist interpretations of the myth of creation in Plato’s Timaeus, as combined with the book of Genesis." Brown states^[13] that gnostic myths "followed the same rhythm as the Gospels and the teachings of Paul." Thus, even though there were general basic ideas the elect teachers propounded, there was plenty of "wiggle room" for how these basic ideas were expressed, interpreted, compiled, and even perhaps "added to" among various of the elect teachers. So it seems clear that there was a great diversity among the groups in what they were taught, studied, and believed. However, there were some "essential basic features"^[14] the various groups taught and believed.

The members of these groups frequently referred to themselves as "knowers, people of understanding." It comes as no surprise then that these "knowers" frequently referred to " ‘ knowledge’ in their writings." But this knowledge was a knowledge of a particular kind; the knowledge these groups referred to was not an "intellectual or theoretical kind, but a knowledge which had…a liberating and redeeming effect." This knowledge was primarily a religious knowledge "made available only to the elect" who were able to receive it, that is, by implication, those who were members of the particular group. This paper will not discuss further than the above short statements the various teachings of the early Christian small study groups. That discussion will be reserved for another study.

a) Spiritual Ferment of the Time

Jonas^[15] clearly points out that the early Christian period and the following two centuries, i.e., to approximately A.D. 300, were a time of "profound spiritual ferment" in the eastern Mediterranean World. He states specifically, "The genesis of Christianity itself and the response to its message are evidence of this ferment." He elaborates that during this same time Palestine as a whole "was seething" with various salvational movements; so the emergence of the various Christian sects was not an isolated incident.

Evidence of this spiritual ferment is seen in Rudolph’s^[16] statement that "there was no gnostic ‘church’ or…[gnostic] theology…[gnostic] rule of faith nor any [gnostic] dogma of exclusive importance." But Rudolph does use the term "gnostic communities." However, he acknowledges there was "no gnostic canon of scripture"; but he does speak of the "Coptic gnostic texts" and elaborates that the Gnostics took delight in expressing their teachings in varied ways.

b) Social Classes of the Members of the Early Christian Small Study Groups

Kurt Rudolph^[17] notes that determining the social classes of the individuals who participated in the early Christian small study groups is difficult; he states one can only speculate on the social and cultural standing of the members of these groups. However, he also states with certainty that the founders of these groups definitely belonged to a social class familiar with Hellenistic and Jewish culture.

In present day terms he notes these founders would be considered rootless intellectuals with no political influence. Some of these founders had a general philosophical education and a mythological training and erudition. Speculation is that the lower economic and social classes gravitated to these groups. Rudolph^[18] states that according to Irenaeus, the members of these Christian small study groups were the "inexperienced ones ‘(inexpertiores);’ " that is, the majority of these communities consisted of the " ‘uneducated’ " or " ‘semi-educated,’ "-the "listeners."

Brown^[19] notes that in a relatively short period of time, a few generations at most, a serious division arose between the small groups described above and what he terms the "Great Church" which was composed of the bishops and clergy. This division gradually became such that eventually most Christian study group leaders were at one time or another condemned as heretical by local clergy. Such condemnation of the small study groups went so far, Brown points out, that by the early 200s a bishop of Alexandria ruled that those who participated in such small study groups were to be regarded as members of the congregation; furthermore, they were not to be considered as having left the church.

c) Short Example of an Early Christian Small Study Group Sermon/Meeting

The teacher brought to his group an "intellectual certainty and moral purpose."^[20] These small study groups then were clusters of men and women "who relived, at the feet of their guide," the moment Jesus Himself had addressed groups of people in his time.^[21] One example of such a moment is given in The Gospel of Truth which is "the earliest surviving sermon of Christian mysticism." It shows "a rare glimpse" into the "actual human atmosphere of a church meeting" where a teacher speaks with personal authority to his congregation.^[22]

To set the scene: one must envision the people of the time who were not "the elect," who were not the people "who counted"; that is, the Christian small group was composed of all those in the society whose bodies were owned by the elite males who ruled and administered society as it was known at the time.^[23] So these people were slaves, servants, barbarians, and women-generally people who certainly were intelligent but not educated (or allowed to be educated). These people must have lived in an atmosphere where their life for the most part was considered cheap, where their life or death was of little consequence to those who had power over them.^[24] Their lives were, for the most part, lived in an environment of oppression and fear; for they were definitely not the population who were elite males.

So the opening, introductory words of the Gospel of Truth must have captured the attention of those who were the "listeners" who, though they were not the educated of the society of the day, were people who were intelligent and sought meaning and purpose in their lives. They heard these words from their admired and respected teacher who likely had more education than they did, who likely had what might be called today "book learning."

The proclamation of the Truth is a joy for those who have received grace from the father of truth…..^[I]gnorance of the father caused agitation and fear. And agitation grew dense like fog, so that no one could see.^[25]

Ignorance brought about anguish and horror. And the anguish grew solid like a fog.^[26]

The sermon that is The Gospel of Truth ends by telling the Christians that they have not

…fallen short of the glory of the father…they repose in that being who gives unto himself repose, and in the vicinity of truth they are neither weary nor entangled…it is in them that the father dwells, and in the father that they are...undivided in what is truly good….This is the place of the blessed. This is their place.^[27]

d) What Early Christian Small Study Groups Called Themselves

How Groups Assume Names: This writer considers that likely early Christian small study groups gave themselves names in much the same way that small groups of Christians today give themselves names. In Christian churches and parishes today there are often individual members of the parish or church who have some particular interest they feel called to pursue. These interests may be purely religious and/or be concerned with social or cultural issues. Sometimes these groups remain within the parish; other times the groups grow in numbers and/or influence and at times have been known to break from the original church or parish.

At times these groups name themselves after their purpose or after some identifying characteristic peculiar to the group itself. For instance a larger group called Worldwide Church of God may have a splinter group that calls itself Living Church of God. Corpus Christi parish may have a splinter group that calls itself Spiritus Christi. Other groups may form that do not splinter (become schismatic) such as Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful, etc. Even smaller groups of church members that desire to pursue a particular form of study or that pursue socially relevant issues may give themselves names such as Faith Study Group, Peace and Social Justice, Just Faith, etc.^[28] While the above short explanation of names of smaller/larger Christian groups and how they assume names in present day situations is short and incomplete, this writer does hope that this description gives an appropriate concept of how smaller and larger church groups assume names.

Names the Early Christian Small Study Groups Gave Themselves: The small study groups of the later first century and second and third centuries A.D. called themselves by various names: " ‘The offspring (seed, posterity, race) of Seth’ or ‘the offspring of the light’; ‘the perfect race,’ ‘the undominated race,’ or ‘the immovable race’; or… ‘Those People.’ "^[29] Brown speaks of some of the small groups as designated by the name of their leaders, Marcion and Valentinus.^[30] In only one case does Brown refer to the small Christian groups lead by Tatian who are referred to by their practice, the Encratites. This name derived from the Greek enkrateia, meaning continence; members of the Encratites insisted that followers of Christ "had to consist of men and women who were ‘continent’ in the strict sense: they had ‘contained’ the urge to have sexual intercourse with each other."^[31] Williams says that the Christian small study groups called themselves "Christians, pneumatics, seed, elect, race of Seth, race of the Perfect Human, the immovable race."^[32] Thus, it is clear that these early Christian small study groups assumed various names that likely they felt were appropriate to their groups.

e) The "Great Church" and the Early Christian Small Study Groups

Brown^[33] points out that the period of the didaskaleion was a period of intellectual ferment. He notes, however, that the creativity of the small groups had a "shadow side"-"a growing sense of polarization." Further he states that there was a tendency for those who considered themselves part of the "Great Church" to consider themselves the majority and the ones who were "right-thinking." He further considers that the leaders of the small study groups "were made to bear the brunt of the clergy’s claim to stand for the mainstream of Christian belief." Thus, in effect the "Great Church," assumed the role of the majority, and the small study groups were relegated to the minority. Brown specifically states that "at one time or another" the leaders of the small study groups were "condemned as heretical by the local clergy."

Jonas^[34] refers to the Church Fathers who seem to have had various opinions on the origins of the groups they referred to as Gnostics. The Church Fathers condemned groups they considered had "sprouted…from the soil of Christianity" or who had "somehow added and adapted the figure of Christ to their otherwise heterogeneous teaching"; or they condemned groups who, though they had a "common Jewish background, were close enough to be felt as competing with and distorting the Christian message." Jonas further states that it is modern research that has "progressively broadened this traditional range by arguing the existence of a pre-Christian Jewish and a Hellenistic pagan [emphasis in original] Gnosticism." Jonas specifically states that the early Church Fathers emphasized that Christian thinking of the time was "not yet firmly consolidated" and was influenced by Plato and "misunderstood Hellenic philosophy in general."

This last point is reinforced by Rudolph^[35] who refers to a school of "German Protestant theology" that did "pioneering work" proving that the Gnostic movement was "originally a non-Christian phenomenon" that was "gradually enriched with Christian concepts until it made its appearance as independent Christian Gnosis." He states the linking of Hellenistic ideas with Christian ideas "at an early stage, produced on the one hand a fruitful symbiosis…but on the other hand…sooner or later…was to succumb in competition with the official Christian Church."

"Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" According to Irenaeus: Scholars generally agree that Irenaeus lived and worked in Lyons in what is now called France. This city in Irenaeus’ time was called Lugdunum. Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor but "came to Lyons…where in 177/178 he became successor to the bishop."^[36] Irenaeus’s lifetime spanned the years from about A.D. 130 to 200.^[37] He was contemporaneous with small study groups and was the first of the heresiologists whose work scholars do generally agree was the first heresiological work to survive.^[38] Irenaeus, was a member of the "Great Church," and he objected to these small study groups. Other "Great Church members who considered these Christian small study groups heretical were Hippolytus of Rome and Epiphanius of Salamis, a city on the island of Cyprus. These three writers "stand in the same literary tradition."^[39] They were "polemical writers of the history of ideas." They set out to "define Christian orthodoxy" by writing genealogical histories of error, as they understood it. Because of the approach they took in their categorization of the Christian small study groups, they are termed "heresiologists."

These three individuals were part of the "Great Church" who not only claimed "they alone had preserved the authentic teachings of Christ…but also that they represented the views of the…majority of right-thinking believers."^[40] However, since Hippolytus wrote in the early third century A.D. and Epiphanius wrote in the A.D. 370s, the catalogues of sects and heresies these last two individuals composed will not be further considered as this paper is principally concerned with the earliest use of the terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism." Rudolph^[41] states that Justin Martyr penned the first of the heresiologists’ works, but his work does not survive. Williams^[42] notes that "Irenaeus may have been partially dependent upon an earlier work by the Christian philosopher Justin Martyr…though Justin’s composition no longer survives." This paper will concentrate on Irenaeus and his refutation of the Gnostics, as his work was the first in time that survived. Unfortunately and obviously even from the name of his work, it is clear that Irenaeus was not a friend of the Christian small study groups.

Strangely enough, it seems that it was the leaders of the "Great Church" who gave the name to the early Christian small study groups that has tended to "stick" down through time and that has in more recent times been the basis of intense scholarly discussion about its appropriateness. These "Great Church" leaders used the name "Gnostics" to refer to at least some of the Christian small study groups. Williams refers to Irenaeus’ saying explicitly that the followers of a woman named Marcellina called themselves "Gnostics"; Williams also specifically states that Irenaeus implied that these Christian small study groups called themselves "Gnostics." More specifically, Williams states that Irenaeus frequently referred to "persons who are ‘falsely called Gnostics.’ " In addition Williams states that in "at least several instances," Irenaeus apparently used the term "hoi gnostikoi ‘the Gnostics,’ to refer to a specific group or sect." He states further in the note appended to this statement that evidently, "Irenaeus perceived [emphasis in original] them to be a sect."^[43]

About A.D. 180 Irenaeus wrote a five-volume work entitled "Exposure and Refutation of Knowledge (gnosis) Falsely So Called.^[44] Though Irenaeus’ work was originally written in Greek^[45] the Greek text "ceased to be transmitted by Western copyists"; "what comes down…is mainly an ancient Latin version made very early for use by West European (and North African) Christians who spoke Latin."^[46] Irenaeus’ Greek text is extant only in parts, with other parts preserved in Armenian and Syriac.^[47] The Latin version of Irenaeus’ work is usually titled Adversus Haereses.^[48] Irenaeus’ work is actually a "catalogue" of sects.^[49]

Irenaeus gives an account of and summarizes many of the Gnostic teachings. He succeed in "consolidating a discourse that established, and forever after would sustain, a ‘lasting polarization of Christian fronts.’ "^[50] Layton, speaking of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius states that all "three heresiologists’ attitudes to all the material they describe is openly and consistently hostile."^[51] Irenaeus himself says: "…a multitude of Gnostics have sprung up, and have become shown forth like mushrooms growing out of the ground."^[52] Thus it seems that in one sentence Irenaeus himself gives a name to the various Christian small study groups, describes most vividly their proliferation, and condemns them.

"Summary of the "Great Church" and Irenaeus: Summarizing the above, then, depending on the period of time and the relation to the small study groups, the meaning and use of the terms "Gnostic" and/or "Gnosticism" varies. If one discusses those who were contemporaries with the Christian small study groups, it seems those who considered these groups unfavorably were those who applied the term "Gnostic" first. The early Christian small study groups "in their mythic tales", did "not refer to themselves, their ancestors, or their spiritual prototypes as ‘gnostics.’ "^[53] They were, however, groups that were closed and "defiantly sure of [their] superiority to the rest of humanity."^[54] Members of the groups then, seem seldom to have applied the term to themselves; however, they did speak of being in possession of "knowledge" (gnosis) that others did not have.^[55] It does seem, though, that one can definitely say it was Irenaeus who was among the first to apply the term "Gnostics" to the early Christian small study groups.

Williams^[56] states that Hippolytus also referred to four groups who " ‘…call themselves gnostics (as if) they alone had stumbled upon the marvelous knowledge (gnosis) of the perfect and the good.’ " Yet again, Williams^[57] referring to Epiphanius states that Epiphanius "even discusses how the origins of these ‘gnostics’ relate to the origins of other sects."; he further states that Epiphanius "goes well beyond Irenaeus and Hippolytus in portraying widespread use of the self-designation ‘gnostic.’ "

g) Present Day Scholarly Opinion Regarding Use of the Terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism"

So, this discussion arrives at the question of whether or not the terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" are appropriate to use in present day study and work referring to the early Christian small study groups-a question of ongoing debate among today’s scholars. This discussion has arisen in the of late twentieth century (A.D.).

Some present day scholars simply adopt these terms and use them. Others acknowledge that there is a problem with the appropriateness of the use of these terms, discuss the pros and cons of their use, and decide on the side of using them. One scholar used as a reference in this paper, Michael Allen Williams, clearly and definitely takes a different stand; he even subtitles his book An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category.

Still other scholars adopt a middle-of-the road position.

Scholars Who Accept Use of the Terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism": Most scholars acknowledge and discuss at least to some extent whether the early Christian small study groups used the terms Gnostic and Gnosticism to refer to themselves and their beliefs. Brown, Rudolph, and Jonas do not spent a lot of time discussing the question of whether or not the term "Gnostic" should be used when referring to the early Christian small study groups, whether the term "Gnosticism" should be used to refer to the multiplicity of teachings and/or beliefs associated with the various groups, and whether the groups themselves used these terms in self-reference.

Brown in various places refers to a "Gnostic study-circle," "those who possessed ‘Gnosis,’ true knowledge,"^[58] "the Gnostics," "Gnostic teachers," and "Gnostics of the school of Valentinus."^[59] Brown also refers to Clement of Alexandria who considered those who had undergone "Gnostic conversion" as the " ‘true Gnostics’ "; this latter term, he states, Clement took for granted.^[60] Brown also states Valentinus was once considered a candidate for the office of Bishop of Rome and was proud of the title "Gnostic."^[61] So, according to Brown, it seems clear that some who lived and wrote in early Christian times themselves used the terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" to refer to themselves and their teachings.

Layton^[62] perhaps more precisely and clearly states that "the word ‘gnostic’ has two meanings": One is a broad meaning "denoting all the religious movements represented in [his] book and many more besides." Layton’s use of the word "denoting" is significant in that the word "denote" refers to the actual meaning of a term. In contrast, the word "connote" emphasizes the surrounding meanings given to a word’s usage; these surrounding meanings usually accrue over time. So Layton’s use of the word "denote" indicates that he is using the word "Gnostic" as the most appropriate, precise, meaningful, word to precisely describe the early Christian small study groups. He goes on to state that the "other meaning of ‘gnostic’ is narrow…it is the self-given name of an ancient Christian sect, the gnostikoi or ‘gnostics.’ " In his book in the very next sentence Layton further refers to a "general study of gnostic religion." Thus Layton clearly applies these terms to the spiritual ferment of the time in a general sense, its various manifestations in numerous groups, and the general attitudes, beliefs, and practices of the early Christian small study groups.

Whether Layton uses these terms in these various meanings because it is easier to use them instead of more cumbersome names that are more descriptive (such as "early Christian small study groups" used in this paper so far) or because he truly considers that these terms were in historical use is not clear. What is clear is that he himself acknowledges that these Christian small study groups called themselves by various names. (See above page 6.) He then freely uses the term "Gnostic" where appropriate, even entitling his book, The Gnostic Scriptures.

He does however seem to have reservation about the term "Gnosticism." Referring to specific Gnostic works that "enjoyed a wide international circulation in several languages, starting in the second century A.D.,"^[63] he states that these specific works expressed "a mystical concept of salvation." He goes on to explain: "In modern discussion, this mystical component seems to be what some scholars mean by ‘gnosticism’ " [emphasis in original].

Yet in the quotation cited above where he uses the word "denote" to refer to "all the religious movements" he includes in his book, he further elaborates on the word "Gnosticism": "The elusive category (‘gnosticism’ ") [emphasis in original] …has always been hard to define."^[64] So it seems Layton seems not to hesitate in the use of the term "Gnostic" but seems to have some reservations, which are not further discussed than the statements above. In one place it seems he would reserve the term for the mystical component of these early Christian teachings, in another place he simply calls the appropriateness of combining all groups under the heading "Gnosticism" difficult to decide.

Layton^[65] elaborates on the use of the term "Gnostic" and is sometimes ambivalent even about its use. On the one hand he states that the "original self-designation of the sect-gnostikos, ‘gnostic’-was a very striking name." But then he states that the term was "never applied to human beings. That is to say, normally a person [emphasis in original] would not be called ‘gnostic.’ " Instead "Gnostic" referred to disciplines of study, human capacities," etc. Layton further states that if the "Gnostics" actually had called themselves "Gnostics," it would be as if a "modern club" called itself "the Perceptives or the Epistemologicals."

Jonas^[66] unhesitatingly refers to the origin of "The Name ‘Gnosticism,’ " "The Origin of Gnosticism," and "The Nature of Gnostic ‘Knowledge.’ " He does not seem to even consider whether or not these terms are appropriately used; he simply takes them for granted as names which should be known to everyone who reads his book. He even goes so far as to entitle one of his works, The Gnostic Religion. [While he originally published this work in 1958, it should be noted that the copy of his work used by this writer was published while he was still alive; he kept the same title and the same information and use of terms within the text in this last published copy of his original work, making no reference to scholarly discussion about the appropriate use of the terms.]

Scholar not Accepting Use of the Terms "Gnostics" and "Gnosticism": Williams takes exception to the use of the terms "gnostic" and "gnosticism" to refer to the early Christian small study groups. His objection is that "what is today usually called…’gnosticism’ includes a variegated assortment of religious movements…in the Roman Empire at least as early as the second century C.E….[who] had their greatest impact during the second and third centuries."^[67] He maintains that these terms have "lost any reliably identifiable meaning for the larger reading public" in modern times. Williams points out that his book, Rethinking "Gnosticism" was written to address the "bewildering array of possible connotations [emphasis added] of terms like ‘gnosticism,’ ‘gnostic,’ or ‘gnosis’ " that have been applied in modern times. He proceeds to explain that the term "gnosticism" has been applied in modern times to "the poetry of William Blake, Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, the psychology of Carl Jung," etc.

This writer notes a crucial difference between Layton and Williams. Layton, it was noted above (page 11), uses the word "denote" when referring to the early Christian small study groups and religious movement(s) attributed to them. Williams uses the word "connote." Thus, while both authors refer to and discuss at length the various religious movements of the late first century and the second and third centuries A.D. (or C.E.), they are doing so from a slightly different standpoint-one from the denotation of the words and the other from the connotation of the words.

Both viewpoints-that of denotation and that of connotation-have validity. The first is narrow in its scope, specifying the precise meaning of the terms; and the other is broader and more encompassing, including the surrounding meanings that grow up around the use of words. Both denotations and connotations are needed for a complete understanding of terms; both have their own spheres of meaning.

Williams states, in an observation that takes into consideration the knowledge that has come to scholarship through what he calls the "Nag Hammadi age" that a definition for the term "gnosticism" has become difficult. This difficulty arises because of the "diverse data that by scholarly convention" have been combined into the category since the discovery of the ancient writings at Nag Hammadi.^[68]

Williams then proposes the term "biblical demiurgical traditions" as "one useful alternative." He states this term would include a large percentage of sources that today are usually called "Gnostic." He^[69] also states that the term "biblical demiurgical myth" would be a term that could be "another name for ‘gnosticism.’ " Such a term he states would be preferable to the term " ‘gnosticism’ " for a series of very cogent reasons. Among these reasons are that such a categorization "could be fairly clearly defined," "would…allow for the diversity of approaches," and "would…not involve the assumption…of a single ‘religion.’ " Williams states that the term "biblical demiurgical myth" "would…be a simple typology for organizing several religious innovations and new religious movements." He further states that such new terms are necessary since scholarship has arrived at a place where to make "real progress in…understanding" of the Nag Hammadi and other related sources "it is time for scholars…to issue a massive recall" of old terms and develop "a new model" for what has been and is still called Gnosticism and the Gnostics.

The "In-Between Camp": Edward Moore,^[70] a scholar learned in both sides of this "accepting/non-accepting-use-of-the-terms-Gnostic-and-Gnosticism" issue has aptly and appropriately summarized this scholarly discussion. This writer has classified Moore as the "in-between camp" because Moore himself refers in this same communication to "those of us like Lewis Shaw and myself who are somewhere in between" in the opinions they hold on whether or not use of the terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" are appropriate. He states that "the problem resides in the fact that no where in any of the surviving ‘Gnostic’ texts do any of the writers refer to themselves or their school(s) by that designation." He goes on to say that the

term gnosis is used a lot, as in gnostike (insight, insightful…) but the noun gnostikoi (Gnostics) as referring to a group of people only [emphasis added] occurs in the heresiologists such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus and other polemical, anti-‘Gnostic’ writers.

Summary of pro, con, and "in-between" camps: Once again, it seems to this writer that the discussion between Layton and Williams focuses on the specification of the denotation and the connotation of the words "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism." Layton specifies that he is speaking of the denotation of the words and applies them only to the first three centuries A.D. as used by the people then. Williams it seems would like to expand the use of these terms, include the connotations that have grown up around the terms in modern times, and would like to include what he terms "new scholarship" since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi materials. Both have their place. Moore (and Shaw) takes a position acknowledging the problems surrounding the uses of these terms. He reflects that "Gnostics" (and "Gnosticism" by extension) are "absurd" terms and adds the opinion that it was Irenaeus who was the first to "make up" a new term to refer to the early Christian small study groups.

This writer notes that a change in the terms likely would be appropriate. Yet this writer cannot help but think of the attempt to change the designations B.C. and A.D. to B.C.E. and C.E. This change has not come into widespread use yet for what seem several reasons. For one thing older materials of scholarship that are extremely valuable and foundation pieces use the designations B.C. and A.D. Another point is that people who have been accustomed to the older terms find these older terms come to mind more readily than the newer designations. Yet as time progresses, it is possible that slowly and gradually, over a period of time, perhaps not as soon as some scholars would like and maybe too soon for other scholars, the new terms, if they meet the needs of scholars and students in a useful and coherent manner, will be adopted; if they do not, the attempt to change these "time designation" terms will likely die off.

It seems to this writer that the above analogy holds true for the terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism." If a change in terms is eventually found to be useful and helpful to scholars and students, they will be changed; if a change in terms proves not to be useful and helpful, the attempt to change the terms in use will be dropped.

Further, it seems to this writer that the terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" are appropriate to use if one is concerned with the first three centuries of Christianity and are especially helpful to the student new to the study of the early Christian small study groups. They are "handy" terms to use rather than the cumbersome "early Christian small study groups," for instance. [This writer is opting for no change in terminology at this beginning point of her study.]

While scholars may disagree, and rightly so, about whether or not early Christian small study groups used the term "Gnostics" as a name and/or whether the term is currently appropriately used, the terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" are most useful and helpful to the beginner’s [emphasis added] study of early Christians. Moore’s concept that the term "Gnostic" was a "made up one"-coined for the purpose of disproving the early Christians’ ideas and used in a derogatory sense seems to precisely state the situation. Moore’s idea is also most useful to the neophyte as his concise statement succinctly sums up the issue but gives the initiate into these studies a clear explanation that both states the situation as it was, yet allows for use of the terms as simple, easy, one-word designations.

The disputations of scholars regarding the self-designations of the Gnostics themselves, the validity/non-validity of the use of the term "Gnosticism" to refer to the beliefs of these study groups, and other various scholarly disagreements is important for the student to know at a later, more advanced, stage of learning. It is also important for the beginning student to realize Williams’ point that these terms "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" may have connotations that have validity and usefulness. However, one must begin somewhere in understanding these very diverse groups. In the opinion of this writer once the materials regarding the first three centuries have been absorbed, then it would be time to expand to an understanding of how such teachings may be and even have been expanded by modern research and modern applications that include modern day writing, fields of study, and maybe even certain modern groups that adopt their own "secret teachings." [This last point is beyond the scope of this paper but includes perhaps materials included in what is sometimes called the "New Age" category in book stores.]

This writer, as a beginner in this field, finds Moore’s use of the term "coined" in the above quote an interesting, convincing, and satisfying one. It indicates both that the heresiologists were the first to apply the word "Gnostics’ (gnostikoi) to the early Christian small study groups and that the heresiologists themselves must have been searching for a short, handy term they could use when referring to these groups.

Conclusion

Finally, it should be noted that the term "early Christian small study groups" was deliberately used throughout this paper to emphasize the fact that this term is certainly a cumbersome and almost tongue-twisting term-obviously one that soon starts one looking for another, shorter, more concise term.

In addition, this writer is of the opinion that Layton’s use of the term "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" is a very helpful term for a student who is just learning about these groups and this general topic; these terms are conveniently useful.

Williams’ proposal that the terms "biblical demiurgical traditions" and "biblical demiurgical myth" be used instead of "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" seems to this writer to be helpful and useful to an advanced study but not practical for a beginner or even as a term one might want to use generally when speaking of these early groups. These multi-syllabic terms, though they may precisely define the varied beliefs of the early Christian small study groups and include modern scholarship, have even more syllables than does the cumbersome "early Christian small study groups."

One new to such a study is aided by concise, useful terms that apply to a subject. As one advances in learning about the Gnostics and Gnosticism, it soon becomes apparent that these terms are umbrella terms that apply to a multitude of extremely interesting groups of people who in the early days of Christianity were struggling, even unbeknownst to themselves, with what Christianity would be and who Christians were to become.

Bibliography

Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Columbia University Press, New York, Paperback edition. 1988.

Fowden, Garth. The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, Paperback edition. 1993.

Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God & the Beginnings of Christianity, Third edition. Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts, Paperback edition. 2001.

Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures. Doubleday, New York, Paperback edition, 1987.

Moore, Edward. Personal Communication. March 15, 2005.

Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, translated by Robert McLachlan Wilson. HarperSanFrancisco, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Paperback edition. 1984.

Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, Paperback edition. 1999.

Bibles:

The New Oxaord Annotated Bible. Revised Standard Version. Edited by May, Herbert G. and Metzger, Bruce M. Oxford University Press, New York. 1977.

Dictionaries:

Strong, James. The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 1996.

Electronic Media:

www.NCRonline.com.

Notes:

[1] It should be noted that some present day scholars use C.E. (Common Era) to designate the period of time also/still referred to as A.D. by many scholars; the initials B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) are often used to refer to the time designated B.C. While B.C.E. and C.E. are more recently designated as less referential to any religious designation, this paper will use B.C. and A.D. as most of the scholars quoted in this paper use these letters to designate periods of time before and after Christ; Michael Allen Williams, though, is one scholar who uses B.C.E. and C.E. in his designations of time periods; when his work is referred to B.C.E. and C.E. will be used.

[2] Brown, Peter, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, Columbia University Press, New York, New York, Paperback edition, 1988, p. 62.

[3] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, see Map 12, "The Background of the New Testament: Rome and the East, including Paul’s Journeys."

[4] Brown, p. 57.

[5] Brown, p. 104.

[6] Fowden, Garth, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, Paperback edition, 1993, p. 189 citing M. Weber Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft I.304-10. It should be noted that Fowden’s book is primarily concerned with Egypt and the pagan and Christian writings peculiar to the specific environment and writings of Egypt. However, some of his comments appropriately apply to the setting and writing materials of the early Christians as a whole. Therefore, since this paper is only tangentially concerned with Egypt and the beginnings of Christianity in Egypt, only material from Fowden that applies appropriately to the Christians as a whole will be used in this paper.

[7] Fowden, p. 189. It should be noted that Fowden refers to the small study groups of the Hellenistic and Roman world; however, as will be clear from the discussion that follows his description of the two-tier structure also applies to early Christian small study groups.

[8] Brown, p. 104.

[9] Strong, James, The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1996, Greek Dictionary, Numbers 1319 and 1320: from didaskalia-doctrine, learning, teaching and didaskalos, an instructor, doctor, master, teacher.

[10] Brown p. 104.

[11] Rudolph, Kurt, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, translation edited by Robert McLachlan Wilson, HarperSanFrancisco, a Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Paperback edition, 1987, p. 53. Rudolph quotes the "many-headed hydra" from Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I 30,15; Hyppolytus, Refutatio V.11.

[12] Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions, Doubleday, New York, Paperback Edition, 1987, pp. 5, 7.

[13] Brown, p. 106.

[14] All quotes to the end of the next paragraph are from Rudolph, p. 55.

[15] Jonas, Hans, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God & the Beginnings of Christianity, Third Edition, Beacon Press, Boston, Paperback edition, 2001, p. 31.

[16] Rudolph, p. 53.

[17] Rudolph, p. 209.

[18] Rudolph, pp. 209 and 208.

[19] Quotes and material in this paragraph are from Brown, pp. 104-105.

[20] Brown, p. 106.

[21] Brown, pp. 105-106.

[22] Layton, Section titled, "Contents" of The Gospel of Truth, p. 250.

[23]Brown, pp. 10-13, 23.

[24] It should be noted that, of course, there were exceptions on an individual level to this statement. There were some elite class husbands who loved their wives; surely there were some servants and slaves who had loving relationships to the families who owned them. However, this paper in this discussion is concerned with the general, official attitude that was the foundation of the society of the time-and that was that the bodies of these individuals who were not "elite males" were owned by the "elite males."

[25] Layton, The Gospel of Truth, p. 253, 16.31, and 17. 9, 11.

[26] Brown, p. 106.

[27] Layton, p. 264, The Gospel of Truth, 42.2, 4, 21, 25, 26, 37. Layton states that neither the title nor the author of The Gospel of Truth is known. The title has been adopted by scholars. Irenaeus, says the "Valentinian church read a Gospel (or Proclamation) of Truth." However, according to Layton the actual author is unknown and attributing this work to Valentinus is hypothetical but "extremely likely." Layton, "Literary background" of The Gospel of Truth, p. 251.

[28] Reference to Worldwide Church of God and Living Church of God from "Daily Herald," Paddock Publications, No. 152, Tuesday, March 15, 2005, Section 1, p. 1, 9. References to other Christian groups are from website of the "National Catholic Reporter," Archives, www.NCRonline.org and/or from personal communication from small group members of particular parishes. It should be noted that since this writer has been and is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, most of the examples given in this paragraph are from Roman Catholic parishes and/or Roman Catholic groups; one example is from an Evangelical Protestant group. This writer cannot speak concerning the existence of such groups in any of the Eastern Churches.

[29] Layton, pp. 17-18.

[30] Brown, p. 87 where he refers to the "Marcionites" and p. 117 where he refers to the "Valentinians" and particularly pp. 118-119 for a discussion of "Valentinian study-circles" and "Valentinians."

[31] Brown, p. 92.

[32] Williams, Michael Allen, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling A Dubious Category, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, Paperback edition, 1999, p. 32.

[33] Quotes in this paragraph are from Brown, p. 104-105.

[34] Quotes in this paragraph are from Jonas, pp. 32-33.

[35] Quotes in this paragraph are from Rudolph, pp. 276-277.

[36] Rudolph, p. 11.

[37] Rudolph, p. 11; Layton, "General Introduction", p. xxiv; Brown, timeline, p. viii; Williams indicates Irenaeus composed his five-volume catalogue about A.D. 180 C.E.: Williams, p. 33. It should be noted that Layton spells the city in which Irenaeus lived and worked as Lyon: Layton, p 10 and p. 268.

[38] Rudolph, pp. 10-11; Layton, "Historical Introduction" to "Part Three: The School of Valentinus," p. 271; and Williams, p. 33.

[39] Quotes to the end of this paragraph are from Layton, "General Introduction," p. xxiv.

[40] Brown, p. 105.

[41] Rudolph, p. 10-11.

Specifically, Rudolph notes that the "oldest heresiological work…has unfortunately not survived." He further states that Justin in his "First Apology to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, composed between 150 and 155" refers to a "compilation (Syntagma)" which Justin had composed that dealt with heresies.

[42] Quotes and material that follow in this and the next paragraph are from Williams, p. 33.

[43] Williams, p. 33 and note 9 p. 271.

[44] Williams, p. 33 and Rudolph, p. 11. Rudolph translates the title slightly differently: "Exposure and Refutation of the falsely so called Gnosis."

[45] Layton, "General Introduction," p. xxv and Rudolph, p. 11.

[46] Layton, "General Introduction," p. xxv.

[47] Rudolph, p. 11.

[48] Williams, p. 33, Rudolph, p. 11, Layton, when referring to this work generally uses the title "Against Heresies," pp. 159, 163, 170. Layton on p. 271 states that Irenaeus’ work was called The Detection and Overthrow of "Gnosis" Falsely So Called, which is usually cited as Against Heresies."

[49] Williams p. 34; Layton, "General Introduction," p. xxiv refers to a "literary genre often called…the ‘catalogue of heresies.’ "

[50] Williams, p. 33 quoting Vallee, Gerard, A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics, 11.

[51] Layton, "General Introduction," p. xxiv.

[52] Layton, p. 166: citation from The Gnostics: According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon: Against Heresies, 1.29.1. Layton specifies in note b that "gnostics" was "meant as the proper name of a sect."

[53] Layton, p. 17.

[54] Layton, p. 17.

[55] Rudolph, p. 55 and Brown, p. 105.

[56] Williams, p. 38.

[57] Williams, p. 39.

[58] Brown, p. 105.

[59] Brown, p. 124.

[60] Brown, p. 125.

[61] Brown, p. 105.

[62] Quotes in this paragraph are from Layton, p. 5.

[63] Quotes and material to the end of the paragraph are from Layton, "General Introduction," p. xvi.

[64] Layton, "Historical Introduction," p. 5.

[65] Quotes in this paragraph are from Layton p. 8.

[66] Jonas, p. 32-37.

[67] Quotes and material in this paragraph are from Williams p. 3.

[68] Quotes and material in this paragraph are from Williams p. 51.

[69] Williams pp. 265-266.

[70] Personal communication from Edward Moore, Ph.D., Dean of the Department of Philosophy, St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology.