A Dictionary of Gnosticism

Ty so much

this book makes it a handy reference in researching the terms i encounter when studying gnosticism. it simplifies the need to search the key terms i encounter. want to know something about origen? instead of searching a lot of pages in the internet, get your hands on the book and see the term origen.. though, it still needs an updated version. lots of space unused.

I enjoy referencing this book. Names and definitions in this book help me alot to understand the content of any reading material related to Gnosticism. The book is in good condition and I received it promptly without incident. Thank you.

Thank you.

prompt delivery. I liked the book.

A must-have if studying the Gnostic scriptures. I would suggest anyone ordering, "The Nag Hammadi Library" buy this at the same time.

Andrew Smith has produced a unique and much needed Dictionary of Gnosticism filled with interesting references to the places where Jesus laughed or to all the scant little glimpses of little known but important groups like the Naasenes. He simplifies the confusing swamp of splintering groups with his anthropology of body-soul-spirit and the basic idea of the enigmatic bridal chamber, for example, as one where the soul becomes one with the spirit. The author deserves at least a ‘4’ for his monumental effort but I am holding him to a high standard—which is generally above that of contemporary scholarly standards which he (to be fair) only reflects—with a number of serious errors and omissions in the dating and characterization of early ‘gospels’. In several places Smith refers to Gnosticism developing in the first centuries of the current era and gives no dating for ‘Eugnostos the Blessed’ which was clearly produced before the first Christian century with its “all the philosophers” verbiage. Eugnostos was probably produced before 110 BCE and destruction of the Samaritan Temple by Jerusalem. The obvious Samaritan theological reaction to that would have been the darkening of the moderate Platonic demiurge into an evil overlord who raped Eve and spread his evil seed into Cain and Abel (ancestors of the Jews)—leaving Seth whose father was Adam as the sainted ancestor of the Samaritans! Shockingly, Smith dates ‘Dialogue of the Savior’ to the “second or third century” CE whereas Koester, Pagels, and Cameron date the material to the first century and not dependent upon the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of John. It is a compilation of four mini sermons and a sayings list that was cobbled together with a few paragraphs whose second century editor had a consciousness of the Gospel of John. Its early provenance is cued by a much more honest depiction of soul travel, archons, and even the depiction of the merger of soul mates revisiting the Adam-Eve split—all of which is deleted in the Gospel of John and purposely obscured in the Gospel of Thomas. One egregious omission is ‘Joseph and Asenath’ which is obviously some kind of Jewish-Christian allegory from all the Jewish material and all the Christian sacramental references. The 2014 ‘The Lost Gospel’ makes an excellent case for the allegory being about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. With all the bee and ‘City of Refuge’ imagery Asenath is a Sophia-Wisdom type like Helen the consort of Simon Magus. Another complete omission is ‘The Slavonic Josephus’ which was probably crafted by a sly Samaritan having a great time piggy-backing on the turncoat Josephus since everybody comes off poorly except the mystical John, the miracle-working Jesus, and the invisible Samaritans! (And, copied in before Mark was at least publically known as well.) Smith keeps referring to ‘The Gospel of Philip’ as “Valentinian” which is understandable given current scholarly dating but it is really an anachronism with the full-throated self-confidence of ‘Philip’, the amount of interesting Jesus material, and references to Sophia it had to have been written before Rome invaded Syria in the second decade of the second century—decades before Valentinus ditched the divine feminine to see whether he could make nice with the Romans. He keeps calling early gnostics like Menander, Satornilus, and Basilides ‘proto gnostics’. It would be more appropriate to call the innovative Valentinus a ‘neo gnostic’! I have a bone to pick with other datings. The ‘First Apocalypse of James’ takes place just before Matthew since it seems like an angry response to Mark, corrects the earlier ‘Second Apocalypse of James’ saying Jesus is no physical brother to James, and the idea of “have no part in his blood” is scavenged a few years later for Matthew’s Pontius Pilate. The earlier ‘Second Apocalypse of James’ is probably a response to the letters of Paul but seems to bear no animosity or awareness of Mark. Smith is such a sceptic! He says the Gospel of Thomas “lacks any clear reference to ‘gnosis’”! although soul travel is inferred fully throughout. Sophia is referenced by “(my) true (mother)” in Saying 101. Archons are referenced in Saying 50. Saying 7 warns against being eaten by the lion which is one image Yaldabaoth has. There are buckets of ‘renounce the world’ quotes. ‘Thomas’ was probably designed as a pocket cheat sheet for missionaries infiltrating the West who didn’t want to be accused of heresy. Smith also slights Simon Magus as well in giving more credence to the fabrications of Acts than the Pseudo-Clementines which “add fictional details such as…his apprenticeship with John the Baptist”. Although Smith sees no Christian reference in ‘The Apocalypse of Adam’ the fourteen different descriptions of the coming of the “illuminator of Knowledge’ are so detailed they can easily be seen as different views of Jesus (who was considered the coming of Seth: the Son of Adam--which means ‘man’). Smith does reference the Primal Adam theology though mostly in the context of the Mandaeans, Manichaeans, and Cathars. He notes spiritual practice a bit under ‘magic’ of “visualization techniques”. Referencing the psychomantium technique of Greeks and Egyptians which seems to be pretty boldly alluded to in the Gospel of Philip using mirrors and dyed water would have been nice. It is a good first effort in pulling together references from which I learned a lot but I hope a subsequent edition will be published after scholarly review to obtain more of a consensus on difficult subject areas. I cover all my above-mentioned comments in my 2013 book: ‘The Samaritan Jesus’ on Amazon.--John Munter

This book is a terrific reference for anyone interested in religion, mysticism, esoterica, ancient history and any form of Gnosis from ancient to modern. Though it would appear at first glance to be a basic dictionary of words rarely used and seldom contemplated in the average everyday world, it is a storehouse of clues to the origins of Western esoterica and literary fancy. Take "AEEIOUO," an entry on page 5. Reminiscent of the Caterpillar's song in Lewis Carol's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" it is also the (Greek) vowels chanted repetitively in certain forms of magic derived from Gnostic texts ... a little online cross-research explains that according to the Nag Hammadi, Aeeiouo is the shape of the Self Begotten Soul. (In Greek, Alice happens to mean "truthful.")The Nag Hammadi codices are outlined beginning on page 168 where it is explained that the "tractates in the codices are in Coptic, but scholars believe they were originally composed in Greek."What's a "tractate"? Look it up on page 247 where you can also brush up on the word "transcendence" contrasted with "immanence" on page 124.A Dictionary of Gnosticism will help you comprehend Plato's Timaeus from which the concept of the "demiurge" originates, as well as modern film concepts. The 1999 movie "The Matrix" is explained on page 156 where "archon" equivalent characters (agents) govern reality "on behalf of the entity that created the world". The demiurge in Gnosticism is compared to the machines in the Matrix.Try Googling all that! It is wonderful to have this handy Gnostic dictionary at one's fingertips as a quick reference for looking up some of the more obscure terms of Gnosis ("direct spiritual experience") - but it also helps in grasping much of what more mainstream literature and contemporary media have been trying to tell us all along. The truth is in between the lines ... or in the process of "inverse exegesis." Make up your "Nous" or mind and avoid the "interdict" if you are a heretic. Explore Pistis Sophia. Use this quick reference manual of Gnostic terms as a springboard for further inquiry. Ablanathanalba.

This is a fine layman's Dictionary of Gnosticism, by Andrew Philip-Smith.His short bite-size history of the rise of Gnosticism,which precedes his incisive entries, gives a snapshot in eight pages of this cultic activity which meandered through many thought patterns and philosophies in Early Chrisendom, although it had borrowed roots from ancient Jewish and Iranian mysticism. To clarify the situation even more, some indications of early gnostic activity during the first three centuries of the Common Era. It was proto-catholic christianity that disavowed any move away from the Jesus as God Incarnation theory, because the mysticism of gnosticism seemed tocontradict the 'reality' of this belief. Jewish mysticism embraced elements of mysticism within their own cabbalisticdocuments that had a Mono God at its centre and not the Triune deity, so therewas not this combative tension that Christianity felt as the latter battled to secure a firm foundation for its beliefs and practices. So the history of Gnosticism as a fully fledged cult really belongs to christian in-fighting, and not to Jewish anxiety or intellectual formulation. When we are apprised of this difference between the Two great Religions, some statement of early Gnostic activity is essential for those readers who would like to discover why early Christianity was so antagonistic to this cult. Why also, gnosticism was finally forced underground, only to re-emergein fits and starts, in later centuries, as a loadstone that was ethical andasumed puritan garb. Today Gnosis as a way of life can take its place among minor philosophies and cults, and freely proclaim its revelatory beliefs. Historically it is fascinating to read the translations of the religious coptic texts(circa. early 4th century,C.E.), that make up what is known as the Nag Hamadi Library. This collection was discovered in 1945, in an earthen jar, in a Greco-Roman cemetary, and was possibly buried in the late 4th century by coptic monks in Egypt, zealous to uphold the catholic ortodoxy in the town.(Smith lists these codices. See also 'The Nag Hammadi Library', a book byJames M. Robinson, for a convenient English translation). If you find the terminology confusing while reading these texts in translation there is recourse to this dictionary. Those unfamiliar terms will be elucidated as never before;and for the more experienced reader, long forgotten terms will again be at your fingertips. Modern Gnostics whose main interest is not the debate over the something or the accidence of past debates, will see an entry for William Blake,the Poet,(1757-1827), who blended an acute mythology into his own complex gnostic system. Voltaire,(1694-1778), is a name forever associated with the Enlightenment,the spiritual and mental emancipation of Man in the 18th century. He held semi-gnostic views, honing gnostic beliefs to his service in attacking the burdens and rigors that established Christianity imposed on those within its sphere of influence. I would have liked to have seen an entry on the 18th century Enlightenment,as well as on Voltaire the pseudo Gnostic by Smith just to achieve balance. However, that caveat might seem insignificant in a critique of a work that should prove a valuable resource for years to come.

A most read