May I ask why some of these article links are bolded? If they were featured articles, perhaps it would make sense to me, but they don't appear to be. Jwrosenzweig 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

They are the two most important Gnostic works.

• The Gospel of Truth, due to its increadibly high literary standard - its not just a religious tract, but something that ranks with Shakespeare.


• The Gospel of Thomas, due to its increadibly strong connection with and importance in understanding the development of the canonical Gospels.

Clinkophonist 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that strikes me as a subjective argument. After all, I could argue that a book of the Bible's literary standard is high (say, the Gospel of John) and that another is incredibly important (say, Genesis, owing to its account of creation and the fall of man) but I could hardly justify calling attention to them in a Books of the Bible template. I'm not disputing the beauty or importance of those two books, but unless we can come up with a much better objective reason to highlight two articles in this infobox, I think we need to avoid bolding any of the links. Jwrosenzweig 05:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed extremely subjective. But it is, however, a subjectivity shared with a large number of historians of early Christianity, and Bible textual studies. Most university biblical studies do not single out the Gospel of John or Genesis as especially worthy (though the statistically small number of academic Creationist church historians may highlight Genesis in their teachings) above the others. But most studies of the apocrypha do single out the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Truth for their respective reasons. Clinkophonist 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you shrink the template. It is too large, especially in articles that are arguably only marginally Gnostic like the Gospel of Thomas. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Marcion[edit]

I notice Marcion keeps getting added to this list. He was not a gnostic. For example:

According to the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica article on Marcion: "It was no mere school for the learned, disclosed no mysteries for the privileged, but sought to lay the foundation of the Christian community on the pure gospel, the authentic institutes of Christ. The pure gospel, however, Marcion found to be everywhere more or less corrupted and mutilated in the Christian circles of his time. His undertaking thus resolved itself into a reformation of Christendom. This reformation was to deliver Christendom from false Jewish doctrines by restoring the Pauline conception of the gospel, —Paul being, according to Marcion, the only apostle who had rightly understood the new message of salvation as delivered by Christ. In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church—to which he was first driven by opposition—amounts to a reformation of Christendom through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A dualist he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."

See also [1].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.27.170 (talk • contribs)

A very great deal has been learnt about gnosticism since 1911, especially due to the discovery of some of their texts in the 1940s and 1950s, whereas most of the knowledge before that, ie during 1911, was based on guesswork and ancient anti-gnostic propaganda. Clinkophonist 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 63.201.27.170: he was dualist, and regarded the Old Testament God as a Demiurge, but he didn't have the wild systemism and the search for gnosis as a final goal so characteristic for the gnosticists. IMHO. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

I felt this template was way, way too long.
I condenced some of the subjects in the opening "history of Gnostisism" section, but feel free to disagree with my edits. Fennessy 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The sun cross[edit]

Hi there,

At present the symbol on the Gnosticism template is a Sun cross, or something resembling it. However, there isn't anything in the Sun cross article - or the article on Gnosticism itself - explaining this as far as I can see. The only explanation I can find is an unsourced claim that the symbol was used by the Cathars.

I am therefore curious - what was the rationale for the choice of this image? Also - and more importantly - could an explanation be added, specifically to the main article on Gnosticism? I'm not trying to cast doubt on the relevance of the symbol to the topic, but I do think it would benefit from being more explicitly explained.

Apologies if I'm just being incredibly dense, as happens frequently. ElijahOmega (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jnana doesn't belong![edit]

Jnana doesn't belong, because a gnostic concept must be part of a gnostic cosmology with aeons and an ultimate sole Unknowable God. Jnana is part of a dharmic cosmology (hinduism, buddhism and relatives), with no aeons and no such ultimate sole Unknowable God, although a Quite Knowable Multipersonal God usually permeates cosmos (Brahman, Shiva, Vishnu or so).

Also: all other related topics deal with gnosticism or gnosis some way. Jnana the article never mentions gnosis or gnostic influences, except as a See also, which is such a weak connection as to warrant everything regarding mysticism, insight, inspiration, whatever to belong to "related topics", or some stricture as to what is related must be upheld. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Related People?[edit]

Maybe there should be a section in this Template for those who were not properly Gnostics, but were of relevance or had an influential significance. For instance, Marcion, Ptolemy, Origen, and maybe even St. Paul? That is: not gnostics by tidy definition, mainly because the cosmology wasn't there, but venerated by the Gnostics and akin to them in spirit. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)