THE GNOSTICS
                         A Survey of Gnostic  Beliefs
                          and Gnostic-Christian ties
                                       
                                      by Maged S. Mikhail
                     

 

Knowledge has always fascinated  Man, his curious nature prods  him to seek it,
often only to  find out that he lacks  the virtue to  use it.   In a very  true
sense knowledge is  in  fact power;  this seems to  be an  unalterable constant
whether in the ancient world  or today.  What  we are  about to investigate  in
this article is the "Gnostic" religions.  Their appeal is a simple one.  In the
turbulent and unpredictable ancient world,  at a time  when Man felt that he is
but a puppet in the  hands of fortune,  the Gnostics proclaimed aloud: 'come to
us and we will enlighten you with Knowledge that would give you the power to be
in charge of your destiny!'

When we  speak about the  Gnostics it is  important to realize  that we are not
just speaking about a group  of people, but  in fact many widely varying groups
who fit under  this title due  to their adherence  to a common set of  beliefs.
Keeping this in  mind is of  utmost importance, for our research  will not be a
concise examination of the in-and-outs  of every sect  but will be in the shape
of a survey of the general trends of Gnostic  beliefs.  Early Christianity will
also play a  role in our research  for  two reasons;  first, the two  religions
often  collided in the first four  centuries, secondly much  of Gnostic imagery
and theology is adapted from a Jewish/Christian context.

In a way, Gnosticism  is the best  example of Hellenic  Syncretism.[1] It was a
blend  of  Platonic philosophy, ancient gods,  and  a pinch of every  school of
thought at the time.   It existed long  before Christianity, but it didn't seem
to be as highly individualistic as we come to know it till the beginning of the
Christian Era.  What we mean by this is that  till the Christian era the groups
which we now identify  as "Gnostic" would  have been just another mystery cult,
for they do share many similarities with them.  In  a way Christianity defined,
or at least created a renaissance in Gnostic  circles.  The evidence of this is
actually  very  straightforward.   First, almost  all  Gnostic  groups  we have
identified  use Christian titles, as  well  as the Jewish/Christian scriptures.
Secondly, the Gnostics themselves claimed Christian  Origins.  The best example
of this is in THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS in which Jesus takes Thomas  to the side and
`enlightens' him.  Thus, they didn't claim to  just have any knowledge, but for
many (not all) the knowledge they possessed  was the true knowledge which stems
from the true instructions of Jesus Christ.  In effect  they claimed to possess
the true Krygma; the true essence of the Christian message.


Gnostic and Christian Views of Salvation:
----------------------------------------
As mentioned  above,  Gnosticism  is   indeed  older than  Christianity.   Thus
Christianity  didn't   create  Gnosticism,  but  as a  result   of Christianity
Gnosticism   reinvented  itself.   The   obvious reason  behind   the coming of
Christianity and the  reinventing of Gnosticism was, of  course,  the person of
Jesus Christ.  The answer to the question  of who He was and  what was His role
in Salvation, was the dividing line between Gnosticism and Christianity.  Thus,
what we are examining in effect is the concept of Christ as Savior.

In the Christian/Jewish mentality, salvation accomplishes two things. First, it
must  fulfill  the judgment  of  God  against  humanity, which is  death   as a
punishment for sin.   Secondly, it is a process  of restoration.  The patristic
fathers always conceived man as a divine being in that his  natural state is to
be with God as Adam was  before the fall.  Thus it  is not only enough to atone
for   the   sins of humanity  against   God  but also  reconcile  the  two; and
consequently restoring  Man to  his original state.   To accomplish   these two
tasks certain criteria must be fulfilled; the Savior must be human, for He must
die  on behalf of the sins  of humanity.  He  must be  pure,  for otherwise His
death would be a natural consequence of His sins.   He must also be Divine, for
how else could He be the intercessor,  the intermediary who would reconcile God
and Humanity?  In the Christian framework Jesus Christ being Son of God and Son
of Man, being without  sin,  and actually dying and rising from the dead, makes
Him the Savior.   He did enlighten humanity with His teachings,  but the actual
salvation was through His deeds and not His words.

To the Gnostics, however, Salvation had a totally different meaning.  Salvation
was to be saved from uncertainty, and  to return to  our origin "the One" or as
it was called earlier "The Good," and the way this was accomplished was through
the revelation of secret  knowledge.  Thus  the  deeds  of  the  savior figure,
whoever he is, are quite unimportant;  what is of absolute importance, however,
are his teachings.

This gave rise  to a number  of heterodox doctrines  that  the Christian Church
tried to combat.   Among them was  the Doceitic doctrine  which maintained that
Christ was on  earth only in appearance, almost   like a hologram, and did  not
actually take flesh,  and certainly was  not crucified.  In  the Gnostic system
this  doctrine would  have  absolutely no impact on  the  concept of Salvation,
actually it  was a necessity; who would  think that a   spirit would assume the
lowly flesh if it didn't  have to?  However,  such a doctrine in the  Christian
framework would invalidate  the whole idea of Salvation,  thus we see  frequent
attempts in many writings aimed  at destroying such doctrines.[2] Another great
example  which illustrates the two contradicting  mentalities of Gnosticism and
Christianity is the figure of Judas;  who was seen  in two completely different
lights.  To the Christians he was the greatest  of traitors, to the Gnostics he
"alone knew the truth better than the other apostles {and thus} he accomplished
the  mystery of the  betrayal."[3]  There were also those who denied the Virgin
Birth as well as the Resurrection, which makes sense, for "if anyone accept not
His virgin birth, how shall   be accept His   resurrection from the   dead?"[4]
Again,   these Gnostic doctrines  fit nicely  into their framework,  but in the
Christian context they would deem the whole notion of Salvation invalid.


Gnostic Theology
----------------
In all  Gnostic  sects, Platonism   played  a crucial  rule.   The  titles  and
individuals referenced were   usually  Christian, but  the  whole  theology  of
salvation,  and the world-view  was definitely Platonic.[5]  To reconstruct the
theological structure of  the Gnostics is a job  best left to the experts, here
we are mainly relaying on  the description given by J.N.D.   Kelly in his EARLY
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, which  is actually one   of the best  descriptions we have
come across.  Simply put, the  Gnostics/Platonists believed that there was "The
Good"  from which a  variety of emanations  (Aeons) were given  off.  They, the
Aeons,  in turn are  in a sequential  order, which is  determined by the Aeons'
knowledge; the more they know the higher up and  thus closer to 'the Good' they
are.   Each of these entities is  aware of those  under him, but  is unaware of
anything above him.  They  serve as the intermediaries which  we have to bypass
on our journey to "The Good." As for us humans, we are actually the sons of The
Good and have been separated from  him, and are  given these bodies almost as a
punishment,  for in essence we are  spirits.  In order for us  to once again be
reunited with The Good, we must gain the secret  Gnosis, which will allow us to
bypass all the Aeons and also to bypass the most ignorant of  which, who is the
Demigure  who   created this  material  world and  enfleshed us.   The Gnostics
believed that  this secret knowledge   was transmitted  by savior figures,  who
included Seth, Enoch, and Jesus.

The knowledge  was often in  the form of  names. This is somewhat difficult for
the  modern  individual to  understand,  we  think of a  name  as  simply that.
However, in  ancient times this  was not the case. A  name  was in a  way one's
whole     being.  Actually, this   is a   very  old notion   which predates the
Hellenistic age  and stems from the religion  of the Ancient Egyptians.  At any
rate, knowing the name  of the Aeon didn't just  give a person knowledge of him
but also power over him so  that the Aeon  no longer became  an obstacle in the
souls' return-voyage to The Good.  They simply saw names in a light which we in
this present age do not even consider, to  them names and letters which compose
them are not  just sounds but "they are  letters of the  truth which they alone
speak who know them.  Each letter is a complete <thought> like a complete book,
since they are letters written by the Unity, the Father having written them for
the Aeons in order  that   by means  of his  letters    they should  know   the
Father."[6]

The next obstacle in this maze of names and numbers is that  the Aeons and gods
have the names  of adjectives  and verbs but   are used as proper nouns;   thus
Terror,  Error, Oblivion, Anguish, and All  are really individual deities.  And
to further complicate the  problem many of them come  into being as a result of
their adjective meaning, for instance, Anguish and  Error are said to come from
Ignorance of  the Father.[7] Even  the ones which are given  the name  of nouns
have to be seen  and understood in a different  light; for instant the Cross is
not just the crossed  wooden structure which  Christ was crucified upon, but it
is also a living intellectual  entity.   To further  complicate the reading  of
Gnostic  literature,   as  if  it wasn't  complicated   enough,  certain groups
recognized  different titles   as representing different   entities.  The  best
example of this is the Christian title of Christ  which is "Lord God and Savior
Jesus Christ,"  to   the Gnostics  the "Lord" was    one being, "God"  another,
"Savior" another,  "Jesus"  another, and "Christ"   yet  another entity.   This
labyrinth of  names  (and numbers) was one  of  the points by  which  Christian
writers  stressed    the foolishness  of   Gnosticism.  St.    Ireaneus himself
commented that  "such   things really are   too   much for   even  a `woe'  and
`alas'..."[8]

Besides how to get saved, the Gnostics also defined  who would get saved.  They
defined three types of  men; the spiritual, the carnal  and the ones in-between
(the Soulish). The spiritual ones were said to be saved regardless of what they
do, the  carnal were assumed to be  beyond salvation, and the  in-betweens were
believed to be capable of salvation if they followed the Gnostic way and played
by the rules.  This doctrine  of some being  saved regardless of what they  did
caused many to live  reckless lives. However, this made  the Gnostics seem even
more heathenistic, thus as  Ireaneus puts it  even "the most perfect among them
(the Gnostics) shamelessly do all the forbidden things."[9]

From the Christian standpoint, the Gnostics were "injected by Satan in order to
deny the baptism of rebirth unto God, and to destroy the entire faith."[10] The
Gnostics were seen  as the doers of "violence  to the good words [of Scripture]
in adapting them to their wicked fabrications."[11]  In a way the Christians of
the time were  confused and angry since, in   the words of  Ireaneus "they [the
Gnostics] speak  the same language we do,  but intend  different meanings."[12]
The Gnostics were even accused of not really being true  believers of what they
profess, for  they seemed to  be  "unwilling to  teach  these things to  all in
public   but   only to  those who  are    able to  pay    a large sum  for such
mysteries!"[13] As for the claim that the Gnostics had  the true Tradition, the
Christian  Church  through Ireaneus  stated   that  the Gnostics  differ  among
themselves  in doctrine and tradition[14]  yet  the Church "though disseminated
throughout the whole world ... believes these things as if she had but one soul
and   one  and the  same  heart;  she  preaches, teaches  and   hands them down
harmoniously,  as if  she  possessed but one mouth."[15]  In  other words; "the
tradition of the Apostles, (is) made manifest  as it is  through all the world,
(and)    can be recognized    in every  Church  by all   who  wish  to know the
truth."[15a] It is therefore  available and apparent  to all and  not just to a
select few.

                     
Gnosticism and Christianity
---------------------------
In this section we will try to get a better  understanding of Gnostic theology,
and also observe first-hand  how Christianity was  assimilated into the Gnostic
scheme.  To accomplish this task, special attention  will be paid to the GOSPEL
OF THOMAS  and the GOSPEL  OF TRUTH,  the  latter being  ascribed to the famous
Gnostic teacher Valintanian.

As  mentioned above, names    were   a central  theme  in   Gnostic  teachings.
Everything can    be explained by   their aid.   The  existence of    god, "The
Father,"[16]  himself can be  explained by the use of  this name-theology.  For
"He gave a name to himself since he sees himself, he alone  having the power to
give himself  a name, for  he who does  not exist  has  no name."[17]  Thus the
Father alone, having knowledge  of himself,  is  self-existent and  through his
utterings (which can  also  be understood  as his Aeons)  everything  came into
being.  However, we as humans  have lost the  knowledge of the Father, thus the
Father sent to us  the Word from the Pleroma[18]  and through him we once again
gained the   knowledge of  the  Father and  thus  our  deficiency, or   lack of
knowledge,  "no  longer exist(s)."[19]  As  for those  who do not  know  of the
Father;

         ...  he  who is ignorant  until  the  end   is a creature  of
         Oblivion, and he will vanish  along with it.   If not, how is
         it that these miserable ones  have no name,  (how is it that)
         they do not have the Call? Therefore if one has knowledge, he
         is from above. If he is called, he hears,  he answers, and he
         turns to  him who is  calling him,   and ascends to  him.[20]

In this manner The GOSPEL OF TRUTH speaks about salvation, in a way, the latter
statements  wouldn't  be too  much out  of  place  in   a Manchian/Augustinian/
Calvinist framework in  which predestination plays  such a crucial role.  There
is first  a  calling from  god,  then the person  `hears,'  `answers,' and then
`turns to him who is calling him.'  The theme of predestination, which can also
be found among the Stoic  Philosophers of the time, is  made even more manifest
in the  revelation that the Father is  the one who "assigned"[21]  the Pleromas
their  destinies.  The  GOSPEL also maintains   that those "who  are to receive
teaching [are] the living who are inscribed in the book of the living"[22]

The GOSPEL OF  TRUTH also offers some interesting  insights into the  different
currents of thought of the time.   At one point it maintains  that the "name of
the  Father is the  Son"[23] and proceeds to give  a theology of the Father and
the Son much  like that of  the Monarchians[24], whom  the Christian Church was
fighting at the same time (2-3rd centuries).  However, where  the "Truth" is to
be understood as the "Son", the Gospel also provides a semi-Trinitarian view by
stating that "...  everyone loves  the Truth because  the Truth is mouth of the
Father; his tongue is the Holy Spirit, He who is joined to the Truth is Jointed
to  the Father's mouth   by his tongue,  whenever he   is  to receive  the Holy
Spirit."[25] It is  apparent that the  Gospel doesn't have, and doesn't  really
try to  form a concise theology as  far as the figures of  Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are concerned.   At one point it maintains  that the Son  and Spirit are
mere Aeons, at another that the Son and the Father are one and the Same, and at
yet another it maintains a Trinitarian approach to the whole subject.

Before we move on to the GOSPEL OF THOMAS, we would like to spend a little time
on the TREATISE ON RESURRECTION, which is a  great example of how Gnosticism is
actually a conglomerate of groups held together only by  the platonic aspect to
their  theology, and are  differentiated as to how  much  and which aspects did
they  assimilate from Christianity.  It still retains a strong predestinational
tone; "therefore, we   are elected to  salvation and  redemption since we   are
predestined  from the beginning  not to fall into the  foolishness of those who
are without knowledge."[26] What makes  this Treatise standout, however, is its
concept of the flesh.  Like good Gnostic prose it  maintains that one "received
flesh when (he) ... entered this world,"[27] but it also affirms that the flesh
will accompany the person into the  afterlife; "why will  you not receive flesh
when you ascend into the Aeons?  That which is  better than the flesh, which is
for it (the) cause of life, that  which came into  being on your account, is it
not yours?  Does not that which is yours exist  with you?"[28] This idea of the
unity  of  the flesh and the  spirit  is one  which most Gnostic  groups do not
adhere to.  Flesh, being matter, is usually seen as being  evil and a hindrance
to the spirit  in Gnostic eyes.   This however is   in direct contradiction  to
Christian doctrine.  St.  Ireaneus, himself, in his PROOF OF APOSTOLIC TEACHING
gives one of the most readable accounts of the unity of the flesh and the body,
and  he does so to contrast  and with the aim of  disproving  the usual Gnostic
position  which  maintains  their   separation.[29] This  break  with from  the
orthodox Gnostic position as seen in the TREATISE, demonstrates to us how close
the Gnostic and Christian teachings intermingled.

Perhaps the  most important, and    certainly the  most famous, account   which
demonstrates the peculiarities of Gnostic theology is the GOSPEL OF THOMAS.  It
is divided  into  114  verses (actually  they  are better  described   as small
chapters,   each   composed of   a  few  lines)  which  are   arranged somewhat
haphazardly.  In verses 2-4 the main theme is that nothing  will be covered and
everything will be  revealed.  And  what  is revealed?  Well  it  is the secret
knowledge  which Jesus  told to Thomas,  and Thomas  alone.[30] In this  Gospel
there are a   great number of  verses which   are found in  the four  canonical
Gospels, almost word for word (v. 8, 9, 20, 26, 34, 35, 41, 44, 54, 73, 86, 94,
96,).  A second group of verses seems also to have origins in the four Gospels,
but are  in fact a  summarized account of  what is in the canonical Scriptures;
v. 63 is a great example of this in which Thomas takes  two sentences to relate
what took Luke five verses.   The GOSPEL also  seems to have some verses  which
have been innocently doctored, in that the changes in them do not really amount
to any theological doctrines. A good example of this is verse 47 in which Jesus
is speaking about how one cannot serve two masters, this  verse starts with the
illustrative remark that "A person cannot  mount two horses  or bend two bows."
The authenticity of this sentence, as being that of Christ, is dismissed by the
scholars in the  Jesus Seminar, [31]  but nevertheless it doesn't really change
the meaning of  the verse one  way or the other.  It  just adds an illustration
which  makes the  teaching seem more   real to the mind of   a reader.  Another
variety of verses  begin as they would in  the canonical Gospels,  but end in a
surprising manner, verse 107 (also see verse 100) is such  a verse.  It depicts
the story of the  shepherd who left the ninety-nine  sheep and went to look for
the lost one.  When he  found it, he  said to the  sheep, "I love you more than
the ninety-nine."   We would also like to  mention vesres 30  and 31  which are
somewhat awkward following the precedence  set by the puzzling, or interesting,
verse 7; "Lucky is the lion that  the human will eat, so  that the lion becomes
human.  And fool is the human that  the lion will  eat, and the lion still will
become human."

Now, let us look at what makes the GOSPEL  OF THOMAS Gnostic.  Already in verse
11; "... when you are in the light, what will you do?  On the day when you were
one, you became two.  But  when you become two, what  will you do?"  we get our
first firm connection to Platonism.  This idea, that we are in fact half of the
complete being we once were, is  explicitly stated in  Plato's SYMPOSIUM in the
speech of Aristophanes.  Another strong  indicator of Gnostic/platonic thinking
is found  in the doctrine  of the  pre-existence  of souls  which is evident in
verses 49 and 50.  Again, this doctrine (which was one of the reasons the great
Origen  was ostracized) fits perfectly the  Gnostic scheme, in which we existed
in the beginning with the father, are exiled in the flesh, and aim to return to
him, our origin, once again.

This  Gospel is also peculiar as  to its stances.   In verse  27,  in which the
readers  are commanded   to  keep  the  Sabbath, and   verse   53  which  calls
circumcision of  no importance.  It seems to  agree with  St.  Paul's stance on
circumcision, but retains the Judaic imprint of verse 27 which  was the mark of
Ebonites  [32]  and thus  really contradicting  the  universally held Christian
ideal of celebrating Sunday as being the new and true Sabbath.

Finally, we cannot  speak about the  GOSPEL OF THOMAS without mentioning  verse
114:

          Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary  leave us, for females
          don't  deserve life."  Jesus  said, "Look, I will guide her
          to  make her male, so  that  she too  may  become a  living
          spirit resembling  you males.  For  every female  who makes
              herself male will enter the domain of Heave." [33]

It probably doesn't take  a genius to see that  this is not exactly the message
given in the Canonical Gospels.  Even the  Scholars in the `Jesus Seminar,' who
by and    far have a very liberal    view point, do  not see   this as, at all,
presenting the teachings of Christ.  What it does give us is a glimpse into the
mentality of certain Gnostics towards women.

This has been but a brief glance at the labyrinth  of Gnosticism.  The conflict
between  it and Christianity lasted into  the fourth and fifth centuries (maybe
even later). Throughout this period of  time the Gnostics experienced a revival
(especially in the 2-3 centuries) followed by a  gradual decline in popularity,
and  were in  fact persecuted as  Christianity settled.   As  for the Christian
Church,  She gained much   from the  Gnostics,   in  that they  forced   her to
systematically defend her  doctrines; and in  the process,  also to define  the
first canons of the New Testament.

To both the early  Christians and the Gnostics Platonism  played a  large role.
This can be seen through the  influence of the two most  influential men of the
period, Plotinus and Origen.  Both were contemporaries and students of the same
master,  Ammonius   Sacca,  and it   was   under them that   Neo-Platonism  was
established.  However, for Christians, philosophy was a way of describing their
beliefs, and not the other way around as in the case of the Gnostics.  At times
the lines  seemed murky, but  much more often than not  the lines of contention
were clearly drawn.


FOOTNOTES
---------                     

Note:  For  the citations in  the  Nag Hammadi Library  page  numbers are given
(except in the case  of the Gospel of Thomas).   As for the Proof  of Apostolic
Teaching and Against  the Heresies (and the Gospel  of Thomas) the standardized
reference numbers for these works is given.  References to  the writings of St.
Ignatius is from Lightfoot's APOSTOLIC FATHERS.


 [1] For 'Hellenic Syncretism' and a sketch of the major cults and religions of
     the  Hellenic  age  see   Martin's   HELLENISTIC RELIGIONS  (see.    Bib.)
     unfortunately however his  assessment and  approach to Christianity  leave
     much to be desired and some to be opposed.

 [2] John 1:14,  1-Timothy 3:16, 1-John  1:1.  Ignatius [Bishop of Antioch (110
     d.)] to the Ephesians 7.2, 18.2; to the Trallians 9.1-2; to the Smyrnaeans
     2.1

 [3] Against the Heresies, I.31.1

 [4]  Proof  of Apostolic Teaching, 38

 [5] The Platonic Structure which is described  later is actually Neo-Platonic.
     It doesn't, as far as I  know, contradict traditional  Platonism and it is
     more systematic thus easier to understand.

 [6] Nag Hammadi Library. The Gospel of Truth, 40-1

 [7] Nag Hammadi Library. The Gospel of Truth, 38

 [8] Against the Heresies,  I. 15.4  and also I.11.4

 [9] Ibid., I.6.3

[10] Ibid., I.21.1

[11] Ibid., I.3.6

[12] Ibid., Preface.2.15

[13] Ibid., I.4..3

[14] Ibid., I.21.5

[15] Ibid., I.10.2 &3. [15a] Against the Heresies III.3.1

[16] The   title "Father" is   given instead of "The Good"    in this Gospel of
     Truth. This is   very  important  in   illustrating  the  assimilation  of
     Christianity into  the Gnostic  framework.  For the   Gospel of Truth does
     not  have any quotations from  either  the New  or  Old Testaments yet the
     names of  the Father, Son, and Holy  Spirit  are regularly used.   Also as
     we  proceed we will  notice that it   exhibits a strange  blend of Gnostic
     thought, heterodox  perspectives,   and   even some   Orthodox   Christian
     viewpoints.

[17] Nag Hammadi Library. The Gospel of Truth., 47

[18] Ibid., 37

[19] Ibid., 41

[20] Ibid., 40

[21] Ibid., 48

[22] Ibid., 40

[23] Ibid. 47

[24] Monarchianism,  (a.k.a.  Sabilianism)  was  a heresy  in  the early church
     which maintained that Father,  Son, and Holy Spirit were  all one God, who
     would assume different  roles  at different times, thus  this  doctrine in
     effect denied the presence of God as a Trinity.

[25] Nag Hammadi Library. Gospel of Truth, 42

[26] Nag Hammadi Library. The Treatise on Resurrection, 52

[27] Ibid., 52

[28] Ibid.

[29] Proof of Apostolic Teaching, 2

[30] Nag Hammadi Library. Gospel of Thomas, 13

[31] Funk & Hoover.  The five Gospels, 499

[32] The  Ebonites  were   a  group   in    the Jewish tradition   who accepted
     Christianity  to a degree, yet demanded  the observance of the Sabbath and
     the circumcision of the flesh.

[33] The Fellows  of the Jesus Seminar state   that the author  is using "Male"
     and  "female" metaphorically  to  refer to the  higher   and lower aspects
     of human nature. p. 532


BIBLIOGRAPHY
------------
Funk, Robert W.  &  Roy W.  Hover,  and The  Jesus  Seminar. THE  FIVE GOSPELS,
THE  SEARCH FOR  THE  AUTHENTIC WORDS  OF  JESUS.   U.S.:  Macmillan Publ. Co.,
1993.

Ireaneus.  PROOF OF  APOSTOLIC  TEACHING.  Ancient Christian Writers  Series v.
16.  Trans. & Annotated. by Joseph P.  Smith. N.Y.: Newman Press, 1952.

Ireaneus. AGAINST THE HERESIES (book  I).  Ancient Christian Writers Series  v.
55 Translated  &  Annotated by Dominic J. Unger,   Revised by John  J.  Dillon.
U.S.: Paulist Press, 1992.

Kelly, J.N.D.    EARLY  CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.  (Revised Edition).   US.:  Harper
Collins, 1978.

Lightfoot,  J.B.  and J.R..  Harmer.  THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS (2nd   ed.)  Ed.  &
Rev. by Michael W.  Holmes.  U.S.: Baker Book House, 1989.

Martin,  Luther H. HELLENISTIC RELIGIONS; AN  INTRODUCTION.  N.Y.: Oxford Univ.
Press., 1987.

Robinson, James ed.  THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY IN ENGLISH.  U.S.: Harper and Row,
1977.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------