The three faces of “gnosis”

Christian origins, ancient gnosticism, modern renaissances

The word “gnosis” is often used as if it referred to a single reality. In truth, it covers three distinct historical periods that should not be confused : early Christian gnosis (1st – 3rd centuries), ancient Gnosticism (2nd – 4th centuries), and modern Gnosticism (17th – 21st centuries), between Christian theosophy and neo-Gnostic revivals. This article does not, of course, establish a hierarchy ; it simply helps to read each corpus in its own context.

Early Christian Gnosticism (1st – 3rd centuries)

In early Christian communities, gnôsis (γνῶσις) primarily meant lived knowledge : understanding of the Scriptures, spiritual discernment, moral transformation. For Paul (1st century) and John (late 1st century), “knowing” was more about living in Christ than about a system. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – 215) uses the term positively : the “true Gnostic” is the mature Christian, unified by charity and trained in wisdom (Stromates). Origen (c. 185 – 253) develops its ascetic and scriptural dimension (De principiis). Creation is received as a gift ; it is not a matter of fleeing the world, but of inhabiting it consciously through prayer, study, and self-reform. The memory of this period also preserves the figure of Simon Magus (1st century, Acts 8), a contemporary of the early Church, whom authors such as Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) often mention as a precursor of later Gnostic doctrines.

At that time, there was no definitively established canon of Scripture, nor any unified dogma. The Christian communities of the early centuries lived in a space of theological plurality where diverse interpretations of Jesus’ teachings coexisted, transmitted through preaching, liturgy, and writings that were still in free circulation. Early Christian Gnosticism was part of this changing landscape : it was not a structured dissidence, but a way of deepening faith through spiritual intelligence, inner transformation, and symbolic reading of the Scriptures. It was only gradually, as the Church structured itself around episcopal authority, a scriptural canon, and stabilized doctrinal formulas, that certain forms of Gnosticism came to be perceived as incompatible with received teaching.

Ancient Gnosticism (2nd – 4th centuries)

The term “Gnosticism” encompasses various schools that propose powerful cosmologies : Valentinus (active c. 140 – 160) and his Valentinian milieu, Basilides (active c. 120 – 145), as well as Sethian currents (2nd – 3rd centuries). Their language evokes the Pleroma, the Aeons, the figure of Sophia, and the Demiurge. Salvation comes through a revelation that awakens the divine spark. Many systems describe a katábasis (descent, fall) of the divine order into manifestation, then aim for an anábasis (ascent) or an apokatastasis (reintegration, restoration): restoring light to the soul and, symbolically, to the cosmos. This dynamic of fall/reintegration structures many treatises, with subtle nuances depending on the school. These doctrines were discussed and contested by several Church Fathers :

• Irénée de Lyon (c. 130 – 202, Adversus haereses, c. 180)
• Hippolytus of Rome (early 3rd century)
• Epiphanius of Salamis (4th century)

whose works constitute an essential part of the sources. In other words, we know much more about the Gnostics from the texts that fought against them.

Behind these doctrinal elaborations lies a major question of late antiquity, shared well beyond Gnostic circles : how can we account for evil, suffering, and injustice in a world that proceeds from a divine principle held to be good ?

On a doctrinal level, these ancient forms of Gnosticism developed a truly symbolic theodicy. They sought to reconcile the discrepancy between the divine origin of being and the concrete experience of a world marked by suffering, violence, and alienation. Myth thus became a tool of knowledge : not an arbitrary fable, but a language capable of expressing what conceptual reasoning struggles to grasp. The figures of the Demiurge, Sophia, the Aeons, and the Pleroma each reflect, in their own way, a reflection on mediation, the fall, and the fragmentation of the original unity. The world is not necessarily thought of as intrinsically evil, but as out of tune, distant from its principle, governed by intermediate powers that ignore or imperfectly reflect divine fullness.

Gnostic anthropology is part of this vision : human beings are perceived as carrying a spark of light from the higher world, but immersed in forgetfulness of themselves. Ignorance — agnosia — is true captivity. Salvation therefore does not primarily consist of legal remission of guilt, but rather an inner awakening, a recognition of one’s lost origins. To know, in the Gnostic sense, means to remember who one truly is. This knowledge is not purely intellectual : it involves a transformation of the self, a reorientation of consciousness, sometimes supported by ascetic, ritual, or communal practices.

In this context, the figure of Christ is often understood primarily as a revealer : the one who unveils the hidden structure of reality and reminds the soul of its belonging to the world of light. The stories of katábasis and anábasis not only describe a cosmic drama, but also serve as symbolic models for an inner journey. Gnosis thus appears as a path to liberation through revelation, oriented toward the gradual reintegration of the soul into the divine order — a conception that explains both its spiritual force and power of attraction, as well as the reservations it aroused among the ecclesiastical authorities in the process of structuring themselves.

Modern Gnosticism (17th – 21st centuries)

In modern times, the word “gnosis” has taken on new meaning in two directions. First, there is a Christian theosophical/illuminist vein :

• Jacob Böhme (1575 – 1624) avec Aurora (1612), Mysterium Magnum (1623)
• Emanuel Swedenborg (1688 – 1772) avec Arcana Coelestia (1749 – 1756) et De Coelo et de Inferno (1758),
• Martines de Pasqually († 1774) avec le Traité de la Réintégration des Êtres (v. 1760 – 1770, publié 1899)
• Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin (1743 – 1803) avec Des erreurs et de la vérité (1775), Le Nouvel Homme (1792)
• Jean-Baptiste Willermoz (1730 – 1824) avec la Réforme du Rite Écossais Rectifié, Convents de Lyon (1778) et Wilhelmsbad (1782)

These modern gnosticisms do not simply replicate ancient cosmological systems ; they shift their center of gravity. Whereas ancient gnosticisms described a drama inscribed in the very structure of the cosmos, the Christian theosophical and illuminist currents of the 17th and 18th centuries gradually internalized this drama. The question is no longer simply that of the origin of the world, but that of the spiritual condition of man in the world. Cosmic discord becomes inner disorder, and reintegration takes place first and foremost in human consciousness.

For Jacob Böhme, creation is not an unfortunate accident, but the site of a gradual revelation of divinity : the world manifests the internal tensions of the divine principle itself, and man is called upon to become its conscious mediator. Swedenborg, through the doctrine of correspondences, reads the universe as a continuous spiritual language, where every visible reality refers to an inner or heavenly state. Martines de Pasqually, for his part, offers a more dramatic vision : the world is conceived as the result of a primitive fall of spirits, and man as a being in exile, charged with a work of reparation and reintegration, accomplished through discipline, prayer, and rigorously ordered symbolic action.

From this perspective, Reintegration does not refer to a simple moral return or ethical improvement. It refers to an ontological restoration : rediscovering, through sustained inner work, the rightful place of man in the divine order. Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin emphasized this orientation by favoring the inner path over ritual mediations, while Willermoz sought to maintain a balance between initiatory structure, Christian symbolism, and spiritual demands. Through these diverse figures, modern Gnosticism appears less as a closed doctrinal system than as a pedagogy of transformation : a continuous effort to reorder the being, enlighten the consciousness, and reestablish, in man, the living link with his principle.

The framework remains Christocentric. For Böhme and Swedenborg, creation is good and meaningful (law of correspondences); for Martines de Pasqually, it is the result of a state following the original fall of the spirits : a world of exile and trial, ordered as an instrument of reintegration. The main goal remains reintegration, through discipline, prayer, and orderly symbolic work.

At the end of the 19th century, Jules Doinel (1842 – 1902) founded the Gnostic Church (1890) in Paris, ushering in a renaissance of Christianity focused on spiritual experience and inner life rather than dogma alone. This dynamic continued into the 21st century, reinterpreting the ancient heritage according to various sensibilities, both ecclesiastical and symbolic. Jungian readings added a psychological and initiatory emphasis to this body of thought in the 20th century.

Nag Hammadi — 1945 changes everything

Until the mid-20th century, knowledge of the Gnostics depended mainly on hostile sources (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius). Neither the Christian Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries nor Doinel in 1890 had direct access to a large body of ancient texts. The discovery in 1945 of the Nag Hammadi library (Egypt) made it possible to read Gnostic treatises from within (2nd – 4th centuries) and to perceive their real diversity : Valentinian nuances, the complexity of Sethian myths, registers less uniformly dualistic than the polemicists had led us to believe.

As a result, historiography has refined its categories, recontextualized broad labels, and, in turn, shed light on certain interpretations of the 18th and 19th centuries. The Nag Hammadi codices contain non-canonical writings often referred to as apocryphal (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip), which attest to the plurality of ancient Christian voices. They do not provide a “hidden biography” of Jesus, but rather logia, hymns, and theological speculations. For historians, they shed light on interpretations of Jesus’ teachings that are very different from those long accepted and established by ancient Roman ecclesiastical tradition (symbols of faith, Church Fathers, councils).

Rome confronts the currents of Illuminism and initiation

The Church fought against some of these forms of Gnosticism, but not as a single response. From the 16th to the 18th century, Rome’s attitude was far from monolithic : it proceeded on a “case-by-case” basis, depending on national contexts and doctrinal issues. In Spain, the Inquisition targeted the alumbrados as early as 1525 with an Edict of Faith condemning various proposals of inner “illumination” deemed misleading. A century and a half later, Quietism was banned : Miguel de Molinos was condemned by the bull Coelestis Pastor (1687), while Fénelon’s Explication des maximes des saints was censored (1699) for its excessive mystical passivity. Control over reading material was exercised via the Index : works by Emanuel Swedenborg and Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin were included in it at various times. There was therefore no single “crusade” against a hypothetical modern gnosis, but rather a series of responses aimed at preserving the established teachings, especially when esoteric movements sought to replace doctrinal authority.

What connects these gnoses

Beyond differences in era and language, a common theme emerges : knowledge as a path to transformation. Originally, gnosis referred to lived wisdom, oriented toward inner life and the imitation of Christ. In ancient schools, it took the form of a cosmological drama in which the fall (katábasis) called for a rise and reintegration (anábasis, apokatastasis). In modern times, it translates into self-reform — reintegration in the sense of Böhme, Martines, and Saint-Martin — and then into contemporary reinterpretations that seek symbolic coherence for existence. Three eras, three writings with the same tension : understanding and understanding oneself in order to live better.

Conclusion

To say “gnosis” without specifying what kind of gnosis is involved is to risk anachronism. But if we embrace the word in its full breadth, one thing becomes clear : gnosis is first and foremost an inner quest. It is not obedience to a doxeme or mere conformity to a canon, but a quest for truth that engages the entire consciousness. From the communities of the early centuries to ancient systems, from Christian theosophers to modern renaissances, the same spirit has prevailed throughout the centuries : seeking the light in order to be enlightened.

Enfin, pour lever une confusion courante : dire « je suis agnostique » signifie littéralement « je suis sans connaissance ». Pris au pied de la lettre, c’est comme dire « je refuse toute connaissance » — personne ne  souhaiterait cela ; le terme est donc souvent mal employé. Au fond, « connaître » ne consiste pas seulement à savoir, mais à devenir — et la route de la connaissance est moins une thèse à défendre qu’une métamorphose à vivre.

To go further

• Irénée de Lyon, Adversus haereses (c. 180)
• Clément d’Alexandrie, Stromates (IIᵉ – IIIᵉ s.)
• Jacob Böhme, Mysterium Magnum
• Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (Random House)
• Marvin W. Meyer (éd.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures (HarperCollins)
• Martines de Pasqually, Traité de la Réintégration des Êtres
• Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin, Des erreurs et de la vérité

The above references are provided for informational and cultural purposes only. There is no commercial relationship with the authors, publishers, or platforms mentioned ; these links are not advertisements, but rather further reading intended to provide more in-depth information on the subject matter.

Where possible, the images used to illustrate these articles are systematically accompanied by a reference to their source and credits. Where no source is indicated, this is because the information was not available. These images are used solely for illustrative purposes, in a non-profit context, without any commercial intent or appropriation of the work.