James Papandrea: Two Kinds of Gnosticism: A Way Forward in the Definition(s) of Gnosticism Based on Christology

Ever since the “Messina Definition” in 1966, scholars have been trying to nail down a workable definition of gnosticism, and the attempts fall on a spectrum from a single umbrella definition that ends up being too broad to be useful, to the equally unhelpful acknowledgment that there were really many “gnosticisms.” This short communication will offer a possible way forward by stripping away the various cosmologies and even theologies of the gnostic schools of thought, in order to get down to the heart of the matter, which is gnostic christology. By looking at the christology of gnosticism specifically, the gnostic schools can be categorized into two types. The first type is a strictly docetic christology, in which Jesus Christ is not at all human, and has no tangible body. In fact one could argue that in this type there is no Jesus, there is only a Christ-spirit. The second kind of gnosticism is what I call a hybrid gnosticism, a later development which likely emerged as a concession to the acceptance of the canonical gospels and their witness to a bodily Jesus. In hybrid gnosticism, Jesus Christ is still not human, but he does have a tangible body. I will offer a way of looking at this dual definition of gnosticism, and suggest which of the two categories each of the main gnostic documents fall into.