The speculative fluidity of Gnostic thought—unanchored by orthodoxy and driven by subjective synthesis—inevitably gave rise to a multitude of sectarian schools. These varied not only in geography and cultural milieu but also in theological emphasis and ethical orientation. Despite their diversity, all shared a common departure from both the historic faith of Israel and the apostolic message of the New Testament.
Geographical Classifications
Gnostic systems can first be grouped geographically into two principal families: the Egyptian (or Alexandrian) and the Syrian. Each bore the mark of its native intellectual soil.
- The Egyptian School—represented by Basilides, Valentinus, and the Ophites—was heavily influenced by Platonism and centered around the theory of emanations. This tradition wove intricate cosmologies and layered hierarchies of aeons, often framed by the Neoplatonic longing for ascent from matter to spirit.
- The Syrian School—seen in Saturninus, Bardesanes, and Tatian—leaned more toward Persian dualism. In these systems, a cosmic struggle between light and darkness defined the spiritual universe, and the material world was portrayed as an accursed realm dominated by evil powers.
Distinct from both was Marcion, who cannot be properly situated in either camp. A native of Asia Minor, Marcion reflected the Pauline emphasis on grace and liberty, but turned it into a radical rejection of the Old Testament and its God, constructing a severe antithesis between Law and Gospel, creation and redemption.
Doctrinal Classifications
Gnosticism can also be divided according to the dominant element within its syncretism—heathen, Jewish, or Christian. These labels, however, are relative. All Gnostic systems were, at root, paganizing in tone and orientation.
- Paganizing Gnostics: Simonians, Nicolaitans, Ophites, Carpocratians, Prodicians, Antitactes, and later, the Manichaeans. Their systems drew heavily from Greco-Roman mythologies and cosmologies, often portraying Christ as a divine spark rather than a historical Redeemer.
- Judaizing Gnostics: Cerinthus, Basilides, Valentinus, and Justin. While these systems retained more biblical terminology and even engaged with Mosaic traditions, their “Judaism” was largely filtered through Alexandrian allegory or Cabbalistic mysticism. Even the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which lean toward Ebionitism, reflect this tendency.
- Christianizing Gnostics: Saturninus, Marcion, Tatian, and the Encratites. These groups appropriated significant elements of the New Testament but warped them within a dualistic metaphysic, erasing the goodness of creation and denying the incarnation’s reality.
As Schaff notes, the so-called Judaizing elements within Gnosticism were not the robust covenantal theology of the Old Testament, but a shadowy abstraction—an apocryphal Judaism reimagined through Hellenistic and mystical lenses.
Ethical Classifications
From an ethical vantage point, Gnostic schools fall into three broad categories:
- Speculative or Theosophic Gnostics: Basilides, Valentinus. Their focus lay in cosmological speculation and metaphysical symbolism.
- Practical and Ascetic Gnostics: Marcion, Saturninus, Tatian. These emphasized rigorous self-denial, often condemning marriage, material pleasures, and bodily life as intrinsically evil.
- Antinomian and Libertine Gnostics: Simonians, Nicolaitans, Ophites, Carpocratians, and Antitactes. Believing themselves immune to moral law, they indulged the flesh while claiming spiritual transcendence.
This triple division—by region, doctrine, and ethics—illustrates the protean character of Gnosticism: a movement constantly shifting, endlessly inventive, and essentially centrifugal. In the chapters to follow, we will trace the chronological emergence of these schools, beginning with those that arose during or near the apostolic age.
