1
Naassenes
TUOMAS RASIMUS
The teaching of the Naassenes is only known
through a hostile description by the author of
Refutatio omnium haeresium (5.2; 5.6–11;
10.9), probably HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (Marcovich
1986). While the Naassenes are famous for
having appealed to a version of the Gospel
of Thomas (Refutatio omnium haeresium
(Elenchos) 5.7.20–21) and for their own psalm
(5.10.2), the cornerstone of their teaching was
a doctrine of a heavenly Adam. Juxtaposed
with the primal anthropos of several competing
myths, the Naassene Adam was ultimately
identified as Logos and Christ in his capacity
of the divine image and world soul who holds
the universe together, imparts form and beauty
to it, and guides the current of descending and
ascending souls. An additional symbol for this
platonically and stoically inspired intermediary
between God and matter was the snake. This
was partially based on the Johannine interpre-
tation of Moses’ brazen serpent (Num 21:6–9)
as Christ (John 3:14–15). Advocates of this
pantheistic Christology pointed out a similarity
between the Greek word for temple (naos) and
the Hebrew word for snake (nahash), whence
hostile outsiders labeled them Naassenes,
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25058
“snake people.” In reality they called them-
selves gnostics. They bolstered their mythology
with a wide array of proof texts ranging from
the scriptures and Christian apocrypha to
HOMER and exoteric aspects of mystery cults
(Lancellotti 2000). Because snake-handling
was a known aspect of several mystery cults,
many scholars have mistakenly assumed that
the Naassenes engaged in actual serpent-hand-
ling and worship. Moreover, despite similari-
ties to the Ophite teaching, the two are not
identical (Rasimus 2009). The Naassene teach-
ing differs from the Ophite one especially in its
completely positive serpent symbolism, its lack
of the Sophia myth, and its massive use of clas-
sical proof texts.
SEE ALSO: Gnosis, gnostics, gnosticism.
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Lancellotti, M. (2000) The Naassenes: a gnostic
identity among Judaism, Christianity, Classical
and ancient Near Eastern traditions. Münster.
Marcovich, M., ed. (1986) Hippolytus: refutatio
omnium haeresium. Berlin.
Rasimus, T. (2009) Paradise reconsidered in gnostic
mythmaking: rethinking Sethianism in light
of the Ophite evidence. Leiden.