Aeon Byte Research Journal/

Mission Statement

 

 

 

Introduction by Miguel Conner

 

The process of Gnosis entails truth in all its aspects, from the unreality of the material world to the reality of the spiritual domains, and everything in between including self-knowledge.  The process is breathtaking but it is also heartbreaking, for this special ‘knowledge’ not only reveals a pathway to all that is true but forces one to face what was once believed to be true.  What is suddenly evidently and intuitively false has to be confronted, even if it once brought comfort, stability and inclusion into the mass consciousness. 

 

The Gospel of Thomas relates what the process of Gnosis can be like:

 

2. Jesus said, “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.  And after they have reigned they will rest.”

 

5. Jesus said, “Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.”

 

And what the Reader will find in front of their faces, what is truly disturbing, is that Orthodoxy not only censored Gnostic Scripture but co-opted, corrupted and warped its eternal gifts to suit an extroverted agenda.  Scholars, from the Dutch Radicals of the 19th Century to the Mythicists of our days, have taken the task of exposing Orthodoxy’s sleight of hand while it erected a false history; but for the most part they have not burrowed deep enough into the muck of Literalism to find that ‘pearl of great price’ the Gnostics quested for in the various dimensions.

 

Until Aeon Byte contributing writer, Jim West, was commissioned by the Aeons to make the case to expose one of the great crimes committed on Gnosticism and ancient Christianity itself.

 

‘Aeon Byte Research Journal Archive’ puts the Heresy Hunters and their endless Inquisitions on trial.  Gnosticism requires no retribution, but allows scholarly facts and rational insights to speak for themselves.  Jim West executes a trial 2000 years in the making.

 

Aeon Byte is confident Jim West, taking the mantle of great thinkers who to this risk their reputation, and for those demanding justice from their graves, will uncover this pearl and wipe away the layers of muck to its extreme.

 

The Reader will hear the evidence that will allow the removal of the iron tarp over the Gnostic starlight in The Canonical Bible.  The Reader will also be granted a metaphysical telescope to correlate them to Gnostic Scriptures, in essence creating a constellation that will light up the pathways to the truth always darkened by the agents of ignorance.

 

The Reader will be exposed to the visionary Gnosticism of the Pauline Letters and The Gospel of John.  The reader will find Gnostic theology in the Synoptic Gospels, the Old Testament, and other dark corners of The Canonical Bible.  The reader will also take an odyssey into the Gnostic literature itself in a birth-pang method of what is true and what is false, hopefully evolving from disturbance to amazement.

 

The verdict dictates that Orthodoxy return the theology that belongs to the Gnostics, cleaned of the muck and the layers of inserted dogma.  The Gnostic Spirit requires the homecoming of Saint Paul, the essence of The Gospel of John with Mary Magdalene and other Saints of Heresy, the naked deceit of Jehovah and the curse of The Law, and most of all, the Logos as he was intended to shine--the bright moonlight aiding the constellation lighting the pathways darkened by the agents of ignorance.

 

In the end, the Reader is the jury.  But the case by Jim West is as sober and humble as it is strong and passionate.  All that is asked is that the Reader keep seeking through these articles, accepting with disturbance and amazement what is true and what is false, until he or she eventually finds the breathtaking liberation of Gnosis even as the process is heartbreaking. 

 

And then, along with Saint Paul and the Gnostic Spirit receiving justice, the jury can finally rest in the celestial comfort of the truth that has set them free.

 

Let the trial begin.     

 

 

Introduction by Jim West

 

Greetings and welcome to the Aeon Byte Research Journal archive. The journal archive contains a unique set of research articles which are devoted to one central purpose: to questioning all of the traditional assumptions that orthodox Christianity has imposed on Gnosticism. (See below for a precise definition of Gnosticism.)

 

To this day many historians and theologians approach the subject of Gnosticism under the bias that “orthodox” Christian tradition is generally right, and that the Gnostics were generally wrong. This ‘standard’ view of history is based on the traditional “orthodox” theory of history which is known as the “Apostolic Tradition” (e.g., see link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp ) The Apostolic Tradition is based on the notion that there was an original agreement, and an original theological standard, that was embraced by the earliest Christian leaders, viz. the Apostles. This concept of an original agreement and standard is in turn the foundation of the so-called “orthodox” tradition and its theology (viz. the “Trinity”, etc.). This “orthodox” tradition in turn provides the authority by which “orthodox” Christians seek to impose their opinions on everyone else.

 

The Catholic Fathers Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202) and Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220) are the first theologians on the historical record to express this idea of an original standard, which they use in opposition against other Christian sects and theological schools (i.e. the so-called “heresies”)[1]. These clerics maintain that this original standard was handed down to the Catholic churches through a succession of bishops which is supposedly traced all the way back to the Apostles. This standard in turn serves as the authority by which the early Catholic clergy distinguished “orthodoxy” (right doctrine) from “heresy” (wrong doctrine propagated by other “sects”). Catholic and Protestant clerics alike continue to this day to cite the Apostolic Tradition as the original standard and as the source for their authority. When you hear clergymen refer to their doctrines or opinions as “Apostolic” you are hearing a reference to this supposed historical standard.

 

As mentioned above, the Apostolic Tradition also includes the notion of an original theological standard or creed. The irony here is that the proper wording for this creed was not agreed upon until the year 325 AD, at the Council of Nicaea. Before that time the Catholic clergy agreed in loose terms on what the ‘correct’ theology was. On the historical record this consensus first appears among the Catholic Fathers: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus and Origen. In general these “Fathers” all agreed that there was only one God (or Godhead, viz. the Trinity), and one theology, in the entire Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. These Fathers also agreed that Jesus Christ was the Son of this one God, and that he was born from the Virgin, walked among men, died and was resurrected, all while in the flesh. In the writings of the Fathers these essential tenets are asserted against the Gnostic and Marcionite Christians, who claimed that the theology of the Bible was diversified, and that the Lawgiver, the Creator, and the supreme Being were not all one and the same. The latter groups claimed that Jesus was the Son of an Unknown God other than the one Creator God of the Old Testament, and that Jesus was not a “fleshly” being in the strict sense of the word. The writings of the Catholic Fathers make clear that these disagreements involved conflicting interpretations of the New Testament writings.

 

Again, the Catholic Fathers always claimed that their ‘correct’ doctrine was handed down to them via a line of succession that went back to the Apostles, i.e. Peter, Paul, etc. And the New Testament writings are said to be an infallible record of this original tradition, and of the original virgin church. But the unresolved question to this day is whether the New Testament writings contain any historic evidence that this original “Apostolic” church and standard ever existed? I believe the evidence in the Canon shows that the answer is no: the New Testament writings in fact do not show the existence of an original unity, but show instead that the earliest Christians were deeply and profoundly divided—just as the “heretics” maintained. [2]

 

It is my position that the New Testament writings show no historic consensus, or standard, against Gnosticism. To the contrary, I can use the evidence to show that Gnosticism is the later development of theological ideas that are present in the New Testament. Stated simply, the New Testament writings, both collectively, and internally, do not contain one, consistent system of theology. These writings in fact contain the elements of numerous theological systems. Some of these elements actually run counter to the theology that “orthodox” Christians recognize in the Old Testament.

 

Now certainly I am not claiming that the New Testament writings provide any direct connection or sanction for later Gnostic myth. What I am saying is that the fundamental ideas of Gnostic theology, of the God above god, are based on theological ideas and paradoxes that are present in the New Testament writings. [3]

 

The purpose of my articles at Aeon Byte is to document the evidence in support of what I have stated above. Stated simply: it is my position that the New Testament writings contain no evidence of an historic, anti-Gnostic standard as so many “orthodox” Christians claim. It is also my intent to demonstrate that the New Testament writings contain the very seeds of Gnosticism.

 

On a final note I want to advise my readers that I do not presume in my articles that Jesus was an historical person. And I believe that the New Testament Gospels (and Gnostic Gospels) provide insufficient evidence that Jesus existed in the manner as claimed in “orthodox” tradition. I refer my readers to my series of articles entitled Orthodoxy, Heresy & Jesus for a presentation of the problem.

 

The Aeon Byte Research Journal archive/articles can be accessed here: archive

 

 

What is Gnosticism?

 

In my articles the word “Gnosticism” has two basic meanings depending on the context of the discussion.

 

1) Historical definition:

 

Gnosticism refers to a sectarian Christian movement that flourished in Roman times and was eventually suppressed by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Fathers referred to these sectarian Christians (“heretics”) as “Gnostics” because of a peculiar knowledge (gnosis) to which they laid claim [4]. This knowledge was often described as a secret tradition that was handed down by the Apostles. The Gnostics saw themselves as mystagogues whose duty it was to initiate other Christians into this secret tradition. Of course all secrets are difficult to keep; and the Gnostic tradition was well known to the Catholic Fathers—and is corroborated in extant Gnostic texts, e.g. the Nag Hammadi Library. Their descriptions of Gnostic tradition can be summarized on the basis of the following points:

 

a) The Gnostics claimed that Jesus revealed an unknown God above the Creator/Lawgiver. This higher God is pure Light and is in no way involved in the evils that thrive in the world. [5]

 

b) Jesus is, in essence, a non-physical entity who originates from a realm and Godhead that is outside of this universe. Jesus brings gnosis of this God to mankind, and to those who possess a spiritual essence or seed that originates from the realm above. Orthodox theologians refer to this doctrine of a non-physical Jesus as docetism. [6]

 

c) The biblical Creator God is actually a lower being of an inferior nature who created the universe (or cosmos) out of inferior substances. The universe is therefore inherently flawed; and this is why ignorance, evil and injustice exist in spite of the Creator’s just intentions. [7]

 

d) The various Gnostic sects share a trinity doctrine in common which divides the universe into three levels of reality and substance: Spirit, Soul and Matter. [8]

 

e) The “trinity” mentioned above is derived from a basic concept of dualism that is shared by all Gnostics. Gnostic dualism is the basic notion that this flawed universe, and the souls that inhabit it, are derived from original and pure elements of Light and Darkness, or also Spirit and Matter. [9]

 

f) The various Gnostic sects developed varying myths in order to explain the origin of this universe, of the Creator, and the origin of evil—and how the primeval elements of Light and Darkness (or Spirit and Matter) came to be intermingled. The myths are preserved both in the accounts of the Catholic Fathers and in the Nag Hammadi Library. [10]

 

g) The basic Gnostic process of salvation maintains that the aspiring Gnostic must search for God within themselves. In achieving salvation the Gnostic is striving to purge his/her own soul of all material elements and influences. This can only be accomplished through soul-searching and meditation. [11]  

 

h) There are numerous Gnostic systems which share common themes but differ on mythology. E.g. some Gnostic schools claim that the cosmos was created by fallen angels. Other schools claim that the cosmos came into existence through a fallen goddess of Wisdom (in Greek: Sophia). In some Gnostic schools this “Sophia” figure is the center piece of Gnostic myth. In Gnostic tradition Sophia is most often referred to as an “Aion.” (In ancient Greek the word “aion” can refer to an age or is used as an alternative name for a god. Kronos was often referred to by the name Aion or Aeon; link. See my article Orthodox, Heresy and Jesus, part III: The Pattern of Gnostic Truth for a detailed discussion and documentation regarding the varying Gnostic traditions.)

 

i) Gnostics generally agree that the cosmos is governed by the seven major celestial powers, and are referred to in Gnostic jargon as the “Hebdomad” or Seven. The Creator is often identified with Saturn; and is referred to by Gnostics as the “demiurge” (craftsman) or by the name “Yaldabaoth.” Sophia resides in a mysterious eighth realm which is called the “Ogdoad” meaning the “eighth” in reference to this eighth realm above the “seven.” Among early Gnostics “Ogdoad” was another name for Sophia. [12]

 

j) All Gnostic schools shared the notion that the above tenets constituted the elements of a secret tradition that was revealed by the Savior and is imparted to aspiring Gnostics through initiation [13]. When this knowledge is properly applied, this leads to a mystical revelation or Vision. This experience is gnosis or knowing as in knowing that God exists as a matter of experience and not as a popular article of faith. A Gnostic is someone who has had a direct experience of God’s existence. [14]

 

k) In Gnostic tradition the concept of knowledge or gnosis is actually two-fold in nature: 1) It refers to a secret tradition imparted by Jesus to, and through, the Apostles; and 2) the mystic revelation of God that comes about as the result of initiation into this secret tradition. See my article Orthodoxy, Heresy & Jesus, IV: The Fullness of the Gospel for a detailed discussion and documentation.

 

The preceding outline is meant to be a brief summary of the main points of ancient Gnostic tradition. In the Aeon Byte Research Journal I present evidence to show how the various tenets of Gnostic tradition, as described above, are actually reflected in the thoughts and teachings of some New Testament writers. I believe this evidence shows that the New Testament writings contain the seeds of later Gnostic thought. Furthermore, these writings can be connected with Gnostic tradition through the shared influence of Hellenistic mysticism, which can also be seen in the writings of the contemporary Jewish philosopher, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (c. 25 BC–45 AD). These issues are addressed in the Journal.

 

The Aeon Byte Research Journal archive/articles can be accessed here: archive

 

2) Gnosticism as a form of mysticism:

 

In a more general and modern context, Gnosticism may be defined as a mysticism that emphasizes personal mystical experience and soul-searching over and above any established religious tradition or theology (including ancient Gnostic tradition). By this looser definition many different kinds of mystics could be identified as “Gnostic” apart from any affirmation of the theology and dualism that are definitive of classic Gnostic tradition.

 

In the modern context the famous Indian mystic and philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti could be called a Gnostic. Krishnamurti taught that any revelation of God or truth or the divine could only be found through soul-searching—and that all external authorities should be rejected (Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known, published by the Krishnamurti Foundation and HarperCollins; see also my article Krishnamurti in Gnostic Exegesis).

 

And, in this general context, an ancient mystic like St. Paul could likewise be called a “Gnostic” [15]. Not in the sense that Paul’s ideas can be reconciled with classic Gnostic tradition (which didn’t exist as such in Paul’s day). The reason is that Paul’s mysticism and philosophy inevitably run contrary to either the established Jewish tradition or (later) Christian orthodoxy. Paul’s gospel and spiritual life are rooted in his relationship with a mysterious living Christ—as opposed to the “Christ” and teachings as found in the four Gospel traditions. Paul openly denied that his “gospel” and relationship with Christ, and his Apostleship, had any connection with the authority of Peter or the other Apostles and “gospel” that came before him (Galatians 1 & 2). Paul informs his readers that he preaches his own “gospel” and does not “boast in another man’s line of things (kanoni) made ready to our hand” (2 Corinthians 10:16). Paul also failed to affirm in clear and consistent terms that Jesus either incarnated or rose from the dead as a flesh and blood being (1 Corinthians 15:45–50, Philippians 2:7–8). [16]

 

Certainly it is no surprise that the later classic Gnostics were inspired by Paul. In my articles I examine the Gnostic import of Paul’s ideas both in terms of general Gnostic mysticism and for classic Gnostic tradition. Let me suffice here to say that Paul’s ideas of theology, ethics, and scriptural interpretation, all lead to a negation of traditional Judeo-Christian standards as opposed to an affirmation thereof. The ancient Gnostics recognized this. And this is one of the inconvenient facts of history that has been suppressed in the Catholic Fathers and in “orthodox” tradition. (Consequently, to this day Paul is widely viewed as the tyrannical founder of “Christianity”, among both conservatives and liberals alike; whereas Paul’s letters can also be used in support of an heretical, non-biblical Christ mysticism that replaces the Law of Moses with “liberty”.)

 

By the second definition the Jewish philosopher and mystic, Philo of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus), can also be defined as a Gnostic. The Gnostic quality of Philo may be seen in the way he filtered the Jewish scriptures through Greek philosophy. The result was that Philo no longer read the Bible like a Jew. Philo no longer viewed the Bible as the unvarnished record of God’s intervention in the history of the Hebrews. Instead, he thought of the supreme Being as separate from the world the way Plato did (and the way Gnostics did) [17]. Philo believes that the Bible is allegory that conceals a hidden meaning as opposed to a plain meaning [18]. Moreover Philo defined true religion with the non-scriptural word “philosophy”; and he maintained that the ‘truth’ can only be found through soul-searching, just as Plato and later Gnostics taught [19]. And, finally, Philo held that communion with God was ultimately established through the “vision” whereas the Bible itself says that no man can see God and live [20].

 

Plato can likewise be classified as a “Gnostic” according to the second definition. Plato was part of a class of ancient Greeks who abandoned the old and primitive religious traditions and myths in favor of a rational mysticism. Plato was among that class of Greek philosophers who introduced the idea of a lofty, unknown supreme Being who he identified as the “maker and father of this universe” who could not be revealed to everyone [21]. Plato taught that all divine revelation could only be acquired through soul-searching, which is at the core of the practice of philosophy [22]. Plato’s ideas represented a radical departure from the organized religion and practice of the day. It was revolutionary; and the Greek philosophers were often accused by mainstream pagans of impiety and atheism—for rejecting the traditional pantheon and ideals. Socrates was actually condemned to death on the basis of such charges. Plato’s school also had its “mysteries” and the concept of initiation and the “vision.” [23]

 

In the above examples of Krishnamurti, Paul, Philo and Plato, I show how that the term “Gnostic” can be applied to these figures apart from the classic definition. On the other hand, all of these persons do share certain ideas in common which are relevant to the doctrines of classic Gnosticism. —jw

 

 

Readers can e-mail their comments, etc., to me at ogdood@yahoo.com

 

 

Endnotes

 

1] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.1., Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, 20, 21.

 

Irenaeus explains this “tradition” accordingly:

 

“It is within the power of all, in every Church, who wishes to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon those who were instituted as bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, and to show the succession of these men to our own times; those who never taught nor knew anything like what these heretics rave about.” (Emphasis added.)  

 

Tertullian likewise explains:

 

“From this therefore do we draw up our rule. For since the Lord Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed… Now, what that was which they preached…can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the Apostles founded in person, by declaring the Gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by the epistles. … It remains then that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the Apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood.” (Ibid. 21. Emphasis added.)  

 

The Church historian Eusebius points to “Irenaeus” as the father of Christian orthodoxy (Church History, 4.21; Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, pg. 151; cf. Bruce Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, pg. 153f.).

 

The Apostolic Tradition is the foundation of “orthodoxy” and it represents the explanation of how “orthodox” doctrine is connected with the Apostles. Scholars generally agree that these concepts of “tradition” and “orthodoxy” were developed by the Catholic Fathers as part of their struggle against Gnosticism (Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 2, pg. 9f., Karen King, What is Gnosticism?, pg. 20,  Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pg. 4f.).

 

2] Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 2, pg. 46.  Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.13f., Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, 23.

 

3] This is confirmed by Irenaeus in his treatise Against Heresies. In numerous passages Irenaeus attempts to refute Gnostic interpretations of key NT passages, such as Mt. 11:27, which Irenaeus referred to as the “crown” of Gnostic theology (ibid., 1.20.3); other such passages were 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 1:21, Gal. 3:19 (3.7.1-2) and 1 Cor. 15:50 (5.9.1). Numerous reputable scholars have expressed their doubts on whether Irenaeus ever really succeeded in rescuing Paul from the Gnostics without compromising the essence of Paul at the same time: e.g. Wilhelm Bousset, Kurios Christos, pg. 446; James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, pg. 291, A. Harnack, ibid., pg. 51.

 

Tertullian addressed Marcion’s interpretations of Luke and Paul in his treatise Against Marcion, books 4 and 5. And in his treatise On Prescription Against Heretics Tertullian admitted that the New Testament writings presented difficult theological problems, and that the heretics should therefore be denied any appeal to these writings in a debate:

 

“On the present occasion indeed, our treatise has rather taken up a general position against heresies, showing that they must all be refuted on definite, equitable, and necessary rules without any comparison with the Scriptures” (ibid., 44, emphasis added; see also 15, 19, 39).

 

4] Gnosticism is a modern term that is based on the ancient Greek word gnosis which means “knowledge” in the sense of an intimate knowing of a profound truth. Ancient Gnosticism also involved the idea of initiation into a secret tradition; a person who was initiated was called a “Gnostic.” A related term would be the word mystic; which is derived from ancient Greek (mustes) and denotes a person who has been initiated into a secret rite or tradition or “Mystery” (in Greek: musterio). The Catholic Fathers referred to this Gnostic tradition by the word “gnosis” and this word is used in a similar context in 1 Timothy 6:20, where the word “gnosis” (“knowledge falsely so-called”) is used in reference to some vague system of heretical doctrine which is never fully explained. This passage is used as part of the title of Irenaeus’s massive anti-Gnostic treatise: “For the detection and overthrow of falsely so-called Gnosis.” This treatise is more often known by the short title “Against Heresies.”

 

5] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface, 1.1.1; 1.5.4, 1.19.1, 1.24.1, 3.12.12; NHL: Gospel of Truth, 18, 40; Tripartite Tractate, 51–53; Apocryphon of John, 2–4; Holy Book of the Invisible Spirit, 40f.; Eugnostos the Blessed, 71–76; Wisdom of Jesus Christ, 94f.; cf. Gospel of Philip, 75; Testimony of Truth, 45–50.

 

6] See link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.2. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, link. Note: extant Gnostic texts do not affirm a simple docetism. These sources more often affirm that the physical body was not the essence of who Jesus was; hence Jesus did not suffer on the cross. NHL: 1st Apocalypse of James, 31:14ff.; Apocalypse of Peter, 81, 82; Gospel of Philip, 57:28ff.

 

7] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.4; NHL: Tripartite Tractate, 100–103. In the Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons, the Creator is characterized as an evil being who created the cosmos in opposition to his mother “Sophia.” Hence this is the source of evil and of the universe itself.

 

8] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.4, 1.6.1; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 5:1; NHL: Tripartite Tractate, 96–98; see my article On the Gnostic Trinity for a detailed discussion and documentation.

 

9] K. Rudolph, Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism, pg. 59f. W. Barnstone, M. Meyer, The Gnostic Bible, pg. 10.

 

10] E.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book I; NHL: Apocryphon of John, On the Origin of the World, etc.

 

11] Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 8.15.1f. NHL: Gospel of Thomas, 3, 70; Gospel of Philip, 76, 83; Book of Thomas the Contender, 138.

 

12] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.2, 1.30.4f. NHL: Apocryphon of John, 10–11, On the Origin of the World, 100–102.

 

13] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.2.1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 1:1, 12, 6:7, 7:17; Ptolemy, Letter to Flora. In the Nag Hammadi Library numerous texts are concerned with the notion that Jesus imparted secret doctrines: The Apocryphon of James, the 1st Apocalypse of James, the Apocryphon of John and the Apocalypse of Peter. Both the words Apocryphon and Apocalypse refer to the idea of a revelation of secrets or mysteries. See my article Orthodoxy, Heresy and Jesus, part IV: The Fullness of the Gospel, for detailed discussion and documentation.

 

14] NHL: Gospel of Philip, 61:20ff.; Gospel of Thomas, 37, 83; Apocalypse of Peter, 72; Tripartite Tractate, 88.

 

15] Numerous reputable scholars have recognized the affinity between Paul’s ideas and Gnostic thought, and have characterized Paul as a “Gnostic” in varying contexts; e.g. R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions, Pickwick Press, pg. 84. Albert Schweitzer, Mysticism of St. Paul, pg. 74. R. Bultmann argued that Paul’s ideas and terminology reflect a “gnostic” background; Theology of the New Testament, vol. I, pg. 181; so also W. Schmithals, Gnosticism at Corinth, pg. 71 (n. 72); H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the NT, pg. 301; J. Dunn, University and Diversity in the NT, pg. 291. Elaine Pagels allows the reader to see a larger spread of the Pauline elements that inspired the Gnostics, as presented in her excellent book The Gnostic Paul.

 

16] Paul’s lack of “flesh and blood” rhetoric was a problem for the Catholic Fathers. Irenaeus was notorious for his answer to 1 Corinthians 15:50, in which he interpreted the passage anti-gnostically by stating the diametric opposite of what Paul wrote. Thus Irenaeus wrote “For as the flesh is capable of corruption, so also is it capable of incorruption” Against Heresies, 5.12.1. See my article The Gospel and the Greek Philosophers for more details.

 

17] D. Runia, Philo: On the Creation, pg. 137, N. Glatzer, The Essential Philo, pg. 335, R.M. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, pp. 71–73, W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, pg. 94.

 

18] J. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NT., pg. 86f. C. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, pg. 87f. See my article On God and Justice for more details.

 

19] Philo wrote that “philosophy has sprung up by which man, though mortal, is made immortal” (On the Creation of the World., 25.77). Philo’s use of the non-scriptural word “philosophia” is significant and demonstrates the foreign (Greek) nature of his piety. As with Plato (and under Plato’s influence) Philo believes that true religion revolves around soul searching and learning to distinguish the inner meaning or soul of a matter from its outer material form. These concepts are expressed by Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo, where Socrates explains that salvation is found by seeking within the soul and avoiding the world of the senses (Phaedo, 79c, d). These ideas are probably the source of Philo’s ideas as expressed in this passage from On Cherubs: “…for since we say that woman is to be understood symbolically as the outward sense, and since knowledge consists in alienation from the outward sense and from the body, it is plain that lovers of wisdom (philosophers) must repudiate the outward sense rather than choose it…” (On Cherubs, 2.12.41. Translation by C.D. Yonge)  Such is the manner in which Philo interpreted the Scriptures!

 

20] R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions, pg. 62f. See also H. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, pg. 65f. Philo projected his concept of the divine vision into the Scriptures. And, in this context, he defined the word Israel as meaning “seeing God.” Hence, all who ‘see God’ are Israelites (Philo, Who is the Heir., 78f.; On Rewards., 44). Of course this definition is not found either in the Scriptures or in orthodox Judaism. In Hebrew “Israel” is defined as “overcoming with God.” In Strong’s Hebrew/Chaldee Dictionary, “Israel” #3478 is defined as “he will rule as God.” No indication of sight or vision is present in the Hebrew language.

 

21] Plato, Timaeus, 28c.

 

22] Plato, Phaedo, 79c, d; Phaedrus, 249c, d.

 

23] Phaedrus, 249c.

 

 

 

 

By Miguel Conner and James M. West; copyright © February 1, 2010. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

E-mail: ogdood@yahoo.com