Aeon
Byte Research Journal/
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
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
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
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
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
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
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