The Fullness of the Gospel
(Orthodoxy, Heresy and Jesus, part IV)
By James M. West. Copyright © March
18, 30, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
In the preceding article of this series
we have seen that the Gnostic writings present varied accounts of Gnostic
doctrine (Orthodoxy, Heresy and Jesus III). But in spite of this
disordered state it would be wrong to say that the Gnostic writings contain no
valid historical or spiritual insights. To the contrary, the Gnostic writings
allow insight into the legacy of Jesus and his doctrine that “orthodox”
Christians would rather we didn’t see. Orthodox Christians want to define
Christianity in the narrowest terms based on equally narrow and dubious
evidence. They insist on only “four” Gospels; yet
these Gospels are themselves filled with an array of contradictory theological
elements – as I have shown in part II of this series. And again, the four
Gospels provide summaries of supposed eye-witness accounts that would be
dismissed in any court (part I). The Gospels prove nothing and convict no one.
In truth the “four” Gospels present a
very narrow summary of Jesus’ teaching which renders his doctrine as hollow.
And indeed this limited and inadequate perspective may be clearly seen in the
legacy of “orthodox” tradition. Orthodox Christians find their unity in the
Nicene Creed; yet their scriptures are a theological mess. They find their
salvation in a savior and mediator named Jesus; but the Gospels don’t give a
clear consensus of his life and doctrine. And they look to the prophecies of
this Jesus as a final solution to the world’s problems: but the hard evidence
in the scriptures shows that these prophecies are self-refuting. This indeed is
what mainstream Christianity has evolved into. But was this really the
wholeness of the early Christian tradition? And, more importantly, does this
really reflect the original fullness of the teachings of Jesus?
In the Letters of St. Paul we can see
evidence that early Christianity involved something more than the simple
“orthodox” structure that exists today. Paul’s Letters contain elements of an
early mysticism that never made it into later orthodoxy, and remains like a
skeleton in the closet of “orthodox” tradition. Of course Paul’s version of the
Gospel was known among some early Catholics, if not accepted. In Ignatius’
letter to the Ephesians there is the following acknowledgement to the Ephesian church
regarding Paul (c. 110). Ignatius writes to the Ephesians: “I know both who I
am and to whom I write. … I am a condemned man, ye have been the objects of
mercy; I am subject to danger, ye are established in safety. … Ye are
initiates in the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul…” (Ignatius, Ephesians,
12, emphasis added; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 54f.) This
statement here is pregnant with meaning and implications as to what early
Christianity was all about. A full discussion of this passage will be presented
in a future article. Our question here regarding the passage is this: What does
it mean to be initiated, to be “fellow-initiates” (“summustai”)
in the mysteries of the Gospel? The four NT Gospels contain no such concept of
initiation. But this concept and language is found in Paul’s version of Jesus’
teaching (see below). And in the writings of Clement of Alexandria Paul’s
mystical piety is expounded upon; but at the same time is rejected by other
Catholic leaders (e.g. Clement, Stromata 1:1, 12. cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Against Heresies, 3.3.1. and Tertullian of Carthage, On Prescription Against Heretics, 26).
The mystical elements in Paul’s writings
meant that there was an initiation in Christianity, and that there was
more to the “gospel” than the simple idea of “justification by faith.” This
meant that the Christian was to be initiated into a higher spirituality and a
higher understanding of theology and doctrine. This duality of concepts can be
clearly seen in Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 2: “And I, brethren, when I
came to you, I came not with excellency of speech or
of wisdom… For I determined not to know anything among you except Christ, and
him crucified. … Howbeit, we speak wisdom among them that are perfect (initiates:
teleiois) yet not the wisdom of this world… But we speak the wisdom of
God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the
aions…” (1 Cor. 2:1-2, 6-7)
In the above passage Paul admits that
the Gospel of Jesus Christ is more than simply a doctrine of Christ
crucified. Hence there is the doctrine of “Christ crucified” and then there
is the “hidden wisdom” which is spoken in a “mystery.” This duality of doctrine
is also reflected in the Epistle to Hebrews: “Therefore leaving
elementary doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying
again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of
the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of
the dead, and of eternal judgment…” (Hebrews 6:1-2) Here again it is stated
that there is something beyond the narrow elementary doctrines that “orthodox” Christians
remain obsessed with. This critically important issue involves the higher
teachings that are attributed to Jesus, and which remain in the wider field of
the Christian tradition that is preserved, but remains outside of “orthodoxy.”
This in turn brings us back to the questions of Who
was Jesus really? What was the nature of his earthly existence (if any)? And
what is the true scope of the doctrine that is attributed to him? In other
words: Did Jesus teach a secret doctrine?
Inevitably it is to the Gnostic
tradition that we must look if we want to find the answers to the questions
above. The same is true of those mysterious elements in Paul’s letters, or in
Hebrews. Orthodox tradition can provide no complete explanation of the ideas in
these passages as cited above. Orthodox tradition is like a tree trunk with all
the branches cut off. The trunk remains, and we can tell that the tree had
branches; but what happened to the branches? The remnants of those branches are
preserved in the remains of ancient Gnosticism; and most of those remains are
preserved in the Nag Hammadi Library. What do these writings tell us about
Jesus that “orthodoxy” has chopped away and discarded?
There is a whole list of issues that we
will look at, in which we will take various unorthodox themes from the New
Testament, which remain largely unexplained, and we will compare and see how
these themes are reflected and explained in the Nag Hammadi Library. We will
look at the concept of Mysteries (secret doctrines) and initiations, the Divine
Vision, theological implications, and the material vs. non-material nature of
Jesus, and the historical nature of Jesus. In our exploration we may perhaps
get an idea of what Paul meant by the “hidden wisdom…spoken in a mystery” or
where Jesus said “O righteous Father, the world hath not known you.” It is to
Gnostic writings that we must look in order to find an explanation of these
ideas and how they were developed. (Note: all quotes herein from the Nag
Hammadi Library are derived from the HarperCollins 1990 edition, ed. by
James Robinson. Other sources will be identified accordingly.)
Let us first delve into the issue of Mysteries
or “secret” doctrines and the related concept of initiation. The foundation for
this discussion has already been laid above. In Paul’s writings and in
Ignatius, and in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata), there is evidence
that there was a secret doctrine that was imparted by Jesus to the Apostles.
Clement, for example, tells his readers that “It is requisite therefore to hide
in a mystery the wisdom spoken, which the Son of God taught. … He certainly did
not disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few whom
he knew that they belonged…” (Stromata, 1:1, 12) Clement also referred
to this secret as gnosis: “the gnosis itself is that which has descended
by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the Apostles” (ibid., 6:7). That Clement really did hold to a secret
tradition can be seen in these words: “The Stromata will contain the
truth mixed with the dogmas of philosophy…so that the discovery of the sacred
traditions may not be easy to any one of the uninitiated” (ibid.,
So what can the Nag Hammadi writings
tell us about this concept of mysteries that appears in Paul and Clement, yet
“orthodox” Christians know nothing about today? When one looks at even the
titles of the books in the Nag Hammadi Library it becomes obvious that there is
a concern with secrets and revelations of secrets. Thus some writings are
identified with words like Apocryphon (“secret book”) or Apocalypse
(“revelation”). There are three such secret books named after James, and one
named after John, and another named after Peter.
There is a pattern in the Nag Hammadi
Library where some emphasis has been placed on the brother of Jesus, James the
Just, who is portrayed as a mystagogue (an initiator or revealer of
secrets). For example, the Gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus as saying “It
is to those who are worthy of my mysteries that I tell my mysteries” (#62).
And, in the same text Jesus tells his followers that after he is gone they must
go to “James the Just” (#12). In the Nag Hammadi Library there are three books
attributed to James, and which are concerned with secrets and the revelations
thereof: hence there is the Apocryphon of James, and then there is the
first and second Apocalypses of James. In the Apocryphon there is the
following passage which can be compared to Clement above: “Since you asked that
I send you a secret book which was revealed to me and Peter by the Lord, I
could not turn you away or mislead you; but I have written it in Hebrew letters
and sent it to you, and you alone. …take care not to rehearse
this text to many – this that the Savior did not wish to tell to all of us, his
twelve disciples” (1). This passage reflects the same attitude that Clement
wrote of above regarding the need to keep some information away from the
uninitiated. The Apocryphon of James also affirms the statement in the Gospel
of Thomas that James the Just was appointed to lead the church in his
place; hence James was privy to information that even some Apostles didn’t
know.
The Apocryphon of James portrays
James the Just as a mystagogue who imparts the mysteries through secret books.
However this text is ironic in that these mysteries are not discussed, and the
text focuses instead on the theme that even mystagogues can become complacent
and lose their spiritual enthusiasm. Jesus warns James and the others that they
are spiritually empty, not full (3f.). This enigmatic theme raises the question
of whether this is meant to be an allusion to the conflict between James and
another mystagogue, Paul, as reported in Galatians 2. But we can only
speculate. At the end of the book Jesus reveals to the Apostles that “children”
will be revealed after them, and the Apostles are displeased at this (15:35ff.).
Again, it begs the question of whether this foreshadows the ministry of Paul
and the conflict over the gentiles. In this context the Catholic Fathers report
that the Gnostic tradition maintained that Paul ultimately bore the torch of
gnosis, whereas James and Peter lapsed under the influence of Judaism. The Apocryphon
of James may allude to this legacy. In practical terms this would mean that
James and his fellow Apostles were at fault because they confined their
initiations to circumcised Jews only; whereas Paul was initiating people
of all nations as Jesus intended.
The most important and relevant
initiation material is contained in the latter two books, viz. the first and
second Apocalypses of James. The first Apocalypse is a
revelation/initiation dialogue between Jesus and James; which takes place the
day before Jesus’ execution. The dialogue contains a classic revelation of
Valentinian theology straight from the mouth of the Lord. Hence James was the
source of the secret doctrine (imparted by the Savior) regarding “Sophia” and
“Achamoth.” (35)
The second Apocalypse of James contains
the final speech of James the Just, wherein he divulges the mysteries of God in
the
Another example of the mystery/initiation
theme can be seen in the Apocryphon of John. In this case John was not
initiated into full Gnostic doctrine until after the crucifixion; whereas James
was initiated by the Savior the day before the event. If we rely on the first Apocalypse
of James and the Apocryphon of John then we may propose in theory
that the Sethian tradition came through John, as he understood the Savior,
whereas the Naassene and Valentinian traditions came through James via Mariem
(Naassenes) or Theuda (Valentinus). Both the first Apocalypse of James
and the Apocryphon of John are focused on revealing the hidden spiritual
realm, and the hidden God, that are far above the biblical Creator.
Our next example is the so-called “Apocalypse
of Peter.” This text was supposedly written by Peter, and is a first person
record of an important conversation that “Peter” had with the Savior. Here
again, secret knowledge is being revealed; hence Jesus says to Peter: “Be
strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given…” (82:18f.)
The Savior reveals to Peter that the living Savior and the crucified Christ are
separate entities. Peter is instructed to reveal the true Savior to those who
are descended from the immortal race, whereas the material souls must worship
the vessel that belongs to “Elohim” and was nailed to the cross (82f.). Thus,
according to this text, the Gnostic concept of docetism
was a secret doctrine that was revealed originally by the Savior to Peter, and
was imparted by Peter. Note also that this includes the revelation that
“Elohim” is not the supreme Being.
There are also two books which are named
after Thomas, and purport to contain the secret sayings and teachings that
Jesus imparted to Thomas. The so-called “Gospel of Thomas” has this
opening statement: “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke
and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down…” And, as documented above, Jesus
himself states “It is to those who are worthy of my mysteries that I tell my
mysteries.” In the Gospel of Thomas these “mysteries” are disguised
mostly in parables.
And then there is the book entitled “The
Book of Thomas The Contender writing to the Perfect
(Initiates).” This book contains the secret teaching that Jesus gave to
Thomas after the resurrection. Thomas asks of the Lord: “I beg you to tell me
what I ask before your ascension, and when I hear from you about the hidden
things, then I can speak about them” (138:21f.). Jesus teaches Thomas about the
realm of the invisible and how that souls must avoid the desires of the visible
realm. Jesus reveals that all life forms which consume other life forms, and
which procreate, and are generated through procreation, are all subject to corruption
and death. This is the order of the visible world. It is the desire for sex and
procreation that binds the material order together. Jesus warns Thomas: “Woe to
you who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them!” and
also “Listen to what I am going to tell you, and believe the truth. That which
sows and that which is sown will dissolve in fire…” (144:8f.,
142:10f.). An important detail to be noted in this book is that Jesus’s
teaching is set forth in plain words, whereas in the Gospel of Thomas
the mysteries are concealed in parables. This may in turn explain the wording in
the title which says that the “Book of Thomas” is written to the
Initiated or “Perfect.”
A doctrine remarkably similar to the “Book
of Thomas” is present in the Naassene Sermon as reported by
Hippolytus. The Naassenes say that James the Just and Mariamne taught that intercourse
between men and women was an “extremely wicked and filthy practice” (Refutat., 5:2). The Naassenes encouraged abstinence
from sex and procreation; and that this was symbolized by the castration of
Attis in the Mysteries of the Great Mother (5:3).
Gnostic tradition maintains that Mary
Magdalene was equal to the Apostles and received her share of the initiation
from the Savior. This report is preserved in the so-called “Gospel of Mary.”
This text reports the parting words of Jesus and his ascent to heaven. The
Apostles become discouraged and Mary tries to encourage them. It is at this
point that Peter asks Mary to share what Jesus told her alone: “Sister, we know
that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words which
you remember – which you know and we do not… Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you” (10). An
important point in this text is that Mary’s initiation is in the form of the
Divine Vision, which is an important initiatory experience in gnosis (see
below). Mary reports her conversation with Jesus regarding the Vision, but
unfortunately this part of the text is lost (10f.). The extant dialogue with
Jesus is a revelation of what happens when a departed soul ascends through the
heavenly spheres and is confronted by the cosmic rulers (16). Peter reacts with
jealousy to the doctrine that Mary has shared. But the Apostles finally agree
that she has spoken the true secret words of the Savior. Hence, Mary too was
initiated.
Our next source is the Gospel of
Philip. This text contains a loose collection of wisdom sayings which are
derived from the teachings of Jesus and was supposedly compiled by the Apostle
Philip. The Gospel of Philip also has its peculiar ideas regarding
mysteries and initiation: “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came
in types and images. The world will not receive the truth in
any other way” (67:10). The meaning here is that the true doctrine must
be concealed in symbols or mysteries: “For the Lord did everything in a
mystery, a baptism, an anointing, a eucharist, a redemption, and a bridal
chamber” (67:29f.). These five “mysteries” conceal the five steps to achieve
union with the Godhead. These steps involve a complete transformation in
theology and one’s understanding of the universe and its origin, and what lays beyond it. These truths must be concealed in mysteries.
The second Apocalypse of James shows us what can happen when the truth
is revealed to the uninitiated, or to material, worldly mankind.
“The method of concealment…was referred to by the Egyptians as the
“adyta” and the “veil” by the Hebrews. … All then, in a word, who have spoken
of divine things, both Barbarians and Greeks, have veiled the first principles
of things, and delivered the truth in enigmas, symbols, allegories, metaphors,
(etc.).” (Stromata, 5:4)
And again of the Egyptians Clement
wrote: “The Egyptians did not entrust the mysteries they possessed to all and
sundry, and did not divulge the knowledge of divine things to the profane…” (Stromata,
5:7) Clement cited the pagan Mysteries as positive examples and precedents
showing why the Christian mysteries must also be concealed, just as Paul had
done, and as the Gnostics were doing, and to whom Clement was making a
concession. Clement’s statements reveal the ancient cultural and religious
environment which is the context behind such statements as in the Gospel of
Philip: “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and
images…” (67:10) The Gnostics believed that “Philip” was initiated in the
secret teachings of Jesus.
And finally, the Gnostics also had their
texts which were ascribed to
The second text, “The Apocalypse of
Paul”, is an expanded account of Paul’s ascent to the “third heaven” as
mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. Paul writes of himself in the third person:
“It is not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations
of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in or out
of body I cannot tell; God knoweth, who was caught up to the third heaven. …
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it
is not lawful for a man to utter.” In the above passage Paul alludes to the
initiation through the vision which is an event that was referred to in the
pagan mysteries (in
The Divine Vision itself is part of the
process of initiation. One may be initiated into a teaching by a master or
mystagogue; but that is only the first step. The true initiation, the
catalyzing event, is when one experiences the Vision. (This is not to say that
mystical encounters of another nature don’t apply. My opinions here not meant
to be exclusionary.) The ancient mystics believed that the Vision of the gods
is what made one divine. This was the goal of the initiate in the Mystery
religions; an example may be seen in the initiation into the Mysteries of Isis
as reported in Apelius’s comedy “The Golden Ass.” Plato also wrote of
the Vision in his dialogue Phaedrus where Socrates says “[We] were
ushered into the Mystery that we may rightly call the most blessed of all. And
we who celebrated it were wholly perfect…and we gazed in rapture at sacred
revealed objects… That was the ultimate Vision, and we
saw it in pure light because we were pure ourselves, not buried in this thing
we are carrying around now which we call a body…” (Phaedrus, 250c; ET:
by Alexander Nehamas, Paul Woodruff; see J. Cooper, Plato: Complete Works,
Hackett Pub., pg. 528) Plato believed that this Vision was the experience that
the soul had when it recovered its memory of its original divinity and its
presence in the primeval company of the gods, and their presence before the
unknown “Maker and Father of this Universe” (Timaeus, 28c, 41b). Paul
also believed in the Vision; and he wrote that Christians would be transformed
“from glory to glory” through the vision of the life giving glory that radiated
in the open face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor.
With the possible exception of 1 John, Paul’s
writings are the only writings in the New Testament that really describe the
mystical life and initiatory experiences of being a Christian. It is only in
Paul that we learn that the Vision is part of the process of spiritual growth,
and the spiritual life. Orthodox Christianity in the West has lost track of
this; although I have heard rumors that some form of this mysticism still
continues in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. (Even if this is so, I still
question to what extent the Spiritual Truth is sacrificed on the altar of “orthodoxy.”)
It is only in the extant Gnostic writings that we learn about the importance of
the Vision in the life of the aspiring Christian/Gnostic. The Gospel of
Philip speaks clearly on the matter:
“It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that
actually exist unless he becomes like them. [Note: The “things which actually
exist” refers to the higher incorruptible and unchanging/eternal spiritual
order. –jw] This is not the way with man in the world:
he sees the Sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven and earth and all
other things, but he is not these things. This is quite in keeping with the
truth. But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You
saw the Spirit, you became Spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw
[the Father in the Son] and you shall become Father. In this place you see
everything and not yourself, but in that place you do see yourself and what you
shall become.” (61:20ff., interpretation in brackets
is mine. Cf. 74:23f.)
Here again is another important passage
from the Gospel of Philip which adds clarification to the concept of the
Vision:
“The human being has intercourse with the human being. The horse has
intercourse with the horse, the ass with the ass. Members of a race usually
associate with those of like race. So spirit mingles with spirit, and thought consorts
with thought, and light shares with light. If you are
born a human being, it is the human being that will love you. If you become a
spirit, it is the spirit which will be joined to you. … If you become light, it
is the light which will share with you.” (78:26-79:2)
In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus
speaks regarding the Vision. His disciples ask him “When will you become
revealed to us, and when shall we see you?” Jesus replies: “When you disrobe
without being ashamed and take your garments and place them under your feet
like little children and tread upon them, then will you see the Son of the
living One, and you will not be afraid.” (#37) Jesus also speaks of the Vision
of the Father: “The images are manifest to man, but the light in them remains
concealed in the image of the Light of the Father. He will be manifested, but
his image will be concealed by His Light.” (#83) The latter passage alludes to
a truth that has been experienced and reported by many people; who have had
‘out of body’ experiences and have encountered God in the form of a bright
Light.
In the real world the Vision can be
experienced by anyone at any time. There are aspiring mystics out there who
have sought it without success; and then for other people the event is
triggered by, say, a tragic car accident, and has nothing to do with seeking.
People die temporarily on the operating table and their souls ascend from their
bodies. They see the doctors and nurses below. Next they go through a tunnel
and into a bright light – brighter than any light they saw with their material
eyes. They feel an incredible power, and an incredible sense of Joy and Love.
They find themselves in the presence of God, or Jesus, or angels, or light
beings. Usually they are consoled and are advised to return to their broken
bodies; the time is not yet.
The Vision is a life-transforming event.
One never forgets it. The greatest Mystery has been revealed. The reality of God, and the Goodness of God, have been
experienced first hand. This experience is accompanied by a tremendous sense of
relief and liberation. I believe that this Vision is at the core of both
Gnostic tradition and the Mystery religions, and the Greek philosophers. Philo
too knew the concept of the Vision, as did the Apostle Paul.
In some Gnostic texts the influence of
the Vision is evident. An example is in the Apocalypse of Peter, where
Peter has visions while in the presence of Jesus. Jesus tells Peter to cover
his eyes: “And there came in me fear with joy, for I saw a new light greater
than the light of day. Then it came down upon the Savior. And I told him about
those things which I saw.” (72)
The Tripartite Tractate tells us that the Vision represents the
archetypal saving act of the Savior (or “Son”) who was
produced by the Pleroma on behalf of the fallen Logos (which corresponds to the
fallen Sophia). The Tripartite Tractate says that the Son “revealed
himself first to the one who lost his faculty to see and showed himself to
those who wanted to gain vision, by shining forth with that perfect light. He
first filled him with inexpressible joy, and made him whole and complete…” (88)
According to this treatise, if you experience the Vision of the Light of Joy
then you have encountered the Savior who was generated by the Pleroma. I remain
uncertain if the author of the Tractate was fully initiated himself. But
certainly he had contact with people who were.
The Nag Hammadi writings allow us to see
what is alluded to in the New Testament (Paul) but which so-called “orthodox”
Christians refuse to acknowledge and explain. The Vision was part of the
Spiritual life of early Christians. A religion without the Vision is nothing
more than an empty political creed. Christians who lack the spirit are
incapable of comprehending God as God truly is: Light. Hence, “God is Light,
and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). So-called “orthodox”
Christians can only conceive of God in the image of a political ruler or
tyrant; which is exactly what we see in the Old Testament. Hence the Ruler of
this world proclaims: “I form the light and create darkness…” (Isaiah 45:7)
Truly these are the words of one who manipulates the light (read: truth) and
creates darkness.
Now again it cannot be said that the
Vision is represented as a systematic doctrine in the New Testament. But
certainly there is evidence of a theological transformation that occurs as the
result of a powerful initiation experience – or which reflects the teaching of
someone who has been initiated. In all of my articles I have tried to show the
pattern of a foreign theology in the New Testament writings. The Old Testament
says that God was revealed to the world through Moses and the Prophets; but the
NT writings can be quoted to the contrary. Jesus proclaimed aloud to his
Father: “O righteous Father, the world hath not known you” (Jn.
All of the passages cited above reflect
a remarkable transformation in theology which I believe was inspired by a
powerful initiation experience (the Vision). This was the reason that these
writers could no longer conceive and write of God in traditional biblical
terms. But only in the Nag Hammadi/Gnostic tradition are these ideas given the
wider development that they deserve. Only here can we see the larger picture of
the doctrine that Jesus taught.
The last issue we will address here is
what the Gnostic writings tell us about Jesus the man. Again, “orthodox”
tradition cites the four Gospels to the effect that Jesus was a fleshly being
both before and after the resurrection; and that Jesus came to save the flesh.
But in Paul we can already find language that calls the “orthodox” consensus
into question. In Philippians 2:7 Paul
writes that Jesus was in an estate equal to God, but that he set this aside,
and took the lowly “form” and “likeness” of a man. In Galatians 1:11-16 Paul
states of his conversion that he conferred “not with flesh and blood.” And in 1
Corinthians
An additional fact here is that Irenaeus
was the first to quote both the NT Gospels and Gnostic writings by name.
Thus Irenaeus is the first (extant) source to name the “Gospel of Matthew”
and the “Gospel of Truth.” Irenaeus is among the first to quote the Gospel
of John by name; but at the same time he admits that the Gnostics also
quoted “John” by name (Against Heresies, 1.8.5). So, this notion that
the New Testament Gospels take some massive precedence over Gnostic writings is
based on weak historical evidence. Only the authentic letters of Paul, and the
Revelation of John, can be shown to predate the second century in solid forms.
The claim that the four Gospels were written by Apostles or secretaries thereof
is every bit as dubious as the claim that some of the Nag Hammadi writings
originated from the Apostles (although I’m not ruling the latter proposition
out completely).
So what do the Nag Hammadi writings tell
us about Jesus the man? All of the texts cited above describe Jesus as an
historic personality who imparted secret teachings to various Apostles. Jesus
revealed the pre-existent Father, Sophia, Achamoth, and the heavenly rulers who
block the ascent of the soul. He also revealed that the Father is Good and is
not identical with the God of wrath who declares that “there is no other God”
(Isaiah 45:4-7). He also revealed that sex and procreation serve to confine the
soul to the world, and to a state of condemnation. Jesus also caused his
disciples/Apostles to have visions. And Jesus also revealed that he never truly
suffered and that he was not in the body that hung on the cross. All of these reports
can be found in the Nag Hammadi texts I have quoted above.
Here are two of the most important
examples of Jesus’s words about himself and the passion. In the 1st
Apocalypse of James Jesus is quoted as reassuring James: “James, do not be concerned
for me… I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I
been distressed.” (31:14ff.) These were Jesus’s words
to James before he went to the cross. Jesus informs James of how the departed
soul must confront the heavenly rulers.
In the Apocalypse of Peter Jesus
causes Peter to have a vision of Jesus where he is being crucified while at the
same time he is on the “tree” laughing. Jesus explains the vision to Peter: “He
whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this
one into whose hands and feet they drive nails is his fleshly part, which is
the substitute being put to shame, the one who came to being in his likeness.
But look at him and me. …he whom they crucified is the first-born and the home
of demons, and the material vessel in which they
dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near
him is the living Savior…” (81, 82)
In the Apocryphon
of John Jesus returns to John after the crucifixion to console him, and to
reveal the mysteries.
Jesus informs John that the fleshly body was created by Yaldabaoth and the
rulers in order to confine human souls in the material realm of spiritual
oblivion (21). The flesh will not be saved because it is created from material
elements.
The Book of Thomas portrays Jesus
as imparting certain mysteries to Thomas after the crucifixion and before the
ascension. In this text Jesus condemns the flesh; but the resurrection doctrine
remains unexplained. Of note is that Jesus here condemns those who say that
souls were placed in fleshly bodies in order to learn about evil (141:20-25).
(Thus Jesus would have condemned the Tripartite Tractate, cf. 107:19-35)
The Gospel of Mary records the
words of Jesus immediately before his ascension. Jesus tells the Apostles that
all substances must be separated and restored to their roots. The desire to sin
originates from the intermingling of substances (spirit and matter) which leads to inner conflict, sickness and death (7). The
implication here is that flesh does not inherit the resurrection. Jesus tells
Mary in secret that the “soul” (sans the body) must ascend through the heavenly
spheres and confront the rulers.
The Gospel of Philip gives the
following description of Jesus’s incarnation: “Jesus took them all by stealth,
for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which he could be seen.
He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He
appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man.” (57:28ff.) This writer also gives a brief pseudo-orthodox commentary on
1 Corinthians
All of these texts above, which purport
to be from Apostolic sources, seem to convey the opinion that Jesus appeared in
the world and revealed previously undisclosed doctrines to a small group of
men, and one woman. These sources do not clearly deny that Jesus had a fleshly
body; but they do deny that the fleshly body was the essence of who Jesus was.
The fleshly body seems to be little more than a vehicle through which Jesus
interacts with human kind. Jesus, in his essence, is a supernatural being: he cannot
really suffer, and he cannot really die. Jesus performed these events as
mysteries on behalf of those who would some day be initiated into the truth;
which is to say that all of Jesus’s acts conceal a hidden meaning.
In a general way the Gnostic concept of
Jesus is consistent with Paul. Paul himself used vague and inconsistent
language to describe Jesus in substance. In Romans 1:3 Paul confesses to the
Roman church that Jesus was a fleshly descendant of David. But does Paul really
believe this? Or is he the mystagogue who speaks to the weak as weak? (1
Cor. 9:19-22, cf.
Some scholars have construed the Gnostic
texts to mean that there was no real difference between Gnostic doctrine and
so-called “orthodox” doctrine where Jesus’s body and “humanity” are concerned. But
the consensus I have presented above shows that this is not true. The Treatise
on the Resurrection is cited as evidence that the Gnostics also affirmed
the flesh and humanity of Jesus. But this text has to be examined in context. Does
the Treatise reflect the same consensus as other Gnostic texts? I think
the answer is no. I believe we must allow for the possibility that the Treatise
on the Resurrection is a letter written by a Gnostic to an “orthodox”
Christian. I recall how Irenaeus fumed about the Valentinians who affirmed “orthodox”
doctrine in public, and imparted their “mysteries” in private, and admitting
that the orthodox Catholics were “vulgar” and “ecclesiastic” (e.g. Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, 3.15.2).
The Letter of Peter to Philip has
also been cited as evidence that Gnostics really were preoccupied with the
“flesh” and “humanity” of Jesus after all. In this case even if this text were
as simple as it appears, it would not represent the general consensus of
doctrine as found in other texts. On close scrutiny this text does not really
say that Jesus suffered. It says that Gnostics inevitably must suffer for the
truth. But it also says that “Jesus was a stranger to this suffering. But we
are the ones who have suffered through the Mother’s (Sophia’s) transgression.
And because of this he did everything symbolically among us” (Marvin Meyer, Nag
Hammadi Scriptures, pg. 593). The latter statement is similar to what is
said in the Gospel of Philip: “For the Lord did everything in a
mystery.”
In summary: what do the Gnostic writings
tell us about Jesus that “orthodox” tradition fails to explain, and which is
hinted at in the NT Gospels, and reflected in Paul? I’ll let the readers go
back over this article and answer that question for themselves.
All I can add here is repetition; and there is not enough space for more
analysis. Let me conclude by saying that I think the Nag Hammadi writings
reflect all those theological elements in the NT that “orthodox” Christians
would rather ignore.
1) The New Testament writings have a
recurring theme that Moses was not in contact with God (Mt.
2) The New Testament writings make
puzzling references to “mysteries” and “visions” but only in the Nag Hammadi
writings are these ideas given a full development. The Gnostic writings also
present a much fuller account of Jesus’s teaching. Jesus teaches his followers
about self knowledge (maturity; see part III) and the spiritual Vision – which
probably represents the real fulfillment of the Parousia. These ideas are
alluded to in the NT but are never fully explained.
3) The Nag Hammadi writings provide a
background for the inconsistent ideas that are found in the New Testament
regarding Jesus’s nature and substance (as documented above). The Gnostic
writings portray Jesus as a supernatural being from beyond the cosmos; he was
not sent from the god of the Old Testament. He has come to share secret wisdom
with his followers. He initiates his Apostles into the mysteries of the realm
above. He is not a fleshly being in the strict sense of the word. He only
appears in flesh, but flesh cannot contain what he really is. Jesus has not
come to save our flesh, but to save us from the flesh, and from the one
who created flesh to begin with: Jehovah (as revealed by “Moses”). Paul can be
shown to allude to all these concepts in his writings – but again, only the
Gnostic tradition has given these ideas a full development, whereas “orthodox”
tradition has retained Paul’s name, but has steadfastly ignored the Apostle’s
doctrine. (The four NT Gospels in comparison all show the signs of being phony
witnesses contrived in support of the “orthodox” consensus. But again, the four
Gospels prove nothing and convict no one.)
Did the Gnostics really believe in Jesus
as an historic figure and supernatural being? Against the modern thinkers and
philosophers I would have to answer yes. Gnostic tradition conveys the idea
that perfect truth, or “gnosis”, entered this cosmos through a specific person
at a specific time. That the Gnostics subscribed to this idea cannot be
denied. In this modern/post-modern age I can’t help but feel cynical about
all the hype around Jesus. But then again the Gnostic conceptions of Jesus and
the theology they imputed to him have never ceased to amaze me. Does this Jesus
really exist? I don’t know; but I believe that the doctrines are based on something
that is perfectly true. Personally I believe the Holy Spirit is the One Truth
behind it all.
In closing I must confess that we have
only scratched the surface of the “Fullness of the Gospel” in this brief
article. There are many other issues that I have not discussed for lack of
space, such as the concepts of the indwelling kingdom, and the indwelling
Christ; and the concepts of the spiritual seed and predestination. All of these
issues will be addressed in future articles. –jw
E-mail Jim West: ogdood@yahoo.com