The Pattern of Gnostic Truth
(Orthodoxy, Heresy and
Jesus, part III)
By James M. West. Copyright © February 5; revised
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
In the preceding articles of this series
we have looked at some good examples of the pros and cons of the New Testament
Gospels. I have shown where these writings make for the poorest quality
historical records; hence the four Gospel witnesses would not stand up in court
(Orthodoxy, Heresy and Jesus, I). And I have shown where these writings
contain certain core elements which resemble a Gnostic concept of theology (Orthodoxy,
Heresy and Jesus, II). In certain passages there is undeniable evidence
that both Jesus and John the Baptist embrace something that resembles a Gnostic
theology. Without a doubt these men are portrayed as speaking of some other God
than the conventional God of the Old Testament. This is one of the most
important points of the message that is attributed to Jesus. On the other hand,
the four Gospels are composite in nature and they contain conflicting elements.
In some passages Jesus speaks of the jealous God of Old; and in other passages
Jesus appeals to a God who knows no jealousy.
The reality here is that the Gospels do
not represent an orthodox consensus of Jesus, his doctrine, or the God that he
believed in. And indeed the Gnostics were the ones historically who actually
grasped this issue and its implications. They were the ones who gained the
better end of Christian theology; whereas the “orthodox” Christians resorted to
the use of violence, and the power of the state, in order to maintain their dubious
concept of a theological unity (the Nicene Creed).
Then again the Gnostic movement has also
had its problems in reaching a clear and uniform theological consensus. They
may all agree that there is a better God above Jehovah, and that Jesus brought
the true gnosis of God into the cosmos: but inevitably there is the problem in
that no two Gnostic teachers can get this gnosis straight. The Catholic Fathers
reported this fact about their Gnostic opponents; and the Nag Hammadi texts
confirm it (see below). Of course I do not see where this is any terrible
revelation. It’s only natural for people to disagree on issues, especially when
this involves difficult philosophical questions or abstract mythological
symbolism. Certainly it is not my intent to portray the Gnostics in a bad
light. I bring up the issue of diversity because I think there is something to
be learned from this situation.
The Catholic Fathers reported on the
supposed scandal in that the Gnostics could not agree on their doctrine (e.g.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.2.1; Tertullian, Against Valentinians,
4, 38f.; Hippolytus, Refut.,
The Catholic Fathers portrayed the
diverse Gnostic groups as a scandal. But the reality is that the Gnostics were
mystics and philosophers who had divergent points of view. Most important is
that the Gnostics were peaceful in their disagreements; which is a testimony to
the spiritual virtues they aspired to. In history it was among the so-called
“orthodox” theologians that the disagreements over theology actually came to
blows; and people were actually being murdered. This is where the real
scandal is. This was the situation that drew the Roman Emperor
Constantine’s attention to the Arian controversy, which was leading to riots
and bloodshed. This outbreak of violence was the result of Catholic theologians
who were unable to resolve their theological differences in a mature, peaceful way.
The Roman emperor had to step in and broker a solution; which amounted to one
faction being vindicated, and the other faction (the Arian minority) being
outlawed. Soon the good emperor was issuing edicts against any Christian faction
or sect that his “orthodox” friends complained about… but that’s a subject for
another article. My point is that the Catholic Church was actually responsible
for introducing violence and state repression into the Christian legacy:
whereas the Gnostics were a peaceful culture of diverse groups. It is with full
justification that the famous historian, Edward Gibbon, referred to the Gnostics
as the “most polite, the most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian
name” (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 15).
In this article we will look at this
pattern of diversity among the Gnostics, and we will see what these paradoxes
can teach us about the Gnostic tradition, and the quest for a true spiritual
gnosis. The single most important point that I hope to bring forward is that no
one Gnostic tradition contains the whole truth. What the historic Gnostic
tradition preserves for us is a pattern of Gnostic truth that each one
of us, as individuals, must access in our own ways (hence, the name of this
article). By their very nature the terms Gnostic and Gnosticism can never have
a concrete standard definition as this would apply to some officially
established theological system. True Gnostics are people who may agree on a
short list of issues; but in the bigger picture Gnostics are people who must
inevitably agree to disagree.
Historically the Gnostic movement was
divided among various leaders and sects: Valentinus, Basilides, Carpocrates,
Saturnilus, Cerinthus, the Naassenes, Sethians, etc., etc. And the Valentinian
school itself was divided among several teachers: Ptolemy, Heracleon, Secundus,
Marcus and Theodotus. Let’s look at some of the specific issues on which some
of these groups disagreed.
The older schools (i.e. Carpocrates,
Saturnilus, Cerinthus) generally agreed that there was one supreme Being above,
and that the cosmos was a lower realm that was created by fallen angels led by
the arch-angel Jehovah. Jesus is sent by the Unknown Father above out of
compassion for the slave race created by Jehovah. These were the central points
on which these schools agreed. But the data supplied by the Catholic Fathers
also reveals that these schools disagreed on ethics, and on what it meant to be
liberated. In this case the Saturnilians are reported to have been an ascetic
sect which discouraged sex and procreation. Presumably the rationale was that
these conventions lead to attachments and to the inevitable enslavement of the
soul to worldly cares and pleasures. Irenaeus remarked that many Christians
were drawn to this school because of the “feigned temperance” of Saturnilus’
followers (Against Heresies, 1.24.1-2). In contrast, Irenaeus tells us
that the Carpocratians believed that liberation was achieved only through the
experience and exhausting of all sinful urges. Only when the desire to sin has
been satisfied and exhausted, only then is the soul purified and is released
from the power of the angels (ibid., 1.25.4). Clement of
In the testimonies of Irenaeus and
Clement it is important to note that some Gnostics believed that spiritual
liberation was achieved only through abstinence; whereas others maintained that
liberation was achieved only through indulgence. These radically different
approaches indicate the existence of radically diverse systems of theology,
ethics and interpretations of Jesus’ teachings. To say that the Saturnilians
and Carpocratians both agreed on the unknown God is to oversimplify the
doctrinal issues involved. (Of note is that Clement’s damning statements above
applied to the Carpocratians. In the same treatise he referred to the
Valentinians as if they were actually setting a good example; Stromateis,
3:1.1., 3.4.29., 3.7.59.)
The Naassenes, Sethians, and certainly
the Valentinians, represent a later and more sophisticated development of
Gnostic thought and myth. They introduced concepts of the universe that reflected
the cosmology and dualism of Plato (Timaeus). They maintained that the
visible cosmos was an inferior copy of a spiritual primeval realm, called the Pleroma
in Gnostic jargon. The Gnostics introduced their innovations in that they
taught that the primeval material chaos (without origin in Plato) came into
existence as the result of a disunity in the Pleroma. A certain primeval
goddess of Wisdom (an “Aion” in Gnostic jargon) conceives within herself a
wrong idea of the Father (in Greek: enthymesis); this idea is
born as a miscarriage (ectroma; Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
1.2.3-4; Hippolytus, Refutation., 6.26, Tertullian, On Prescript.,
7). This miscarriage is removed from the Pleroma and this causes a deviate parallel
universe to come into existence…
The myth I have described above is known
as the Myth of Sophia. The Naassenes, Sethians and Valentinians all agree that
the plan for salvation revolves around the fall, redemption and restoration of
Sophia. When Gnostics are initiated into this mystery of her fall and
redemption, they themselves participate and partake in her redemption and
restoration – which they will inherit when Sophia is united with the Savior in
the Bridal Chamber. The entrance into the Bridal Chamber signifies the point
when all spirit and soul substances have been redeemed from the material
cosmos, and the latter will be dissolved in fire (Irenaeus, ibid., 1.7.1.;
Tertullian, Against Valentinians, 32; cf. NHC: On the Origin of the
World, 26).
The Naassenes, Sethians and Valentinians
seem to agree on these basic points as stated above. But there are also some
important points on which they disagreed. For example, the Sethians and
Naassenes believed that Sophia’s miscarriage took the form of the wicked
Yaldabaoth, who was ejected from the Pleroma. Yaldabaoth creates the deviate
parallel universe in opposition to his mother and the Pleroma (NHC: Apocryphon
of John,
Another example of conflict may be seen
in a comparison of the Nag Hammadi treatise The Tripartite Tractate
and the Valentinian tradition as reported by the Catholic Fathers. Both of
these sources report the same basic myth. But whereas the traditional
Valentinian myth identifies Sophia as the fallen feminine Aion, the Tripartite
Tractate says that this was a masculine logos who fell. Also of note
is the action taken by the supreme Being to stabilize the Pleroma following
the misadventure of the fallen Aion. The Valentinian tradition maintains that
two “Aions” named “Christ” and the “Holy Spirit” were generated so as to bring
order to the Pleroma, and to inform the Aions that the Father is
incomprehensible, and that they can only learn of him through his only-begotten
Son “Monogenes” or “Nous” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.2.1, 5;
Hippolytus, Refut., 6:26). The Tripartite Tractate tells us that
the Father wanted the Aions to know him directly and not through his Son; and
that he brought the logos forth into error as a means of revealing this
knowledge (62, 72, 76f.).
Thus in the Sophia myth the Father wants
the Aions to be restrained and to understand that they can never fully know
him; whereas the Tractate says that the Aions will know the Father completely –
and that the Father initiated this process by drawing the youngest Aion out of
his place, knowing that he would fall, and that the material cosmos of evil,
suffering, and injustice, would result (ibid., 107; see below). Between the
Sophia Myth and the Tripartite Tractate two irreconcilable conceptions
of God, and of piety, emerge. In one, the primeval disharmony in the Pleroma is
the result of an Aion who, of her own will, seeks what cannot be known
(Sophia). In the other, the Father willfully draws an Aion (logos) forth
into a disharmony so that the Father, and evil, can be known (62, 72,
76f., 107).
In the examples above I have shown where
the ancient “Gnostic” movement was actually divided by irreconcilable concepts
of theology, piety and ethics. The ultimate problem now is that all of these
Gnostic schools attribute their doctrines to one figure who supposedly revealed
all this in the form of a secret teaching: I refer to Jesus. In this situation
we are faced with the same problem as we are faced with in the New Testament
Gospels. In both the “Gnostic” and “orthodox” traditions we cannot find a clear
consensus of what the true doctrine of “Jesus” supposedly was. The New
Testament writings that “orthodoxy” depends upon contain no clear consensus of
Jesus’ doctrine or theology; and the Gnostic traditions likewise contain no
unified consensus of the secret doctrine which they also attribute to Jesus.
This same pattern of variance and
contradiction also appears among the Gnostic writings of the Nag Hammadi
Library. Scholars have already shown that not all of these writings are of
Gnostic origin. Let us look to those writings which are “Gnostic” and let’s
take note of the diverse and conflicting ideas which appear among the texts.
First we will look at what some of these
writings say concerning the nature of the supreme Being. In this case all of
these writings agree, in principle, that there is no jealousy or evil in the
supreme Being. The supreme Being is benign in nature, is complete, is not jealous,
is incorruptible, and is in need of nothing (Gospel of Truth, 18, 40; Tripartite
Tractate, 51-53; Apocryphon of John, 2-4; Holy Book/Invisible
Spirit, 40f.; Eugnostos the Blessed, 71-76; Wisdom of Jesus
Christ, 94f.; cf. Gospel of Philip, 75; Testimony of Truth,
45-50). In one form or another the texts cited agree that there is an unknown,
perfect, and incorruptible God, and this God is distinguished from the biblical
God who proclaims that “there is no other God besides me” (Deuteronomy 4:35,
Isaiah 45:5-7).
It is concerning the origin of ignorance
and evil that the consensus becomes a little more complicated among the texts,
and the consensus regarding the unknown God begins to fray. This pattern of
diversity is evident in the examples below. (Note: All citation numbers for the
Nag Hammadi texts correspond to the bold-typed numbers in the texts as
published in the HarperCollins edition.)
1) The Gospel of Truth tells us
that evil began as the result of “Error” who in turn had “her” origin in the
ignorance of the Father (17). We are advised to “despise Error” because she
“has no root” in the Father (ibid.). The Father reveals knowledge of himself
through his Son (18, 24, 38). This knowledge destroys Error and liberates all
under her control (18). Nothing happens without the will and pleasure of the
Father, who is unlimited. But at the same time the Father’s Will is inscrutable
and unknowable. Why the Father allowed Error to exist cannot be determined (37).
2) The Tripartite Tractate tells
us that evil came into existence through the vanity and error of a certain logos
(77-80). The logos tried to grasp the incomprehensible Father and this led to
the propagation of wrong and vain ideas. These ideas became spiritual entities which
in turn became the lords of chaos, which the logos arranges into the material
cosmic structure, via the Demiurge, who is the creative agent of the said logos
(100-104). It was the Father who drew this logos forward so that error and evil
would come into existence, so that the Aions would know good from evil, and
know about the nature of the Father (62, 72, 76f., 107f.). It is also the
Father’s Will that “man should experience the great evil, which is death,
that is complete ignorance of the Totality, and that he should experience all
the evils which come from this and, after the deprivations and cares which are
in these, that he should receive of the greatest good… Because of the
transgression of the first man, death ruled. It was accustomed to slay every
man…because of the organization of the Father’s Will, of which we spoke
previously” (107f. ET: H. Attridge, D. Mueller, Nag Hammadi Library,
HarperCollins, pg. 89).
3) The Apocryphon of John tells
us that evil began with Sophia. Sophia tried to beget something by herself
without her partner, and without the consent of the Great Invisible Spirit
(9f.). What comes forth is a mutant: it has the body of a snake and the head of
a lion (10). She names the mutant “Yaldabaoth” and she hides it outside of the
Pleroma (ibid.). While outside the Pleroma Yaldabaoth is able to steal power
from his mother; and he creates the cosmos and the celestial rulers (10f.).
Yaldabaoth blasphemes and proclaims that he is the only God (Is. 45:5-7). All
evil comes from Yaldabaoth, who is by nature wicked (11). When Sophia realizes
what has happened, she repents (14). In response to Yaldabaoth’s arrogance the
Father reveals an image of Himself to the powers below (ibid.). Yaldabaoth is
ignorant of the origin or meaning of the image; but he is inspired by the
vision to create a copy of the image, i.e. mankind, for his own glory (15). The
creation of mankind in turn is part of the divine plan to bring about
Yaldabaoth’s downfall, and to restore the power that he stole from his mother
(19, cf. On the Origin of the World, 103).
4) The Gospel of Philip tells us
plainly that “The world came about through a mistake. For he wanted to create
it as imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the
world never was imperishable, nor for that matter, was he who created the
world” (75) and also “Ignorance is the mother of [all evil]” (83f.).
5) The treatise On the Origin of the
World explains that the existence of evil began with the desire of the aion
“Pistis” (Faith) to be like the “first Light” (98). This desire appears in the
form of Sophia (Wisdom), who is likened to a shadow, and who becomes a veil
between the immortal realm and everything that comes to exist in the shadow.
Out of the Shadow (Sophia) comes the realm of darkness and chaos: and from
chaos all deities and powers emerge. Sophia (the “Shadow”) realizes that she is
not alone and that someone exists who is greater than her. Sophia becomes
jealous and gives birth to Envy, which comes forth like an “aborted fetus” (a
miscarriage). Bitter wrath also came forth from Sophia at this moment. Matter
also passed out of Sophia like an “afterbirth” (99). Pistis then descends into
chaos and is disturbed by what has transpired. Her sense of disturbance becomes
an entity which Pistis names “Yaldabaoth” (100). She appoints him to rule over
chaos. As ruler, Yaldabaoth organizes chaos into the form of the cosmos; but he
has no awareness of Pistis or the region above. Yaldabaoth arrogantly proclaims
that he is the supreme Being (Isaiah 45:7). Pistis rebukes Yaldabaoth and
reveals the divine plan for the creation Humanity, through which Yaldabaoth
will be destroyed (103). Pistis then chooses Yaldabaoth’s son “Sabaoth” to rule
in his place; Yaldabaoth assumes the role of Satan (103f., 106). The creation
of man and Human history are portrayed in terms of the struggle between Pistis and
Yaldabaoth. The destiny of the elect Humanity is to judge Yaldabaoth and the
rulers (124). The supreme Being is assigned no role in this account. Like the
God of the Epicureans, the supreme Being is detached from the world, and the
fate of the cosmos is focused primarily on the struggle between Yaldabaoth and
Pistis/Sophia – who are likened to two single women who struggle with their
unruly bastard children.
6) The Holy Book of the Great
Invisible Spirit tells us that the “material Sophia” was created in order
to “rule over chaos and Hades” (56f.). Sophia in turn generates a pair to rule
under her, viz. Sakla (Yaldabaoth) and the demon Nebruel (Sakla’s wife; 57).
The “Self Generated One” (i.e. the supreme Being) determines the order that
Sakla and Nebruel will establish over Hades (58). A host of angels are
generated and which are arranged in one order of seven and another order of
twelve (corresponding to the celestial bodies and the twelve houses of the
Zodiac: these are the cosmic rulers). As the ruler of Hades, Sakla declares
himself to the only “jealous” God, and he rebels against the realm above (58f.).
This is the origin of evil. In response to the rebellion an image of the Father
is revealed from above; which Saklas and his host set out to duplicate, and
which culminates in the origin of Humanity. The Father sends the aion “Metanoia”
(“repentance”) on behalf of the rulers. And the great Seth is sent to plant the
seeds of the incorruptible race among Humans (59f.). The seeded Humans are part
of the plan to bring about repentance and restoration of the region below (59,
63). Saklas and the rulers persecute the Humans who have the seed; and who are identified
with
7) The Wisdom of Jesus Christ is
a record of the teachings that Jesus shared with his disciples after his
resurrection (90f.). Jesus discloses the mysteries of the Godhead to them. He
also explains that the creation, and evil, came into existence because Sophia
generated offspring without her mate (117f.). The Father allowed this so that
Sophia would be allowed to confront and wrestle with her own error (118). The
Father therefore lowered a veil in order to separate Sophia’s generation from
the eternal realm. The Human image is given to Yaldabaoth (to create as his
own) in order to sew the seeds of his destruction. This is the “judgement against
the chief Creator, called Yaldabaoth” (119). (This brief summary is based on the
translation by Marvin Meyer, Nag Hammadi Scriptures, pp. 287, 295.)
The brief summaries above represent an
effort on my part to set forth the varying myths among the texts regarding the
nature of God and the origin of evil. I realize that my summaries may not be
the only possible interpretation. I recommend that my readers examine these
writings for themselves.
Let us briefly consider some of the
profound differences in the accounts above. First there are the varying roles
of the supreme Being in these accounts. In #7 Jesus tells us that the Father
allowed Sophia to proceed so that she would have to confront her own error. #6
tells us that the supreme Being approved Sophia and Saklas as rulers over
chaos. Saklas rebelled against the Father. In #5 the supreme Being plays no
role; and the struggle of the creation and evil revolve around to feminine
aions, Pistis and Sophia, who struggle with their own vain offspring and desires.
#4 tells us that Ignorance is the origin of evil; and that the Creator failed
in his endeavors. #3 is basically the same as #7; evil begins with the error of
Sophia, in spite of her good intentions. #2 is strikingly different from the
rest of the accounts in that evil is traced back to the very Will and designs
of the Father. Whereas the other Gnostic accounts attempt to separate God from
evil and materiality, the author of the Tripartite Tractate seems to
accomplish the opposite: he forms a direct connection from the Father to the
origin of evil. The Father is behind it all. In #1 we are told that evil
has its origin in Error; and that the latter has its origin in ignorance apart
from the Father. This account admits that the Father allowed evil to exist:
but, unlike #2, the author admits that the Father’s purpose in this cannot be
known.
The accounts above also contain
strikingly different profiles of Sophia. In #s 1 and 2 there is no Sophia
figure. In #s 3 and 7 Sophia is described in the classic form of the tragic
figure who has good intentions. In #s 5 and 6 the picture is different. In #5
Sophia is the “Shadow” of Pistis or Faith. Sophia is described as the darkness
in which chaos, matter and the cosmos come into existence. The origin of evil and
matter come out of Sophia’s jealousy, and which appear as a grotesque
miscarriage and afterbirth. In #6 Sophia is described both as “material”
(hylic) and as a nebulous “Cloud.” She is appointed to reign over chaos. This
account is obscure; but it appears that Saklas and Nebruel come forth out of
Sophia as flawed entities who beget powers and rebel against the realm above. In
both 5 and 6 Sophia is portrayed not as a tragic heroine, but as a figure of
darkness, and a mother of demons.
These accounts maintain a general
consensus regarding the Demiurge; he is corrupt and incompetent. The exception
is #2 which portrays the Demiurge as the neutral creative arm of the logos. #1
gives no account of the Demiurge, but we may presume that the Demiurge is part
of the reign of Error.
As for the purpose of Human existence,
accounts 3, 5, 6 and 7 agree that Humanity was created in order to bring
judgment against the Demiurge. Accounts 1 and 4 give no clear explanation; we
may assume in this case that Humanity exists through Error, or the flawed
Creator. Account #2 represents the exception in that we are told that Humanity
was created so that evil and death could be revealed for the Pleroma.
Again, on the various points above we
can see that the Gnostic writings provide diverse and irreconcilable doctrines.
All of these writings contain valuable insights, and provide food for thought
and reflection. For better or worse all of these treatises (except #4) attempt
to provide an explanation for how a good God and an evil world can exist at the
same time. In the end these writings cannot provide the final answer. Only you,
the reader, can discover that answer by searching within yourself.
The notion of soul-searching touches
upon the true Wisdom that can be found in Gnostic writings. This is part of the
pattern of truth that can be found in these texts. Only through
self-understanding and maturity can we truly understand the things that pertain
to God and spirituality. Self understanding means that our consciousness is not
polluted by the vain ideas that come about through ignorance, unruly passions,
and wrong thinking. This is the pattern of thought that has defined our world
and its tragic and bloody history. To discover God, and the Goodness of God, we
must aspire to goodness and purity ourselves. We must love goodness because we
know that it is good: that goodness is its own reward, and is better than evil.
If we love goodness then it is because the seed of Goodness is within us.
Goodness seeks its own, and that is why all Good people are destined to know
God. The world is not good because it is not out of God. These essential points
are the message behind most of the Gnostic writings and the arcane symbols and
speculations therein.
There is, to be sure, a pattern of
Gnostic Truth in these writings; by which I mean, more specifically, a pattern
of Wisdom. And in this respect the Gnostic writings are clearer than the
writings of the New Testament. In the New Testament theology the theology of
the good God and the Creator are grafted together: in the Gnostic texts these
theologies are separated. In principle (at least) the Gnostic texts establish a
separation between God and the world. God is described as pure light, and as
being purely good. This represents the standard of spiritual goodness that we
are seeking within ourselves.
It is a simple common sense truth that
the most important virtue a person can have is maturity. An immature person
cannot discover true knowledge about anything; because such a person is blinded
by childish misconceptions. This is why such a person can never know God: they
can only know some distorted image of God that they have created within
themselves, on the basis of their foolish expectations. (It is a foolish
misconception to say that the Bible has only one theology.)
The wisdom I have just shared is
something that I learned from Gnostics and my study of Gnosticism. I was raised
a Christian: but these lessons were never clearly explained to me by my
pastors, or in the writings of the New Testament. It is true that the notion of
self-knowledge is implied in some passages. Paul tells us that we are the “
All of these sayings above allude to the
Truth. But the language is indirect. It is never explicitly stated that the
followers of Christ must know themselves, i.e. must seek maturity. Again, I
realized what those passages meant only after I studied Gnosticism, and learned
some important lessons from the great modern mystics like Jiddu Krishnamurti.
(I personally consider Krishnamurti to be the greatest Gnostic of the modern
age.)
It is only in the Gnostic Christian
writings that this need for self-knowledge is specifically explained. Thus, for
example, in the Gospel of Thomas we read:
“When you know yourselves…you will realize that it is you who are the
children of the living Father.” (3)
And also:
“That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from
yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not
have it within you.” (70)
And again in the Gospel of Philip:
“Is it not necessary for those who possess everything to know
themselves?” (76) And also: “As for ourselves, let each one of us dig down
after the root of evil which is within one, and let one pluck it out of one’s
heart by the root.” (83)
And in the Book of Thomas the
Contender:
“For he who has not known himself has known nothing, but he who has
known himself has at the same time achieved knowledge about the depth of the
all.” (138)
These statements above express this
doctrine clearly. And this concept is implicit in diverse passages throughout
the texts. An example is in the Tripartite Tractate where we read of the
Father that “he alone knows himself as he is” (55). The idea here is that we
should follow the example of the Father and know ourselves as well. The Gospel
of Truth tells us that the Son discovered his followers in himself; and
that his followers discovered him within themselves (18).
Unfortunately this fundamental wisdom
has been omitted from the “orthodox” New Testament, and is alluded to
indirectly as I have shown. This is the essential wisdom that is missing from
“orthodox” Christianity. Orthodox Christians just hang on in blind faith to
their empty dogmas, contradictory creeds, and self-refuting prophecies. And
some of them even accept unclean spirits into their souls, which cause them to
babble like deranged fools, having no knowledge of what comes forth from
their mouths (cf. 1 Cor. 14:11-12).
Soul-searching and self-knowledge
represent the true path to gnosis. The Gnostic writings and traditions
represent the various ways that the truth is explained on a lower intellectual
level. Everyone has a different frame of mind; and not everyone understands the
truth equally. The author of the Tripartite Tractate was still unable to
completely let go of his “orthodox” notions of the Monarchy of God, which still
influenced his theology. And then there are the “noble” Carpocratians, as
reported by Clement of Alexandria. They failed to understand the true purpose
of
As a concluding statement I want to
affirm that the Nag Hammadi writings do corroborate the general litany of
charges by the Catholic Fathers. These writings reject the supremacy of the
Creator; they generally agree that Jesus did not suffer the passion; and they
place no emphasis on Jesus as a “fleshly” being; and they maintain that Jesus
taught a secret doctrine to his Apostles – to which the Gnostics were the sole
heirs. –jw
(Note: there is much more on this
subject to be discussed, but lack of space will not allow. In the next
installment to this series we will look specifically at what the various Nag
Hammadi texts say about Jesus.)
E-mail Jim West:
ogdood@yahoo.com