T(r)oy's Marbles
6. the alternate account
This is part 6 of a multi-part essay dealing with issues related to "The Da Vinci Code" and the Gnostic Gospels.
To start the series at the beginning, click here. From there, you'll find links at the end of each part, directing you to the next post in the chain.
So far, we've noted some background information as it concerns Gnosticism. Some of this info has been "general" in nature and some has been more specific. Today, we'll be exploring even more deeply through taking a look at a Gnostic Gospel writing called "The Sophia of Jesus Christ." In doing so, we will be able to more accurately assess the Gnostic alternative to the canonical Gospels.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Sophia begins: “After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers, and went to Galilee onto the mountain called ‘Divination and Joy’. When they gathered together…”
A few notes:
1. This seems to parallel what Luke records in Acts 1:3 & 6—“After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God…So when they met together…” We may justifiably suppose that the account to follow provides an alternate narrative as to what happened, what Jesus said, what the disciples asked, etc. Also, The Sophia concludes with Jesus' ascension. So this seems to be an alternate account to Luke's.
2. Note that the Gnostic version of this account specifies the place where they met: “the mountain called ‘Divination and Joy’.” All I have to say is: ‘Hm. Sounds like a weird place to me.” Straight away, the Gnostic gospels have none of the feel of authenticity. Have archaeologists found such a place? Not to my knowledge.
The Sophia continues: “When they gathered together and were perplexed about the underlying reality of the universe and the plan, and the holy providence, and the power of the authorities, and about everything the Savior is doing with them in the secret of the holy plan, the Savior appeared - not in his previous form, but in the invisible spirit. And his likeness resembles a great angel of light. But his resemblance I must not describe. No mortal flesh could endure it, but only pure, perfect flesh, like that which he taught us about on the mountain called ‘Of the Olives’ in Galilee.”
My notes:
1. Note what is first on their mind: “the underlying reality of the universe and the plan”. This is typical Gnostic speculation. This is first because this knowledge means nothing less than salvation to them.
2. Note the many times the word “and” appears here. This feels ripe for a Monty Python spoof.
3. Note the emphasis on “the secret of the holy plan.” Jesus is going to impart to them some things that have been kept secret. This is also called ‘the gnosis’. It is the key to unlock the door of mystery. Now, in the New Testament, it is true that the apostle Paul refers to “the mystery that has been kept hidden, but has now been revealed”, but the content of the mystery to which Paul refers is very different than the mystery which the Gnostic Jesus reveals. The mystery to which Paul refers is actually believable. The mystery referred to later in The Sophia(which we will see) is quite laughable.
4. “…the Savior appeared - not in his previous form, but in the invisible spirit.” The Gnostics thought that the material world was either deceptive, evil or peripheral to our existence/salvation. Ultimate Reality is pure spirit, untainted by flesh, materiality. Stoicism was a form of Gnosticism. The Stoics beat their bodies into submission, so that they could live life on a more purely spiritual plane. If Jesus is to have any saving value for the Gnostics, he must not possess materiality, flesh. He must be pure spirit. So, how do the Gnostics account for Jesus’ suffering and death? They say, “He only seemed to be human.” This form of Christian Gnosticism is known as Docetism. It comes from the Greek word dokeo, which means “to seem.” This phrase also touches on this theme: “No mortal flesh could endure it, but only pure, perfect flesh…”
5. “…his likeness resembles a great angel of light. But his resemblance I must not describe.” How convenient. Here the author is refreshingly open with some rather important information that really, the entire human race should be privy to. Feel the sarcasm here, people. Note the contrast in detail in John’s Gospel account. Here we see Jesus coming to Thomas and saying, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side.” A far cry from the account of The Sophia. John’s Gospel is grounded in reality, whereas “The Sophia” seems excessively ethereal.
The Sophia continues: “And he said: ‘Peace be to you, My peace I give you!’ And they all marveled and were afraid. The Savior laughed and said to them: ‘What are you thinking about? Are you perplexed? What are you searching for?’”
My notes:
1. This is one of the few details that actually match up with some of the character of the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But…
2. “The Savior laughed…” Believe it or not, this picture of a “laughing Jesus” is a common thread in many of the Gnostic texts. I have no idea why, but it seems like every time I turn around I’m reading that Jesus “laughed”. This would, of course, be a lovely thought, but what sometimes troubles me is that they portray Jesus often as laughing at the disciples, not laughing with them. It’s as if Jesus is thinking, “You guys are such imbeciles!” and then he follows it up with a good laugh. It’s true that Jesus said things in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s account that also give one the impression that Jesus didn’t make much of the disciple’s intelligence, but you never have the feeling that Jesus is being cruel to them or making fun of them, like the Gnostic Jesus often does.
The Sophia continues: “The Savior laughed and said to them: ‘What are you thinking about? Are you perplexed? What are you searching for?’ Philip said: ‘For the underlying reality of the universe and the plan.’”
My notes:
1. What?! The disciples are looking for “the underlying reality of the universe and the plan”?! Compare this with the scene in John’s gospel where two disciples are following Jesus and he turns and says to them, “What do you want?” The disciples are struck dumb and have only the wit to reply: “Uh…Teacher…where, uh, are you, uh, staying?” But here, according to The Sophia, the disciples are apparently terrified, but they still have the capacity to put on the table an issue as sophisticated as “the underlying reality of the universe and the plan.”
2. Contrast this with Luke’s account of the same question: “When are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Note, this question is in keeping with what would have naturally been on the Jewish person’s mind: “Now that you’re risen from the dead and have proved yourself Lord and King, is it now time for you to rule politically, to usher in the era of the Christ foretold in the prophets?” Then, in Luke’s account, Jesus tells them that the advance of the kingdom of God on earth would be left in their hands as the Holy Spirit would enable them.
The Sophia continues: “The Savior said to them: ‘I want you to know that all men are born on earth from the foundation of the world until now, being dust, while they have inquired about God, who he is and what he is like, have not found him. Now the wisest among them have speculated from the ordering of the world and (its) movement. But their speculation has not reached the truth.’”
My notes:
1. In other words, “I’m about to tell you all, in the next, say, two hours, a bunch of stuff that no one in the history of mankind has even been able to touch. Y’all ready fo’ ‘dis?”
The Sophia continues: "The Lord of the Universe is not called 'Father', but 'Forefather', the beginning of those that will appear, but he (the Lord) is the beginningless Forefather. Seeing himself within himself in a mirror, he appeared resembling himself, but his likeness appeared as Divine Self-Father, and
My notes:
1. Really? I guess we should be praying, “Our Forefather who art in heaven.”
2. Or perhaps, “Self-Father.” Yeah, that sounds believable.
3. “He is indeed of equal age
4. The words in <> brackets are interpolations into the original text, due to the nature of ancient documents. Often, pieces or words or sometimes even whole sentences and paragraphs are missing and scholars are left to fill in the missing pieces with supposition and speculation. The Gnostic Gospels carry none of the confidence we have in the canonical New Testament as far as number of comparative manuscripts through which to reconstruct a probable account.
The Sophia continues: “Matthew said to him: ‘Lord, Savior, how was Man revealed?’
“The perfect Savior said: ‘I want you to know that he who appeared before the universe in infinity, Self-grown, Self-constructed Father, being full of shining light and ineffable, in the beginning, when he decided to have his likeness become a great power, immediately the principle (or beginning) of that Light appeared as Immortal Androgynous Man, that through that Immortal Androgynous Man they might attain their salvation and awake from forgetfulness through the interpreter who was sent, who is with you until the end of the poverty of the robbers.
"And his consort is the Great Sophia, who from the first was destined in him for union by Self-begotten Father, from Immortal Man, who appeared as First and divinity and kingdom, for the Father, who is called 'Man, Self-Father', revealed this. And he created a great aeon, whose name is 'Ogdoad', for his own majesty.”
My notes:
1. Note that the first creation was “Immortal Androgynous Man”. First of all, how is it possible to have an “androgynous man”? The two terms are oxymoronic. Or just moronic. Also, compare this to the account in Genesis where human beings were created in the image of God as male and female. In that account, the distinction between the sexes matters, and each gender is imbued with dignity and meaning. In The Sophia, the dignity of distinction and identity is erased through the construction of some androgynous blob.
2. You can see hinted at here what Brown refers to in his book: the balance of the masculine with the sacred feminine. In this regard he accurately represents at least this particular account of Christian Gnosticism. What he ignores, however, is that the other Christian Gnostics do not necessarily contain this concept. This just happens to be the concept that this particular group of Gnostics latched onto. The other Christian Gnostics are by no means in agreement with this account.
3. Note the word “aeon”. We’ll see this a lot more later.
4. Ogdoad? Love that name. If you’re reading this and planning to have a child, won’t you consider naming him/her/it ‘Ogdoad’? Especially if it’s an androgynous creature.
The Sophia continues: “Then Thomas said to him: ‘Lord, Savior, how many are the aeons of those who surpass the heavens?’
“The perfect Savior said: ‘I praise you because you ask about the great aeons, for your roots are in the infinities. Now when those whom I have discussed earlier were revealed, he provided ....
[pages 109 and 110 are missing…]”
My notes:
1. Here we go. Now we get to the meat of it: the aeons.
2. Notice that the Gnostic Jesus is pleased with Thomas’ question, “for your roots are in the infinities.” Huh?
3. Hm. Pages 109 and 110 are missing. Pity that. All that precious secret knowledge lost forever.
Some concluding comments on The Sophia:
Keep in mind that we have two choices as to which story to believe as it concerns this scene just before Jesus’ ascension. Option one is Luke’s account in the book of Acts, while Option two is the account as contained in The Sophia of Jesus. Dan Brown states in his book that, in the early centuries A.D. there were other versions of “what really happened” than those we have come to know. He is correct in this. In The Da Vinci Code he leads us to believe that the versions that have faded into history were unfairly stamped out. He thinks this is “unfair” because he asserts that the “lost” versions are equally as valid as the version that survived.
It is interesting that, while Dan Brown highlights the idea that Jesus came to communicate messages concerning the balance of the sacred masculine with the sacred feminine, he leaves out other (more unbelievable) aspects of the Gnostic alternative. Given more modern convictions concerning issues of gender equality and perhaps resurgent interest in Eastern spirituality, this notion appeals to many in the twenty-first century. But, what he leaves out, you’ll notice, are other (more outlandish) notions that are frankly inseparable from the “popular” idea stated above, precisely because of the nature of the system from which these notions are drawn.
You won’t find, for example, Dan Brown pointing out that the proponents of these alternate accounts also relied on things like Ogdoad, aeons, androgynous men, and mountains called ‘Divination and Joy’. Oh, and let us not forget that common fishermen are generally quite interested in understanding “the underlying reality of the universe and the plan.” And, of course, Jesus obliges.
Compare that account to Luke’s, where the disciples ask Jesus a simple question (that’s in keeping with the Jewish culture) and Jesus responds by saying, “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”
In other words, “That ain’t none o’ yo’ bi’ness, dawg. And besides, you don’t need to know that. All you need to know is this: You will receive power to be my witnesses. Tell people the plain truth: that I died and rose again and that, through believing in me, they can be forgiven and inherit the kind of life that’s marked by eternity and culminates in heaven.” Luke’s account is refreshingly simple and frank.
Hm. Which version do you think is more believable?
And, by the way, the reason Dan Brown’s version sounds minimally plausible is because he has picked and chosen what to believe from the Gnostics and what not to believe, what to present and what not to present, what to include and what not to include in the account. But, let it be remembered: “YOU CAN’T DO THAT WITH GNOSTICISM! IT’S ALL OR NOTHING!” That’s the point of Gnosticism, really. This group claimed to have the real (full) story of what really happened, what Jesus really said. Because of that, you can’t choose to say, “Oh but that one bit might be true while the rest of it is rubbish.”
“Why can’t we pick and choose?” someone might ask.
Because the Gnostics themselves and the Gnostic system would not let you do that. If you are going to use their story as valid, you need to use their data within the confines of their rules. To do anything else is to disrespect the source. And besides, who’s to say the bit about the sacred feminine is the true bit of what The Sophia says while the part about Ogdoad is not? What if it’s the other way around? And how do we know?
Yes, Mr. Brown, there really was another group of people who had another take on Jesus in the early centuries. You are correct in that. And I know that you think this alternate account was stamped out because the “traditionalists” were aggressive, closed-minded and abusive, but I think it is more probable that the alternate accounts faded into oblivion for a different reason: the Gnostics were out of their freaking minds.
That said, tomorrow we'll consider some passages from the hot, new Gospel of Judas that, so it seems, many scholars credit with shedding some new light on “what actually may have happened” at the Last Supper.
To go on to the next part of "The Alternate Account" click here.
teachings | Comments (0) | March 14, 2007