Gnosis and Christos
by V.
W. Frater William J. Morris, VIIO SRIC
C.M. Kempton Hewitt, writing for the Fall seminar series
of the Westar Institute, sponsors of the "Jesus Seminar",
spoke of his period as a student of the Christian myth with Rudolph
Bultmann.1
"While I joyfully embraced
Bultmann’s rejection of a particular story as having a legitimate
place in my quest (for the authentic Jesus), I was saddened to
find that bad old stories, learned in my youth, continued to
exercise more force in my thoughts than did the courageous world
of Daseins that Bultmann described. And in the intervening
decades, it has finally dawned on me that the creation of better,
new stories is a more practical means of dealing with bad old
stories than is the rejection of the story itself. It is simply
a fact that humans live by their stories; without them, life’s
experiences are chaotic and random - a condition of consciousness
few are willing to embrace, even if it is to be preferred."
This is not meant to suggest
that we should not look for a new plot for a more credible Jesus
and to include in our search materials not presently in the canon
of the church but which , it is now being argued, should be.
But though we do all of this, we cannot escape that fact that
what we are doing is exchanging one myth for another. As each
change occurs, it will bring with it social and psychological
changes which we may not wish and cannot foresee.
The Jesus myth originated from
a Jewish trajectory into a Hellenistic world ruled by Roman Law.
It was a time of great economic prosperity. Octavian, re-named
Augustus, celebrated the supremacy of the empire and world peace
in 17 BCE with a set of games and public displays unrivalled
in their magnificence in the ancient world. Religious syncretism
was the politically correct language of the day with the emperors,
beginning but not ending with Augustus, proclaiming themselves
as gods in a pantheon of cosmic others. They seem to have been
comfortable with Zeus, as long as Zeus was comfortable with them.
To the Jews, all of this was
heresy. Religiosity, politicized by the Maccabean revolt in the
second century BCE, paid lip service to Yahweh and strangled
him with the Torah while internecine warfare tore at the heart
of the tradition of the Jewish Kings until, once again, the hated
Seleucids were reincarnated by the equally hated Romans. This
was accomplished with the complicity of a Temple priesthood happy
to regain its control of Judea. Galilee did not come under Roman
control until after the decline of the Samaritan Herodians. Jesus
did not live in a Roman province. Galilee was Jewish. (Albeit,
ruled by Herodian kings who never overcame the status of interloper
in the minds of the ruling families of the day.)
Into this world came Jesus,
whoever he was.
To the Christian Jews in Egypt,
Christ and his mother both existed before their appearance on
earth in human form. The "Gospel" of Hebrews addresses
Jesus at his baptism as son, not by God, but by the spirit which
turns out to be his mother. He is not merely led by the spirit,
He is united with her.2
To the Ebionite Jews, Jesus
became God’s son at baptism. He was thus not divine by nature,
or at birth, but only by "adoptionism". It remains
unclear whether Jesus remained human throughout his life or was
transformed to a semi-divine status after his "adoption".3
To the Nazorean Jews, writing
in Aramaic, Jesus is presented in much the same terms as in the
canonical Matthew, although with "corrections". Thus,
as reported by Jerome in Against Pelagians, the
following story is told.
"The mother of the Lord
and his brothers said to him, "John the Baptist baptized
for the forgiveness of sins. Let’s go and get baptized by
him.
"But he said to them,
"How have I sinned? So why should I go and get baptized
by him? Only if I don’t know what I am talking about."4
The canonical Jesus was both
fully human and fully divine. But was he?
A consensus view, represented
by the scholars of the "Jesus Seminar" has emerged
which, in my view, places the "historical" Jesus in
much more remarkable light than Christian orthodoxy is willing
to accommodate. It is also my view that "mainline"
Christianity is experiencing substantial and unnecessary trauma
in its reluctance to embrace the new reality which is also, of
course, a new myth.
The following points emerge:
5
Jesus was an artisan.
Jesus was part of the "expendable"
class.
Jesus associated with unclean
or "disreputable" persons.
Jesus did not observe the purity
protocol.
Jesus understood his ministry
as presaging not the end of the world but as its transformation
and the establishment of God’s "imperial rule".
This was to happen in his lifetime.
Jesus used language to engage
in dialogue with imperial Rome and the Temple priests. He had
a political agenda.
He saw the world as he imagined
God saw it. It was an alternative reality which he called the
"Kingdom of God".
His parables were intended
to show God at work, ie. a "New World Order".
Jesus did not have a doctrine
of God. He had an "experience" of God.
His only purpose was to give
expression to his view of the new reality of "God’s
Imperial Rule".
Jesus believed that God’s
reign was a present reality although not discernible to everyone.
Jesus’ followers were
"insiders" only to the extent that they were "outsiders".
The crucifixion was a political
act of the State and not an act of the Temple priests. Priestly
executions were conducted by stoning and in the subsequent history
of Jewish-Christian relations, this point matters. James the
Just was probably ecclesiastically murdered. Certainly, Stephen
was.
Barbara Thiering proposes additional
points to complete the new consensus.6 The crucifixion
was designed to satisfy the law but not to result in a death.
Jesus established a church
in Corinth in conjunction with the Apostle Paul and broke with
the Jerusalem Church which had transferred its leadership to
his brother, James the Just.
Jesus, with the assistance
of Luke, wrote the Gospel of John. The language of the Gospel
was in pesher form, an insiders’ code, to record the events
of his life. The Revelation of John was a later historical document,
also in the pesher form, to complete the history of the church
to about 125 CE.
This is a view of Jesus, demythologized
to suit the linguistic and archaeological scholarship of the
last half of this century. The new "myth" that is beginning
to emerge casts the role and the impact of Jesus in a light not
unlike that of Martin Luther.
Both had a theological agenda
with powerful political overtones. Both lived at a period of
history in which events were overwhelming traditional religious
and political orthodoxies. Both foresaw the establishment of
a "new world order".
Both would have been aghast
at the results of their efforts. Yet, each of them came to symbolize
a cataclysmic point of change.
In the case of Jesus, the Jewish
trajectory impelled him to action. While he was a member of an
"expendable" class, he was of a lineage that carried
with it both religious authority (the Davidic line) and political
entitlement. His family was not without political influence.
His father was a member of the Herodian council which oversaw
a reaching out to Jews in Asia, Egypt and Rome. Herod saw the
program as a means of giving expression to the need to preserve
the faith among those in foreign lands. It was also a means of
obtaining enormous revenues which were used for the maintenance
of the Temple and other public works.7
The "tithes" this
program imposed for annual membership, not only enhanced a cohesive
identity amongst diaspora Jews, the corruption which came in
its wake was not unlike the corruption of papal indulgence against
which Luther rebelled.
In Jesus’ case, his movement’s
religious purity was appropriated by gnostic groups which grew
up during the same period as the Herodian Council was reaching
out to the diaspora communities. The world view embraced by gnostics
was not unlike that of Jesus himself. It was Hellenistic in origin
and was enhanced by influences from Persia and beyond in the
east. In the west, Coptic elements tempered the worship of Yahweh
and, had the great Library of Alexandria not been destroyed by
third century Christians, we would undoubtedly have a much richer
historical inventory than we have.
It is interesting to observe
that there does not appear to have been a proselytising element
to the work of the Herodian mission to the diaspora. The emphasis
was on retaining the identity of Judaism and faithfulness to
the law in the diaspora communities. Not everyone had to "keep
kosher" but it was better if one did. It was the tithe that
mattered most. Nevertheless, the ease with which these same communities
became centres of gnostic teaching, following the destruction
of the Temple and the eventual dispersal of Jews from Israel
in the second century, begs the question of doctrinal orthodoxy.
There never was a gnostic "movement"
and there never was an identifiable school of "gnosticism".
There were rather only gnostics.
Who were they? They were not
Jews. They had no interest in the Jewish leadership of James
the Just and the Jerusalem "fathers" of the faith.
Paul himself was from modern-day Turkey and a Roman citizen,
probably a relative of Herod the Great. His decision to establish
a church in Asia (i.e. Corinth) rather than in the west is of
critical interest.
The supremacy of "faith"
over law was a gnostic element and the imagery of blood, death
and bodily resurrection, and access through faith to "light"
and the godhead, fitted comfortably into the world view of the
Asian communities. Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and other Greek
elements are freely intermingled in the schools of Christian
faith which grew and were it not for the unfortunate politics
of Nicea, and church politicians such as Eusebius, might not
have prevailed.
What were the gnostics about?
First, they were concerned with the totality of human experience.
Who or what was God? Who or what was man? How does one define
the good, and how does one define evil?
Free of the tradition of Yaweh,
the quest was for a universal God who combined ALL in his own
being. Man, as the supreme creation of God, must surely be capable
of reflecting the greatness of God. Greeks knew well the principle
of opposites and the principle of harmony in nature. Man, as
the centrepiece of nature, by definition was a centrepiece of
God. Clearly too, evil was a present reality both in man and
in society, with a power to confound and to corrupt that its
source had to be cosmic in nature. If not created by God, it
must surely exist within the totality of His being.
Dualism is a term most frequently
applied to gnostic thought. God as High God, exists in a realm
sufficient unto Himself. Sophia, or Wisdom, was sent forth into
the world but returned to Himself. Lesser gods, of whom Yahweh
was only one, created man in their lesser image, and were it
not for the corruption of the body, eternal life might have been
granted by the creator to mortal men.
The cosmology and cosmogony
of gnostics was not very different from the prevailing view of
the ancient world. But gnostics interpreted it differently.
Kurt Randolph9 describes
it thus: "The earth, set according to the geocentric system
at the centre of the cosmos, is surrounded by the air and eight
heavenly spheres.
"The eight spheres consist
of the seven planets and the fixed stars which close them off.
Beyond them lies the realm of the unknown God, the Pleroma with
its own graduated worlds, or aeons … The world of the planetary
spheres is the kingdom of fate, which frequently controls earthly
affairs.
"… in mythological
fashion (this world) is inhabited by demons, gods or spirits
who often bear the name "rulers" or "commanders"
(or archons). They sometimes form entire kingdoms with such an
"archon" at its head.
"The chief archon, or
real ruler of the world, is enthroned either in the seventh heaven
or above it in the eighth, and is usually identical with the
creator of the world, the Demiurge. The sphere of the eighth
is variously evaluated: either it is still a part of the powers
which rule the world and then the seat of the Demiurge …
occasionally it is also the realm of the twelve signs of the
Zodiac which belong to the same category as the tyrannical planets.
This sphere is an intermediate kingdom which already provides
a transition to the real kingdom of light."
And here we have a problem.
Interpreted too narrowly, the historical influence of gnosticism
on the early church would lead us into doctrinal debate and a
new fanaticism to rival that of the "religious right".
Interpreted too broadly and we will find elements of Valentinianism
and certain other gnostic writers in all of the religious revolutionaries,
both sacred and secular, during the past two thousand years.
Luther’s "faith syndrome" is gnostic, and so is
historical "determinism" gnostic and the working out
of the "laws" of history would lead us through Nazism,
Marxist-Leninism and Ayn Rand.
Within the early church, we
must look for the concept of Demiurge as world creator, faith
or wisdom as female, and salvation through "gnosis"
and denial of the body by asceticism.
Evil for the Jews was the worship
of false gods, of whom there were many. Evil for Gnostics was
carnal desire or its opposite, for both released the spirit from
bondage to the corruption of physical existence. For the Jews,
the ruler of the world was the "law" and adherence
to its code would find favour in God’s eyes. Evil, to the
gnostic, was a lower god, an archon who could strike without
will and against which there was little if any protection.
As portrayed in the Christian
canon, Jesus’ theology sees God as a present reality Who
can be known directly by anyone who has "ears to hear"
or "eyes to see". His kingdom is already present and
will be made manifest immediately, ie. within his lifetime.
Clearly, Jesus was not a gnostic
but was descended from a common tradition. He was a Hellenic
Jew rather than an Orthodox. Hellenism had prevailed over the
prophets. His vision of the world and the law may have found
favour amongst pacifist Essenes. He was a threat both to Rome
and the Temple. His execution was inevitable. His movement split
in two. The orthodox church in Jerusalem established a new centre
of power in Rome under Peter, and the followers of James moved
to the east.
The attraction of Jesus for
gnostics, in my view, came from the immediacy of His vision of
God. In Jesus they saw an image of the Divine and, through an
elaborate theology based in mysticism and secrecy, they found
a route to the High God or Light.
But there is an important point
of contact between the Gospel of John and the Gnostics. John
14: 5-6 says:
"Lord we do not know where
you are going; how can we know the way? Jesus said to him, "I
am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father,
but by me."
These words on billboards throughout
the Christian world are used to imply authority for clergymen,
popes and institutions. Each has a corner on that market.
The Gospel of John also introduces
the "Logos" into the faith. If Jesus wrote the Gospel,
it was clearly written after the crucifixion and after it had
become clear that God’s Imperial Rule would be established
in the near future. What these words came to mean was self-knowledge
through faith, through belief in a creed, through dreams, and
through angels.
The "logos" comes
to us through a myriad of redactors, each with his own agenda
and authority. Perhaps, and in my view, the greatest, of these
is the psychologist Carl Jung.
"In antiquity, the orthodox
church insisted that humanity needs a way beyond its own power
– a divinely given way – to approach God."10
Elaine Pagels writes that "the
catholic church offered to those who would be lost without it,
a way to salvation."
What gnostics had in common
was an opposition to institutions. They disagreed with each other
and they disagreed with established authority about everything,
from the role of women, martyrdom and the "way" of
salvation. What they shared in common was an uncompromising individualism.
The body was evil, the body
was good. Perfection through opposites, not the Law. That was
the gnostic way.
From the Nag Hammadi scrolls
comes this poem which some scholars feel should be placed in
a new Christian canon. The poem is "Thunder: Perfect Mind".
One verse only for now.
"I am the honoured / and
the despised
I am the prostitute / and the
respected woman.
I am the wife / and the virgin
I am the mother / and the daughter.
I am the members of my mother."
11
Evil and good are part of the
same unity. The body is sinful: in lust comes goodness. There
is no room here for the Jewish trajectory of the unclean, of
a Temple, of a hereditary priesthood, of a book of wisdom or
five books of laws.. There is nothing here of Creed, dogmatics
or a divine hierarchy of bishops, priests, moderators or gurus.
Williams, in a note to chapter
7 of "Rethinking Gnosticism", quotes the 18th
century historian Johann Lorenz on this point:
"… gnostic doctrine
relating to morals and practice was of two kinds which were extremely
different from each other. The greatest part of this sect adopted
rules of life that were full of austerity … all the gnostics,
however, were not so severe in their moral discipline. Some maintained
that there was no moral difference in human actions; and thus
confounding right and wrong, they gave loose rein to all the
passions … There is nothing surprising or unaccountable
in this difference between gnostic moralists; for, when we examine
the matter with attention, we shall find that the same doctrine
may very naturally have given rise to these opposite sentiments.
As they all deemed the body the centre and the source of evil,
those of the sect who were of a morose and austere disposition
would be naturally led … to mortify and combat the body
as enemy of the soul; and those who were of a voluptuous turn
might also consider the actions of the body as having no relation,
either of congruity or incongruity, to the state of a soul in
communion with God."
The gnostic world view is popular
today amongst the New Age philosophies. Like the gnostics in
the ancient world, current writings are contradictory, quite
confusing, anti-establishment if not anarchistic, and quite exciting.
The modern philosophical base has been described by Carl Jung.
It will be interesting to see what comes of it all. But one thing
is certain. The Old World Order has passed away. It should be
buried.
------------------------------------
1 Kempton Hewitt, C.M.
"A New Plot for the Jesus Story". p. 123, Westar Institute,
Fall 1998 Meeting, Seminar Papers, Santa Rosa, CA. Kempton Hewitt,
C.M. "A New Plot for the Jesus Story". p. 123, Westar
Institute, Fall 1998 Meeting, Seminar Papers, Santa Rosa, CA.
2 "Gospel of Hebrews"
in "The Complete Gospels", Funk/Miller, Polebridge
Press. "Gospel
of Hebrews" in "The Complete Gospels", Funk/Miller,
Polebridge Press.
3 Gospel of the Ebionites"
ibid. p. 437 Gospel
of the Ebionites" ibid. p. 437
4 "Gospel of the
Nazoreans" ibid. p. 443 "Gospel of the Nazoreans"
ibid. p. 443
5 "The Crafting
of the Kingdom", Arthur J. Dewey, pp 106-7, Westar Institute,
Fall 1998 Meeting, Seminar Papers, Santa Rosa, CA. "The Crafting
of the Kingdom", Arthur J. Dewey, pp 106-7, Westar Institute,
Fall 1998 Meeting, Seminar Papers, Santa Rosa, CA.
6 Thiering, Barbara.
"Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Doubleday.
"Jesus of the Apocalypse: The Life and Times of Jesus After
the Crucifixion". Doubleday. "The Book that Jesus Wrote",
Doubleday. Thiering,
Barbara. "Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls",
Doubleday. "Jesus of the Apocalypse: The Life and Times
of Jesus After the Crucifixion". Doubleday. "The Book
that Jesus Wrote", Doubleday.
7 Crossan, John Dominic.
"The Historical Jesus: The Life and Times of a Mediterranean
Jewish Peasant". Harper, San Francisco.
Crossan, John Dominic.
"The Historical Jesus: The Life and Times of a Mediterranean
Jewish Peasant". Harper, San Francisco.
8 "Rethinking Gnosticism".
Michael Allen Williams, Princeton, p. 292.
"Rethinking Gnosticism".
Michael Allen Williams, Princeton, p. 292.
9 "Gnosis",
Kurt Rudolph. Harper and Row, pp 64 - 67.
"Gnosis", Kurt
Rudolph. Harper and Row, pp 64 - 67.
10 "The Gnostic
Gospels". Elaine Pagels, Random House. 120 - 1 "The Gnostic
Gospels". Elaine Pagels, Random House. 120 - 1
11 "Gnosis".
Kurt Randolph, p. 81. "Gnosis". Kurt Randolph, p. 81.