Welcome to the Lazy Worms Library.

• All lazy book worm post rewards will be given to the Hive Fund.
• All Lazy Book Worm Posts will be a series of various different books for the studying book nerd.
• For the reason of studying only, these posts will be broken down into chapters one by one until the collection is complete
• All finished series will be posted in the curated collection community
• A series is just one book and its chapters and contents separated into different publications
• The Lazy Book Worm does not own any of books except in free pdf format.
• The Lazy Book Worm Knows Not To Use Books That Are Not Belonging To The Public Domain
• All Lazy Book Worm originals Contain Books To Enhance Critical Thinking, Provide Wisdom, Point to where one can obtain enlightened perspectives, etc.
• The Lazy Book Worm Needs Your Help In Acquiring Quality Books To Post Chapter by Chapter.
• Tha Lazy Book Worm Thanks you for reading the content within. If you have any questions about any of the material, please leave a comment to discuss.
• The Lazy Book Worm is open to discuss any topic.
• Who is The Lazy Book Worm? Could be you! ;)

I was once told that it didn't matter what we read so long as we read something. I then read along my journey something along the lines of "It does matter what quality of books we read".

I had experienced a large quantity of books that doesn't deserve to be read in my opinion. On the other side of the coin I have read even more books that deserved a second look. Here is my attempt to go over once again those ancient wonders.

Wisdom has been my ultimate aim and I wish to share the wisdom I have come across written by the well respected intellectuals of our society throughout our history of old. These types are the ones that gave truth and was punished for it.

Now we have the same opportunity as our fallen brothers and sisters who inclined themselves to truth to prove ourselves once again. The times are no different. We are under the same conditions despite technology. Truth is suppressed but truth will rise again like the Phoenix inside the children. I hope that saving these books on the blockchain will do us a great deal of jope to those that wish to burn knowledge from the masses.

Enjoy yourselves as we take each book bit by bit.

Remember, study, learn, question everything, debate, and most importantly have fun and be respectful with the opinions of others.

Good day

Image captions by me from Tenor Click here for original gif

Read it yourself here in pdf by the internet archive

Also by Elaine Pagels

• THE JOHANNINE GOSPEL IN GNOSTIC EXEGESIS
• THE GNOSTIC PAUL: GNOSTIC EXEGESIS
  OF THE PAULINE LETTERS
• ADAM, EVE, AND THE SERPENT

VINTAGE BOOKS EDITION, SEPTEMBER 1989
Copyright © 1979 by Elaine Pagels
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright
Conventions. Published in the United States by Vintage Books, a division
of Random House, Inc., New York, and in Canada by Random House of
Canada Limited, Toronto. Originally published by Random House, Inc.,
New York, in 1979.
Since this page cannot legibly accommodate all acknowledgments to reproduce
previously published material, they appear on the opposite page.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Pagels, Elaine H 1943-
The gnostic gospels.
Originally published in 1979 by Random House,
New York.
Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Gnosticism.
2. Chenoboskion manuscripts.
   I. Title.
   BT1390.P3 1981 273’.1 80-12341
   ISBN 0-679-72453-2 (pbk.)
   Manufactured in the United States of America
   79C8

Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following for permission to reprint
previously published material:
Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches
of Christ in the U.S.A.: Excerpts from the New Testament. The Scripture
quotations in this publication are from the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible, copyrighted 1946, 1952, © 1971, 1973 by the Division of Christian
Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.,
and used by permission.
Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co.: Excerpts from Tertullian, Iranaeus and
Hippolytus. Reprinted from The Ante Nicene Fathers by permission of the
Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.: Excerpts from The Nag Hammadi Library by
James M. Robinson. Copyright © 1977 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The
Netherlands. Reprinted by permission of E. J. Brill and Harper & Row,
Publishers, Inc.
Harvard University Press: Excerpts from Clement and Ignatius, in The
Apostolic Fathers, 1912, The Loeb Classical Library, translated by Kirsopp
Lake. Reprinted by permission of Harvard University Press.
Lutterworth Press and The Westminster Press: Excerpts from New
Testament Apocrypha, Volume I, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and
Edgar Hennecke. English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson. Published
in the U.S.A. by The Westminster Press, 1963. Copyright © 1959 J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen. English translation © 1963 Lutterworth
Press. Excerpts from New Testament Apocrypha, Volume II, edited by
Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Edgar Hennecke. English translation edited
by R. McL. Wilson. Published in the U.S.A. by The Westminster Press,

1. Copyright © 1964 J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen. English
   translation © 1965 Lutterworth Press. Used by permission.
   Oxford University Press: Excerpts from The Acts of the Christian Martyrs,
   translated by Herbert Musurillo. Copyright © Oxford University Press
2. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

To Elizabeth Diggs and Sharon Olds
in loving friendship

CONTENTS

Introduction

I The Controversy over Christ's Resurrection: Historical Event or Symbol?

II "One God, One Bishop": The Politics of Monotheism

III God the Father/God the Mother

IV The Passion of Christ and
the Persecution of Christians

V Whose Church Is the "True Church"?

VI Gnosis: Self-Knowledge as Knowledge of God

Conclusion
Notes
Index

I

The Controversy over Christ's Resurrection: Historical Event or Symbol?

"JESUS CHRIST ROSE from the grave." With this proclamation, the
Christian church began. This may be the fundamental element of
Christian faith; certainly it is the most radical. Other religions
celebrate cycles of birth and death: Christianity insists that in one
unique historical moment, the cycle reversed, and a dead man came
back to life! For Jesus' followers this was the turning point in world
history, the sign of its coming end. Orthodox Christians since then
have confessed in the creed that Jesus of Nazareth, "crucified, dead,
and buried," was raised "on the third day."1
Many today recite that
creed without thinking about what they are saying, much less
actually believing it. Recently some ministers, theologians, and
scholars have challenged the literal view of resurrection. To account
for this doctrine, they point out its psychological appeal to our
deepest fears and hopes; to explain it, they offer symbolic
interpretations. But much of the early tradition insists literally that
a man —Jesus—had come back to life. What makes these Christian accounts so extraordinary is not the claim that his friends had "seen"
Jesus after his death—ghost stories, hallucinations, and visions were
even more commonplace then than now—but that they saw an
actual human being. At first, according to Luke, the disciples
themselves, in their astonishment and terror at the appearance of
Jesus among them, immediately assumed that they were seeing his
ghost. But Jesus challenged them: "Handle me and see, for a spirit
does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have."2
Since they
remained incredulous, he asked for something to eat; as they
watched in amazement, he ate a piece of broiled fish. The point is
clear: no ghost could do that.
Had they said that Jesus' spirit lived on, surviving bodily decay, their
contemporaries might have thought that their stories made sense.
Five hundred years before, Socrates' disciples had claimed that their
teacher's soul was immortal. But what the Christians said was
different, and, in ordinary terms, wholly implausible. The finality of
death, which had always been a part of the human experience, was
being transformed. Peter contrasts King David, who died and was
buried, and whose tomb was well known, with Jesus, who, although
killed, rose from the grave, "because it was not possible for him to be
held by it"—that is, by death.3
Luke says that Peter excluded
metaphorical interpretation of the event he said he witnessed: "[We]
ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."4
Tertullian, a brilliantly talented writer (A.D. C. 190), speaking for the
majority, defines the orthodox position: as Christ rose bodily from
the grave, so every believer should anticipate the resurrection of the
flesh. He leaves no room for doubt. He is not, he says, talking about
the immortality of the soul: "The salvation of the soul I believe needs
no discussion: for almost all heretics, in whatever way they accept it,
at least do not deny it."5 What is raised is "this flesh, suffused with
blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with
veins, (a flesh) which . . . was born, and . . . dies, undoubtedly
human."6 Tertullian expects the idea of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection to shock his readers; he insists that "it must be believed,
because it is absurd! "7
Yet some Christians—those he calls heretics—dissent. Without
denying the resurrection, they reject the literal interpretation; some
find it "extremely revolting, repugnant, and impossible." Gnostic
Christians interpret resurrection in various ways. Some say that the
person who experiences the resurrection does not meet Jesus raised
physically back to life; rather, he encounters Christ on a spiritual
level. This may occur in dreams, in ecstatic trance, in visions, or in
moments of spiritual illumination. But the orthodox condemn all
such interpretations; Tertullian declares that anyone who denies the
resurrection of the flesh is a heretic, not a Christian.
Why did orthodox tradition adopt the literal view of resurrection?
The question becomes even more puzzling when we look at what the
New Testament says about it. Some accounts, like the story we noted
from Luke, tell how Jesus appears to his disciples in the form they
know from his earthly life; he eats with them, and invites them to
touch him, to prove that he is "not a ghost." John tells a similar
story: Thomas declares that he will not believe that Jesus had
actually risen from the grave unless he personally can see and touch
him. When Jesus appears, he tells Thomas, "Put your finger here,
and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do
not be faithless, but believing."8
But other stories, directly juxtaposed
with these, suggest different views of the resurrection. Luke and
Mark both relate that Jesus appeared "in another form"9
—not his
former earthly form—to two disciples as they walked on the road to
Emmaus. Luke says that the disciples, deeply troubled about Jesus'
death, talked with the stranger, apparently for several hours. They
invited him to dinner; when he sat down with them to bless the
bread, suddenly they recognized him as Jesus. At that moment "he
vanished out of their sight."10 John, too, places directly before the
story of "doubting Thomas" another of a very different kind: Mary Magdalene, mourning for Jesus near his grave, sees a man she takes
to be the gardener. When he speaks her name, suddenly she
recognizes the presence of Jesus—but he orders her not to touch
him.11
So if some of the New Testament stories insist on a literal view of
resurrection, others lend themselves to different interpretations.
One could suggest that certain people, in moments of great
emotional stress, suddenly felt that they experienced Jesus' presence.
Paul's experience can be read this way. As he traveled on the
Damascus road, intent on arresting Christians, "suddenly a light
from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground," hearing
the voice of Jesus rebuking him for the intended persecution.12 One
version of this story says, "The men who were traveling with him
stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one";13 another
says the opposite (as Luke tells it, Paul said that "those who were
with me saw the light, but did not hear the voice of the one who was
speaking to me").14 Paul himself, of course, later defended the
teaching on resurrection as fundamental to Christian faith. But
although his discussion often is read as an argument for bodily
resurrection, it concludes with the words "I tell you this, brethren:
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the
perishable [that is, the mortal body] inherit the imperishable."15 Paul
describes the resurrection as "a mystery,"16 the transformation from
physical to spiritual existence.
If the New Testament accounts could support a range of
interpretations, why did orthodox Christians in the second century
insist on a literal view of resurrection and reject all others as
heretical? I suggest that we cannot answer this question adequately
as long as we consider the doctrine only in terms of its religious
content. But when we examine its practical effect on the Christian
movement, we can see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of bodily
resurrection also serves an essential political function: it legitimizes
the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive
leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter.
From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of
papal authority to this day. Gnostic Christians who interpret
resurrection in other ways have a lesser claim to authority: when
they claim priority over the orthodox, they are denounced as
heretics.
Such political and religious authority developed in a most
remarkable way. As we have noted, diverse forms of Christianity
flourished in the early years of the Christian movement. Hundreds
of rival teachers all claimed to teach the "true doctrine of Christ" and
denounced one another as frauds. Christians in churches scattered
from Asia Minor to Greece, Jerusalem, and Rome split into factions,
arguing over church leadership. All claimed to represent "the
authentic tradition."
How could Christians resolve such contrary claims? Jesus himself
was the only authority they all recognized. Even during his lifetime,
among the small group traveling through Palestine with him, no one
challenged—and no one matched—the authority of Jesus himself.
Independent and assertive a leader as he was, Jesus censured such
traits among his followers. Mark relates that when James and John
came to him privately to ask for special positions in his
administration, he spoke out sharply against their ambition:
You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it
over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it
shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you
must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be
slave of all.17
After Jesus' execution his followers scattered, shaken with grief and
terrified for their own lives. Most assumed that their enemies were
right—the movement had died with their master. Suddenly,
astonishing news electrified the group. Luke says that they heard
that "the Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon [Peter]!"18
What had he said to Peter? Luke's account suggested to Christians
in later generations that he named Peter as his successor, delegating the leadership to him. Matthew says that
during his lifetime Jesus already had decided that Peter, the "rock,"
was to found the future institution.19 Only John claims to tell what
the risen Christ said: he told Peter that he was to take Jesus' place as
"shepherd" for the flock.20
Whatever the truth of this claim, we can neither verify nor disprove
it on historical grounds alone. We have only secondhand testimony
from believers who affirm it, and skeptics who deny it. But what we
do know as historical fact is that certain disciples—notably, Peter—
claimed that the resurrection had happened. More important, we
know the result: shortly after Jesus' death, Peter took charge of the
group as its leader and spokesman. According to John, he had
received his authority from the only source the group recognized—
from Jesus himself, now speaking from beyond the grave.
What linked the group gathered around Jesus with the world-wide
organization that developed within 170 years of his death into a
three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons? Christians in
later generations maintained that it was the claim that Jesus himself
had come back to life! The German scholar Hans von Campenhausen
says that because "Peter was the first to whom Jesus appeared after
his resurrection,"21 Peter became the first leader of the Christian
community. One can dispute Campenhausen's claim on the basis of
New Testament evidence: the gospels of Mark and John both name
Mary Magdalene, not Peter, as the first witness of the resurrection.22
But orthodox churches that trace their origin to Peter developed the
tradition—sustained to this day among Catholic and some
Protestant churches—that Peter had been the "first witness of the
resurrection," and hence the rightful leader of the church. As early
as the second century, Christians realized the potential political
consequences of having "seen the risen Lord": in Jerusalem, where
James, Jesus' brother, successfully rivaled Peter's authority, one
tradition maintained that James, not Peter (and certainly not Mary
Magdalene) was the "first witness of the resurrection."

New Testament evidence indicates that Jesus appeared to many
others besides Peter—Paul says that once he appeared to five
hundred people simultaneously. But from the second century,
orthodox churches developed the view that only certain resurrection
appearances actually conferred authority on those who received
them. These were Jesus' appearances to Peter and to "the eleven" (the
disciples minus Judas Iscariot, who had betrayed Jesus and
committed suicide).23 The orthodox noted the account in Matthew,
which tells how the resurrected Jesus announced to "the eleven" that
his own authority now has reached cosmic proportions: "All
authority, on heaven and on earth, has been given to me." Then he
delegated that authority to "the eleven disciples."24 Luke, too,
indicates that although many others had known Jesus, and even had
witnessed his resurrection, "the eleven" alone held the position of
official witnesses—and hence became official leaders of the whole
community. Luke relates that Peter, acting as spokesman for the
group, proposed that since Judas Iscariot had defected, a twelfth man
should now "take the office" that he vacated, restoring the group as
"the twelve."25 But to receive a share in the disciples' authority, Peter
declared that he must be
one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the
Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of
John until the day he was taken up from us—one of these men must become
with us a witness to his resurrection.
26
Matthias, who met these qualifications, was selected and "enrolled
with the eleven apostles."27
After forty days, having completed the transfer of power, he
resurrected Lord abruptly withdrew his bodily presence from them,
and ascended into heaven as they watched in amazement.28 Luke,
who tells the story, sees this as a momentous event. Henceforth, for
the duration of the world, no one would ever experience Christ's
actual presence as the twelve disciples had during his lifetime—and
for forty days after his death. After that time, as Luke tells it, others received only less direct forms of
communication with Christ. Luke admits that Stephen saw a vision
of Jesus "standing at the right hand of God";29 that Paul first
encountered Jesus in a dramatic vision, and later in a trance30 (Luke
claims to record his words: "When I had returned to Jerusalem and
was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him speaking
to me"31). Yet Luke's account implies that these incidents cannot
compare with the original events attested by the Twelve. In the first
place, they occurred to persons not included among the Twelve.
Second, they occurred only after Jesus' bodily ascension to heaven.
Third, although visions, dreams, and ecstatic trances manifested
traces of Christ's spiritual presence, the experience of the Twelve
differed entirely. They alone, having known Jesus throughout his
lifetime, could testify to those unique events which they knew
firsthand—and to the resurrection of one who was dead to his
complete, physical presence with them.32
Whatever we think of the historicity of the orthodox account, we
can admire its ingenuity. For this theory—that all authority derives
from certain apostles' experience of the resurrected Christ, an
experience now closed forever—bears enormous implications for the
political structure of the community. First, as the German scholar
Karl Holl has pointed out, it restricts the circle of leadership to a
small band of persons whose members stand in a position of
incontestable authority.33 Second, it suggests that only the apostles
had the right to ordain future leaders as their successors.34
Christians in the second century used Luke's account to set the
groundwork for establishing specific, restricted chains of command
for all future generations of Christians. Any potential leader of the
community would have to derive, or claim to derive, authority from
the same apostles. Yet, according to the orthodox view, none can ever
claim to equal their authority—much less challenge it. What the
apostles experienced and attested their successors cannot verify for
themselves; instead, they must only believe, protect, and hand down
to future generations the apostles' testimony.35

This theory gained extraordinary success: for nearly 2,000 years,
orthodox Christians have accepted the view that the apostles alone
held definitive religious authority, and that their only legitimate
heirs are priests and bishops, who trace their ordination back to that
same apostolic succession. Even today the pope traces his—and the
primacy he claims over the rest—to Peter himself, "first of the
apostles," since he was "first witness of the resurrection."
But the gnostic Christians rejected Luke's theory. Some gnostics
called the literal view of resurrection the "faith of fools."36 The
resurrection, they insisted, was not a unique event in the past:
instead, it symbolized how Christ's presence could be experienced in
the present. What mattered was not literal seeing, but spiritual
vision.37 They pointed out that many who witnessed the events of
Jesus' life remained blind to their meaning. The disciples themselves
often misunderstood what Jesus said: those who announced that
their dead master had come back physically to life mistook a
spiritual truth for an actual event.38 But the true disciple may never
have seen the earthly Jesus, having been born at the wrong time, as
Paul said of himself.39 Yet this physical disability may become a
spiritual advantage: such persons, like Paul, may encounter Christ
first on the level of inner experience.
How is Christ's presence experienced? The author of the Gospel of
Mary, one of the few gnostic texts discovered before Nag Hammadi,
interprets the resurrection appearances as visions received in
dreams or in ecstatic trance. This gnostic gospel recalls traditions
recorded in Mark and John, that Mary Magdalene was the first to see
the risen Christ.40 John says that Mary saw Jesus on the morning of
his resurrection, and that he appeared to the other disciples only
later, on the evening of the same day.41 According to the Gospel of
Mary, Mary Magdalene, seeing the Lord in a vision, asked him, "How
does he who sees the vision see it? [Through] the soul, [or] through
the spirit?"42 He answered that the visionary perceives through the
mind. The Apocalypse of Peter, discovered at Nag Hammadi, tells how Peter, deep in trance, saw Christ, who explained that "I am the
intellectual spirit, filled with radiant light."43 Gnostic accounts often
mention how the recipients respond to Christ's presence with
intense emotions—terror, awe, distress, and joy.
Yet these gnostic writers do not dismiss visions as fantasies or
hallucinations. They respect—even revere—such experiences,
through which spiritual intuition discloses insight into the nature
of reality. One gnostic teacher, whose Treatise on Resurrection, a letter
to Rheginos, his student, was found at Nag Hammadi, says: "Do not
suppose that resurrection is an apparition [phantasia; literally,
"fantasy"]. It is not an apparition; rather it is something real.
Instead," he continues, "one ought to maintain that the world is an
apparition, rather than resurrection."44 Like a Buddhist master,
Rheginos' teacher, himself anonymous, goes on to explain that
ordinary human existence is spiritual death. But the resurrection is
the moment of enlightenment: "It is . . . the revealing of what truly
exists . . . and a migration (metabole—change, transition) into
newness."45 Whoever grasps this becomes spiritually alive. This
means, he declares, that you can be "resurrected from the dead" right
now: "Are you—the real you—mere corruption? . . . Why do you not
examine your own self, and see that you have arisen?"46 A third text
from Nag Hammadi, the Gospel of Philip, expresses the same view,
ridiculing ignorant Christians who take the resurrection literally.
"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error."47
Instead they must "receive the resurrection while they live." The
author says ironically that in one sense, then, of course "it is
necessary to rise 'in this flesh,' since everything exists in it! "48
What interested these gnostics far more than past events attributed
to the "historical Jesus" was the possibility of encountering the risen
Christ in the present.49 The Gospel of Mary illustrates the contrast
between orthodox and gnostic viewpoints. The account recalls what
Mark relates:
Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first
to Mary Magdalene . . . She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when
they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not
believe it.50
As the Gospel of Mary opens, the disciples are mourning Jesus' death
and terrified for their own lives. Then Mary Magdalene stands up to
encourage them, recalling Christ's continual presence with them:
"Do not weep, and do not grieve, and do not doubt; for his grace will
be with you completely, and will protect you."51 Peter invites Mary to
"tell us the words of the Savior which you remember."52 But to
Peter's surprise, Mary does not tell anecdotes from the past; instead,
she explains that she has just seen the Lord in a vision received
through the mind, and she goes on to tell what he revealed to her.
When Mary finishes,
she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with
her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, "Say what you will
about what she has said. I, at least, do not believe that the Savior has
said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas! "53
Peter agrees with Andrew, ridiculing the idea that Mary actually saw
the Lord in her vision. Then, the story continues,
Mary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do
you think that I thought this up myself in my heart? Do you think I am
lying about the Savior?" Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter, you
have always been hot-tempered . . . If the Savior made her worthy, who
are you to reject her?"54
Finally Mary, vindicated, joins the other apostles as they go out to
preach. Peter, apparently representing the orthodox position, looks
to past events, suspicious of those who "see the Lord" in visions:
Mary, representing the gnostic, claims to experience his continuing
presence.55
These gnostics recognized that their theory, like the orthodox one,
bore political implications. It suggests that whoever "sees the Lord"
through inner vision can claim that his or her own authority equals, or surpasses, that of the Twelve—and of their
successors. Consider the political implications of the Gospel of Mary:
Peter and Andrew, here representing the leaders of the orthodox
group, accuse Mary—the gnostic—of pretending to have seen the
Lord in order to justify the strange ideas, fictions, and lies she
invents and attributes to divine inspiration. Mary lacks the proper
credentials for leadership, from the orthodox viewpoint: she is not
one of the "twelve." But as Mary stands up to Peter, so the gnostics
who take her as their prototype challenge the authority of those
priests and bishops who claim to be Peter's successors.
We know that gnostic teachers challenged the orthodox in precisely
this way. While, according to them, the orthodox relied solely on the
public, exoteric teaching which Christ and the apostles offered to
"the many," gnostic Christians claimed to offer, in addition, their
secret teaching, known only to the few.56 The gnostic teacher and poet
Valentinus (c. 140) points out that even during his lifetime, Jesus
shared with his disciples certain mysteries, which he kept secret
from outsiders.57 According to the New Testament gospel of Mark,
Jesus said to his disciples,
. . . "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for
those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but
not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should
turn again, and be forgiven."58
Matthew, too, relates that when Jesus spoke in public, he spoke only
in parables; when his disciples asked the reason, he replied, "To you
it has been given to know the secrets [mysteria; literally, "mysteries"]
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."59
According to the gnostics, some of the disciples, following his
instructions, kept secret Jesus' esoteric teaching: this they taught
only in private, to certain persons who had proven themselves to be
spiritually mature, and who therefore qualified for "initiation into gnosis"—that is, into secret knowledge.
Following the crucifixion, they allege that the risen Christ
continued to reveal himself to certain disciples, opening to them,
through visions, new insights into divine mysteries. Paul, referring
to himself obliquely in the third person, says that he was "caught up
to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do
not know." There, in an ecstatic trance, he heard "things that cannot
be told, which man may not utter."60 Through his spiritual
communication with Christ, Paul says he discovered "hidden
mysteries" and "secret wisdom," which, he explains, he shares only
with those Christians he considers "mature"61 but not with every-
one. Many contemporary Biblical scholars, themselves orthodox,
have followed Rudolph Bultmann, who insists that Paul does not
mean what he says in this passage.62 They argue that Paul does not
claim to have a secret tradition; such a claim would apparently make
Paul sound too "gnostic." Recently Professor Robin Scroggs has taken
the opposite view, pointing out that Paul clearly says that he does
have secret wisdom.63 Gnostic Christians in ancient times came to
the same conclusion. Valentinus, the gnostic poet who traveled from
Egypt to teach in Rome (c. 140), even claimed that he himself learned
Paul's secret teaching from Theudas, one of Paul's own disciples.
Followers of Valentinus say that only their own gospels and
revelations disclose those secret teachings. These writings tell
countless stories about the risen Christ—the spiritual being whom
Jesus represented—a figure who fascinated them far more than the
merely human Jesus, the obscure rabbi from Nazareth. For this
reason, gnostic writings often reverse the pattern of the New
Testament gospels. Instead of telling the history of Jesus
biographically, from birth to death, gnostic accounts begin where the
others end—with stories of the spiritual Christ appearing to his
disciples. The Apocryphon of John, for example, begins as John tells
how he went out after the crucifixion in "great grief":
Immediately . . . the [heavens were opened, and the whole] creation
[which is] under heaven shone, and [the world] was shaken. [I was
afraid, and I] saw in the light [a child] . . . while I looked he became like
an old man. And he [changed his] form again, becoming like a servant . . .
I saw . . . a[n image] with multiple forms in the light . . ,64
As he marveled, the presence spoke:
"John, Jo[h]n, why do you doubt, and why are you afraid? You are not
unfamiliar with this form, are you? . . . Do not be afraid! I am the one
who [is with you] always . . . [I have come to teach] you what is [and
what was], and what will come to [be] . . ."65
The Letter of Peter to Philip, also discovered at Nag Hammadi, relates
that after Jesus' death, the disciples were praying on the Mount of
Olives when
a great light appeared, so that the mountain shone from the sight of
him who had appeared. And a voice called out to them saying "Listen . . .
I am Jesus Christ, who is with you forever."66
Then, as the disciples ask him about the secrets of the universe, "a
voice came out of the light" answering them. The Wisdom of Jesus
Christ tells a similar story. Here again the disciples are gathered on a
mountain after Jesus' death, when "then there appeared to them the
Redeemer, not in his original form but in the invisible spirit. But his
appearance was the appearance of a great angel of light." Responding
to their amazement and terror, he smiles, and offers to teach them
the "secrets [mysteria; literally, "mysteries"] of the holy plan" of the
universe and its destiny.67
But the contrast with the orthodox view is striking.68 Here Jesus
does not appear in the ordinary human form the disciples
recognize—and certainly not in bodily form. Either he appears as a
luminous presence speaking out of the light, or he transforms
himself into multiple forms. The Gospel of Philip takes up the same
theme:
Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not reveal himself in the
manner [in which] he was, but in the manner in which [they would] be
able to see him. He revealed himself to [them all. He revealed himself] to
the great as great. . . (and) to the small as small.69
To the immature disciple, Jesus appears as a child; to the mature, as
an old man, symbol of wisdom. As the gnostic teacher Theodotus
says, "each person recognizes the Lord in his own way, not all alike."70
Orthodox leaders, including Irenaeus, accused the gnostics of fraud.
Such texts as those discovered at Nag Hammadi—the Gospel of
Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Letter of Peter to Philip, and the
Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John—proved, according to Irenaeus, that
the heretics were trying to pass off as "apostolic" what they
themselves had invented. He declares that the followers of the
gnostic teacher Valentinus, being "utterly reckless,"
put forth their own compositions, while boasting that they have more
gospels than there really are . . . They really have no gospel which is not
full of blasphemy. For what they have published . . . is totally unlike
what has been handed down to us from the apostles.71
What proves the validity of the four gospels, Irenaeus says, is that
they actually were written by Jesus' own disciples and their
followers, who personally witnessed the events they described. Some
contemporary Biblical scholars have challenged this view: few today
believe that contemporaries of Jesus actually wrote the New
Testament gospels. Although Irenaeus, defending their exclusive
legitimacy, insisted that they were written by Jesus' own followers,
we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels
we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We only know that these
writings are attributed to apostles (Matthew and John) or followers
of the apostles (Mark and Luke).
Gnostic authors, in the same way, attributed their secret writings to
various disciples. Like those who wrote the New Testament gospels, they may have received some of their material
from early traditions. But in other cases, the accusation that the
gnostics invented what they wrote contains some truth: certain
gnostics openly acknowledged that they derived their gnosis from
their own experience.
How, for example, could a Christian living in the second century
write the Secret Book of John? We could imagine the author in the
situation he attributes to John at the opening of the book: troubled
by doubts, he begins to ponder the meaning of Jesus' mission and
destiny. In the process of such internal questioning, answers may
occur spontaneously to the mind; changing patterns of images may
appear. The person who understands this process not in terms of
modern psychology, as the activity of the imagination or
unconscious, but in religious terms, could experience these as forms
of spiritual communication with Christ. Seeing his own communion
with Christ as a continuation of what the disciples enjoyed, the
author, when he casts the "dialogue" into literary form, could well
give to them the role of the questioners. Few among his
contemporaries— except the orthodox, whom he considers "literal-
minded"—would accuse him of forgery; rather, the titles of these
works indicate that they were written "in the spirit" of John, Mary
Magdalene, Philip, or Peter.
Attributing a writing to a specific apostle may also bear a symbolic
meaning. The title of the Gospel of Mary suggests that its revelation
came from a direct, intimate communication with the Savior. The
hint of an erotic relationship between him and Mary Magdalene may
indicate claims to mystical communion; throughout history, mystics
of many traditions have chosen sexual metaphors to describe their
experiences. The titles of the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas
the Contender (attributed to Jesus' "twin brother") may suggest that
"you, the reader, are Jesus' twin brother." Whoever comes to
understand these books discovers, like Thomas, that Jesus is his
"twin," his spiritual "other self." Jesus' words to Thomas, then, are
addressed to the reader:
"Since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion,
examine yourself so that you may understand who you are . . . I am the
knowledge of the truth. So while you accompany me, although you do
not understand (it), you already have come to know, and you will be
called 'the one who knows himself.' For whoever has not known himself
has known nothing, but whoever has known himself has
simultaneously achieved knowledge about the depth of all things."72
Like circles of artists today, gnostics considered original creative
invention to be the mark of anyone who becomes spiritually alive.
Each one, like students of a painter or writer, expected to express his
own perceptions by revising and transforming what he was taught.
Whoever merely repeated his teacher's words was considered
immature. Bishop Irenaeus complains that
every one of them generates something new every day, according to his
ability; for no one is considered initiated [or: "mature"] among them
unless he develops some enormous fictions!73
He charges that "they boast that they are the discoverers and
inventors of this kind of imaginary fiction," and accuses them of
creating new forms of mythological poetry. No doubt he is ight:
first- and second-century gnostic literature includes some
remarkable poems, like the "Round Dance of the Cross"74 and the
"Thunder, Perfect Mind." Most offensive, from his point of view, is
that they admit that nothing supports their writings except their
own intuition. When challenged, "they either mention mere human
feelings, or else refer to the harmony that can be seen in creation":75
They are to be blamed for . . . describing human feelings, and passions,
and mental tendencies . . . and ascribing the things that happen to
human beings, and whatever they recognize themselves as experiencing, to the
divine Word.76

On this basis, like artists, they express their own insight—their own
gnosis—by creating new myths, poems, rituals, "dialogues" with
Christ, revelations, and accounts of their visions.
Like Baptists, Quakers, and many others, the gnostic is convinced
that whoever receives the spirit communicates directly with the
divine. One of Valentinus' students, the gnostic teacher Heracleon
(c. 160), says that "at first, people believe because of the testimony of
others . . ." but then "they come to believe from the truth itself."77 So
his own teacher, Valentinus, claimed to have first learned Paul's
secret teaching; then he experienced a vision which became the
source of his own gnosis:
He saw a newborn infant, and when he asked who he might be, the
child answered, "I am the Logos."78
Marcus, another student of Valentinus' (c. 150), who went on to
become a teacher himself, tells how he came to his own firsthand
knowledge of the truth. He says that a vision
descended upon him . . . in the form of a woman . . . and expounded to
him alone its own nature, and the origin of things, which it had never
revealed to anyone, divine or human.79
The presence then said to him,
"I wish to show you Truth herself; for I have brought her down from
above, so that you may see her without a veil, and understand her
beauty."80
And that, Marcus adds, is how "the naked Truth" came to him in a
woman's form, disclosing her secrets to him. Marcus expects, in
turn, that everyone whom he initiates into gnosis will also receive
such experiences. In the initiation ritual, after invoking the spirit, he
commands the candidate to speak in prophecy,81 to demonstrate that
the person has received direct contact with the divine.
What differentiates these gnostics from those who, throughout the
history of Christianity, have claimed to receive special visions and
revelations, and who have expressed these in art, poetry, and mystical literature? Christians who stand in orthodox
tradition, Catholics and Protestants, expect that the revelations they
receive will confirm (in principle, at least) apostolic tradition: this,
they agree, sets the boundaries of Christian faith. The apostles'
original teaching remains the criterion; whatever deviates is heresy.
Bishop Irenaeus declares that the apostles,
like a rich man (depositing money) in a bank, placed in the church fully
everything that belongs to truth: so that everyone, whoever will, can
draw from her the water of life.82
The orthodox Christian believes "the one and only truth from the
apostles, which is handed down by the church." And he accepts no
gospels but the four in the New Testament which erve as the canon
(literally, "guideline") to measure all future doctrine and practice.
But the gnostic Christians, whom Irenaeus opposed, assumed that
they had gone far beyond the apostles' original teaching. Just as
many people today assume that the most recent experiments in
science or psychology will surpass earlier ones, so the gnostics
anticipated that the present and future would yield a continual
increase in knowledge. Irenaeus takes this as proof of their
arrogance:
They consider themselves "mature," so that no one can be compared
with them in the greatness of their gnosis, not even if you mention Peter
or Paul or any of the other apostles. . . . They imagine that they
themselves have discovered more than the apostles, and that the
apostles preached the gospel still under the influence of Jewish
opinions, but that they themselves are wiser and more intelligent than
the apostles.83
And those who consider themselves "wiser than the apostles" also
consider themselves "wiser than the priests."84 For what the gnostics
say about the apostles—and, in particular, about the Twelve—
expresses their attitude toward the priests and bishops, who claim to
stand in the orthodox apostolic succession.
But despite their emphasis on free creativity, some gnostic teachers—rather inconsistently—claim to have their own, secret
sources of "apostolic tradition." Thereby they claim access to
different lines of apostolic sucession from that commonly accepted
in the churches. The gnostic teacher Ptolemy explains to Flora, a
woman he sees as a potential initiate, that "we too have received"
apostolic tradition from a sucession of teachers— one that, he says,
offers an esoteric supplement to the canonical collection of Jesus'
words.85
Gnostic authors often attribute their own traditions to persons who
stand outside the circle of the Twelve—Paul, Mary Magdalene, and
James. Some insist that the Twelve—including Peter—had not
received gnosis when they first witnessed to Christ's resurrection.
Another group of gnostics, called Sethians because they identified
themselves as sons of Seth, the third child of Adam and Eve, say that
the disciples, deluded by "a very great error," imagined that Christ
had risen from the dead in bodily form. But the risen Christ
appeared to "a few of these disciples, who he recognized were capable
of understanding such great mysteries,"86 and taught them to
understand his resurrection in spiritual, not physical, terms.
Furthermore, as we have seen, the Gospel of Mary depicts Mary
Magdalene (never recognized as an apostle by the orthodox) as the
one favored with visions and insight that far surpass Peter's. The
Dialogue of the Savior praises her not only as a visionary, but as the
apostle who excels all the rest. She is the "woman who knew the
All."87 Valentinus claims that his apostolic tradition comes from
Paul—another outsider to the Twelve, but one of the greatest
authorities of the orthodox, and, after Luke, the author most
extensively represented in the New Testament.
Other gnostics explain that certain members of the Twelve later
received special visions and revelations, and so attained enlight-
enment. The Apocalypse of Peter describes how Peter, deep in trance,
experiences the presence of Christ, who opens his eyes to spiritual
insight:
[The Savior] said to me . . .,". . . put your hands upon (your) eyes . . . and
say what you see!" But when I had done it, I did not see anything. I said, "No one sees (this way)."
Again he told me, "Do it again." And there came into 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 the things which I saw.88
The Secret Book of James tells how "the twelve disciples were all sitting
together and recalling what the Savior had said to each one of them,
whether in secret or openly, and [setting it in order] in books."89 But
when Christ appeared, he chose Peter and James, and drew them
apart from the rest to tell them what the others were not to know.
Either version of this theory bears the same implication: it asserts
the superiority of gnostic forms of secret tradition—and hence, of
gnostic teachers—over that of the priests and bishops, who can offer
only "common" tradition. Further, ecause earlier traditions, from
this point of view, are at best incomplete, and at worst simply false,
gnostic Christians continually drew upon their own spiritual
experience—their own gnosis—to revise and transform them.
But what gnostics celebrated as proof of spiritual maturity, the
orthodox denounced as "deviation" from apostolic tradition.
Tertullian finds it outrageous that
every one of them, just as it suits his own temperament, modifies the
traditions he has received, just as the one who handed them down
modified them, when he shaped them according to his own will.90
hat they "disagree on specific matters, even from their own
founders" meant to Tertullian that they were "unfaithful" to
apostolic tradition. Diversity of teaching was the very mark of
heresy:
On what grounds are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if
it is not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of
his own mere will has either advanced or received?91
Doctrinal conformity defined the orthodox faith. Bishop Irenaeus
declares that the catholic church believes these points of doctrine just as if she had only one soul, and
one and the same heart, and she proclaims them and teaches them in
perfect harmony. . . . For although the languages of the world are
different, still the meaning of the tradition is one and the same. For the
churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand
down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor
those in the east, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Africa, nor those
which have been established in the central regions of the world .92
What would happen if arguments did arise among such scattered
churches? Who should decide which traditions would take priority?
Irenaeus considers the question:
But how is it? Suppose a dispute concerning some important question
arises among us; should we not have recourse to the most ancient
churches, with which the apostles held continual intercourse, and learn
from them what is clear and certain in regard to the present question?93
Irenaeus prescribes terminating any disagreement
by indicating that tradition, derived-from the apostles, of the very
great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and
organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul . . .
and by indicating the faith . . . which came down to our time by means
of the succession of the bishops. For it is necessary that every church
should agree with this church, on account of its preeminent authority.94
Since no one of later generations can have access to Christ as the
apostles did, during his lifetime and at his resurrection, every
believer must look to the church at Rome, which they founded, and
to the bishops for authority.
Some gnostic Christians counterattacked. The Apocalypse of Peter,
probably among the latest writings discovered at Nag Hammadi (c.
200-300), tells how dismayed Peter was to hear that many believers "will fall into an erroneous name" and "will be
ruled heretically."95 The risen Christ explains to Peter that those who
"name themselves bishop, and also deacon, as if they had received
their authority from God," are, in reality, "waterless canals."96
Although they "do not understand mystery," they "boast that the
mystery of truth belongs to them alone."97 The author accuses them
of having misinterpreted the apostles' teaching, and thus having set
up an "imitation church" in place of the true Christian
"brotherhood."98 Other gnostics, including the ollowers of
Valentinus, did not challenge the bishop's right to ach the common
apostolic tradition. Nor did they oppose, in rinciple, the leadership
of priests and bishops. But for them the church's teaching, and the
church officials, could never hold the ltimate authority which
orthodox Christians accorded them.99 All who had received gnosis,
they say, had gone beyond the church's teaching and had
transcended the authority of its hierarchy.
The controversy over resurrection, then, proved critical in shaping
the Christian movement into an institutional religion. All Christians
agreed in principle that only Christ himself—or God—can be the
ultimate source of spiritual authority. But the immediate question,
of course, was the practical one: Who, in the present, administers
that authority?
Valentinus and his followers answered: Whoever comes into direct,
personal contact with the "living One." They argued that only one's
own experience offers the ultimate criterion of truth, taking
precedence over all secondhand testimony and all tradition—even
gnostic tradition! They celebrated every form of creative invention
as evidence that a person has become spiritually alive. On this
theory, the structure of authority can never be fixed into an
institutional framework: it must remain spontaneous, charismatic,
and open.
Those who rejected this theory argued that all future generations of
Christians must trust the apostles' testimony—even more than their
own experience. For, as Tertullian admitted, whoever judges in terms of ordinary historical experience would
find the claim that a man physically returned from the grave to be
incredible. What can never be proven or verified in the present,
Tertullian says, "must be believed, because it is absurd." Since the
death of the apostles, believers must accept the word of the priests
and bishops, who have claimed, from the second century, to be their
only legitimate heirs.
Recognizing the political implications of the doctrine of
resurrection does not account for its extraordinary impact on the
religious experience of Christians. Whoever doubts that impact has
only to recall any of the paintings it evoked from artists as diverse as
Delia Francesca, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and Dali, or the music
written on the theme by composers from ancient times through
Bach, Mozart, Handel, and Mahler.
The conviction that a man who died came back to life is, of course, a
paradox. But that paradox may contain the secret of its powerful
appeal, for while it contradicts our own historical experience, it
speaks the language of human emotions. It addresses itself to that
which may be our deepest fear, and expresses our longing to
overcome death.
The contemporary theologian Jürgen Moltmann suggests that the
orthodox view of resurrection also expressed, in symbolic language,
the conviction that human life is inseparable from bodily experience:
even if a man comes back to life from the dead, he must come back
physically.
100 Irenaeus and Tertullian both emphasize that the
anticipation of bodily resurrection requires believers to take
seriously the ethical implications of their own actions. Certainly it
is true that gnostics who ridiculed the idea of bodily resurrection
frequently devalued the body, and considered its actions (sexual acts,
for example) unimportant to the "spiritual" person. According to the
Gospel of Thomas, for example, Jesus says,
"If spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders.
Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth [the spirit] has made its home in this poverty [the body]."10

For the gnostics stood close to the Greek philosophic tradition (and,
for that matter, to Hindu and Buddhist tradition) that regards the
human spirit as residing "in" a body—as if the actual person were
some sort of disembodied being who uses the body as an instrument
but does not identify with it. Those who agree with Moltmann may
find, then, that the orthodox doctrine of resurrection, far from
negating bodily experience, affirmed it as the central fact of human
life.
But in terms of the social order, as we have seen, the orthodox
teaching on resurrection had a different effect: it legitimized a
hierarchy of persons through whose authority all others must
approach God. Gnostic teaching, as Irenaeus and Tertullian realized,
was potentially subversive of this order: it claimed to offer to every
initiate direct access to God of which the priests and bishops
themselves might be ignorant.102

Thank you for your Donations It's for a noble cause.

Bitcoin:

3Nbe5yPgi5VmTmTtKmTbYKDrv7RDVYjrPW

BAT:

0x08c98f77ee36a13e55b8dc1950f1ec7688022615

BCH:

bitcoincash:pqg4rj3um0872mnsrjlxuu2d9vwhadpwyq06zvryyk

DAI:

0x08c98f77ee36a13e55b8dc1950f1ec7688022615

LTC:

MKxkKThobP27Yp4GqvzeBGagqA1ahf96JM

MANA:

0x08c98f77ee36a13e55b8dc1950f1ec7688022615

TrueUSD:

0x08c98f77ee36a13e55b8dc1950f1ec7688022615