ama jas prochitav deka scaentistite navistina baraat pari demek za dobrotvorni celi...a ako si siromashen?

nindza,

Mislam deka te ostavivme pokus za malu podetalno objasnuvanje na Gnosticizmot.

Gnostichkite uchiteli i filozofi bea individualci koi tvorea bez da se pretplatat na nitu edna specifichna grupa na veruvanja. Nivnite tvorbi bea mnogubrojni, so najrazlichen repertoar i neogranicheni od dogmata, nudejki pogled na svetot koj e pokompleksen otkolku onoj ponuden od ortodoksnite religii.

Iako ima mnogu varijacii na gnostichkiot pogled za kreacijata na svetot, vo kusi i generalni crti toj e sogledan na sledniov nachin.

Na pochetokot postoeshe transcedentniot Bog, vechno egzistirajki kako odnos na mashki/zhenski nachela koi so svojata unija gi sozdale dvata protoprincipi - Svest(maskiot atribut) i Vistina (zhenskiot atribut). Ovie pak kreirale trieset Eoni (mashko-zhenski parovi) koi zaedno go konstituiraat bozestveniot svet, poznat kako Pleroma (Potpolnost). Od site Eoni samo prviot - Svest, go spoznal Tatkoto, dodeka posledniot i najmladiot - Sofija (Mudrost) , opsednata so svojata strast po sekoja cena da go osoznae svojot tvorec, bez znaenje i dogovor so svojata mashka polovina, go sozdava Demiurg, kratorot na materijalniot svet koj se prepoznava sebe si kako apsoluten Bog. Vselenata koja sto toj ja kreiral se sostoi od sferi, vmetnati edna vo druga, rakovodeni od Arkoni, koi kolektivno go vladeat chovekoviot svet (Zemjata) – onoj sto e na najniskiot stepen na ovaa degenerativna kreacija.

Gnostichkata teologija, kosmogonija i filozofija eksponiraat radikalen dualizam simboliziran preku svetlina i temnina. Bozenstveniot svet i Eonite se svetlina, a materijalniot svet na sferite i Arkonite se temnina. Od tuka proizleguva dualizmot na svetlo-temno, dobro-losho, znaenje-ignorantnost, duh-materija i site ostanati antitezi. Spored gnosticharite nasiot svet e najtemnata zandana na Demiurgovata kreacijata, poslednata sfera vo koja caruvaat materijata, ignorancijata i zloto.

Chovekot isto taka e od dualistichka priroda – materijalna (minliva komponenta) i duhovna (trajna komponenta). Duhovniot del e onaa “bozhenstvena iskra” koja sto Arkonite sakaat da ja skrijat i oddalechat od chovekot, nudejki mu gi materijalnite i fizichkite gratifikacii. Koga ovaa iskra ke bide oslobodena so smrtta na teloto, taa ke saka da se reunificira so bozenstvenoto telo, no za da go ostvari toa ke treba da prevzeme teshko i neizvesno patuvanje preku site sferi kade sto sekogas agilnite Arkoni ke storat se da ja frustriraat, obeshrabrat i nateraat da se vrati nazad i da se reinkarnira vo fizichkiot svet.

Nesvesta i ignorantnosta go drzhat chovekot kako Arkonski zatvorenik i samo znaenjeto (gnosis) moze da go oslobodi od niv. Ova znaenje ne moze da se otkrie vo svetot na chovechkata realnost i temnina. Toa mora da dojde od svetot na svetlinata preku otkrovenie (iluminacija) ili da bide doneseno preku glasnik, transcedentalen spasitel. Vo nekoi gnostichki skoli spasitelot go nosi imeto Hristos ili Isus. Gnostichkiot Hristos ne nosi spasenie od grev, tuku od ignorancija (neznaenje), ne nudi iskupuvanje na grevovi i ne bara od chovekot nikakvo veruvanje i pokajanie, tuku samo spiritualna doblest.

Postoeja dosta debati okolu toa dali Gnosticizmot e obichen hristijanski heres ili postoeshe uste pred pojavata na Hristijanstvoto. Fakt e deka Gnosticizmot imase procut vo prvite dva veka na hristijanskata era koga postoele negovite najgolemi skoli i uchiteli, i koga e sozdaden najgolemiot broj na literaturni dela. Ovie konsolidirani dela vodat koreni od Vavilonski, Egipetski, Grchki, Iranski i Evrejski izvori. Vsushnost vo toa vreme idejata za borba megju dobroto i zloto, svetlinata i temninata, kako i patuvanjeto na dusata kon povisokite duhovni sferi bese nesto staro i poznato, dodeka Hristijanskiot koncept na spas preku vera bese religisko/filozofska novina. Fakt e deka Gnosticharite ne bea eklektichari, tuku konsolidatori i transmiteri na spiritualnite filozofii od prastari vreminja.

Za zhal, mnogu malu originalni Gnostichki tekstovi se zachuvani od toa vreme. Najgolemiot del od Gnostichkoto filozofsko bogatsvo bese izgubeno koga golemata Aleksandriska biblioteta bese unistena od hristijanskite fanatici vo 387 godina i koga bese zapalena od muslimanite vo 641 godina. Ironijata e vo toa sto do devetnaesettiot vek glaven izvor za Gnosticizmot bea pishuvanjata na crkovnite tatkovci koi vo ognot na kritikata citiraa dosta gnostichki dela vo detali. Od devetnaesettoto stoletie pa navamu se pojavija poveke originalni gnostichki tekstovi od koi najsenzacionalniot e bibliotekata od 52 teksta otkrieni vo Nag Hamadi (Egipet –1946 godina).

Gnosticizmot bese fundamentalno nekompatibilen so idejata za institucijalizirana i avtoritativna masovna religija. Vo momentot koga Hristijanstvoto se pojavi so “dobrata vest” za spasenie na site lugje preku Isus, gnosticharskiot makotrpen individualen spiritualen pat go napravi Gnosticizmot “losha vest” za potencijanite vernici i pritisnat od novata Hristijanska religija na site frontovi, bese zgotven da zamine.

Iako anatemisan od Hristijanstvoto kako eres i “gjavolska rabota”, Gnosticizmot se uste zivee kako filozofski predizvik ovekovechen preku nekoi golemi iminja na zapadnata kutura kako Gete, Volter, Melvil, Hese i Jung.


Изменето од Messenger - 21.Ноември.2006 во 03:46

Нинџа, гореспоменатите движење (најчесто етикетирани како еретички) не може да се гледаат исклучиво како засебни неповрзани настани. Секое „еретичко“ движење всушност потекнува со причина - најчесто критика на доминантната црква во тоа време.

Значи тоа што им е заедничко на Богомилите, Павликените и Катарите е дека сите тие се критички настроени кон црквата. Нај „правоверни“ од овие се Павликените (Ерменија и Бугарија) кои е тешко дури и официјалната црква да им прилепи етикета на еретици, освен дека не го признавале авторитетот на воспоставените црковни власти.

Богомилите пак нам ни се најблиски, бидејќи се создале токму на ова мало парче земја македонска. Во суштина тие биле најверојатно дуалисти, иако прогонот од доминатната црква бил толку силен што немаме ниту едно единствено парче нивни запис, така да се што имаме за нив е тоа што го пишувале нивните противници... А тоа секогаш треба да се земе со доза на скептичност...

Не знам, можда Мессенгер знае повеќе, и има волја да пишува... Мене некако „не да ми се“...

Ne veruvam deka ima gnostichki crkvi vo Makedonija (toa bese korenito ischisteno od vremeto na Bogomilite). Vo svetot postojat takvi crkvi i gnostichka literatura.

Za poveke informacii odi na Google i baraj pod "Gnostic Churches"

Za gnostichka literatura odi na:
http://www.thepearl.org/
http://www.gnosis.org/welcome.html
Se razbira ima i drugi sajtovi.

Da pronajdes nekoi lugje vo Makedonija koi se ineteresiraat za gnosticizmot probaj so ovoj link:
http://gnostic.meetup.com/
Vo Skopje ima nekoj Simo koj se interesira za ovaa tema.

Gnosticizam

Epohalni pronalazak gnostičkih jevanđelja, koji se dogodio u decembru 1945. godine u Gornjem Egiptu, u blizini mesta Nadz(g) Hamadi, praćen je mračnom pričom o najsurovijoj krvnoj osveti seljaka Muhameda Alija i njegove braće.

Autorka: Irina Marković

Ćup u kojem se nalazilo trinaest papirusa u kožnom povezu umalo nije završilo u vatri, jer ih je njihova majka iz neznanja koristila za potpalu zajedno sa slamom po kojoj su bili rasuti.

U strahu od policije Muhamed je nekoliko knjiga dao na čuvanje jednom svešteniku, a nedugo potom, knjige dospevaju u ruke mesnog učitelja istorije, koji ih, naslutivši njihovu vrednost, šalje u Kairo da im se utvrdi vrednost. Iako bivaju prodati na crnoj berzi, papirusi će privući pažnju egipatske vlade koja će otkupiti jednu, a konfiskovati deset i po knjiga i predati ih Koptskom muzeju u Kairu.

Veliki deo trinaestog kodeksa sačinjenog od pet izvanrednih tekstova biće, ipak, prokrijumčaren u Ameriku. Saznavši za kodekse, Žil Kvispel, cenjeni istoričar religije iz Utrehta, zatražiće od Jungove fondacije u Cirihu da otkupi kodeks. Zahtev mu biva uslišen, ali on ubrzo otkriva da neke stranice nedostaju, što će ga naterati da ode u Kairo, gde uspeva da dobije fotografije nekih tekstova. Čim je počeo da ih dešifruje, susreo se s rečima koje su veoma ozbiljno zapretile da iz temelja uzdrmaju čitavu hrišćansku doktrinu:
«Ovo su tajne reči koje je živi Isus izgovorio, a njegov brat blizanac Juda Toma zapisao.»

Kvispel je prepoznao da ovi redovi pripadaju od ranije poznatim izvornim fragmentima na grčkom Jevanđelja po Tomi, koji su pronađeni u Oksirinhu 1897. i 1903. godine, međutim, otkriće celokupnog teksta pretilo je da podstakne pitanja o autentičnosti sadržaja zvaničnih Jevanđelja. Jevanđelje po Tomi bilo je, naime, samo jedno od pedeset i dva teksta pronađena u crvenom ćupu kod Nag Hamadija. To su bili do tada potpuno nepoznati tekstovi u kojima se oštro kritikuje hrišćanstvo za krivo izlaganje istine, koja se pak nalazi u svom punom obliku u ovim skrivenim tekstovima. Kasnije je utvrđeno da su oni, zapravo, prevodi na koptski još starijih grčkih rukopisa.

U njima se govori, karakterističnom stilskom formom jevanđelja, o postanku čoveka i kosmosa, ali na sasvim drugačiji način nego u Knjizi Postanja; čitava kosmogonija prožeta je predhrišćanskim mističkim kultovima i misterijama, neoplatonističkom filozofijom, pa čak i uticajima dalekoistočnih religija.  O Isusu se govori, kao i o Mariji Magdaleni i drugim poznatim protagonistima Novog zaveta u potpuno drugačijem kontekstu od onog novozavetnog.

Da bi se na najbolji način razumelo zbog čega je pronalazak ovih tekstova uzburkao duhove evropske intelektualne javnosti i zašto se do današnjih dana ta bura nije stišala, najbolje je steći uvid u sama gnostička jevanđelja. Moglo bi se reći da baš u njima leži pravi odgovor na fenomen planetarne popularnosti dela kao što je Davinčijev kod, Dena Brauna, ali i ključ za razumevanje nekih velikih književnih dela poput Heseovog Demijana, ili Nečistih sila Fjodora Dostojevskog.

Gnostički mit

Gnostički autori izlagali su svoj mit uvek po određenoj, unapred zadatoj shemi i etapama. Svi nivoi gnostičkog mita proizlaze postupno jedan iz drugog, bez obzira na to da li se mogu rekonstruisati iz različitih jevanđelja, ili kao paradigmu uzimamo samo jedno.

Njihov mit predodređen je krajnjim ciljem, koga ukratko možemo odrediti kao spasenje i Boga i Čoveka, ukoliko je taj čovek prethodno primio gnozu, tajno i spasonosno saznanje koje utiče na njegov ontološki preobražaj. Ovo znanje mogu primiti samo oni izabrani time što su čuli poziv sa nebesa. Ovde već nailazimo na duboko razmimoilaženje s hrišćanskom doktrinom jer je kod hrišćana vera, kao i spoznaja Boga, dostupna svima bez razlike, ili bi bar tako trebalo da bude.

Gnostički mit o postanju možemo podeliti u sledeće etape:

1) Prikaz božanske uzvišenosti, čistote i transcendencije, nenarušenog jedinstva  kosmosa, njegove punoće u apsolutnom smislu, Plerome, odnosno duhovnog sveta, nasuprot Kenomi odnosno ništavilu, koje odgovara pojavnom, tj. svetu dostupnom našim čulima. To je svet gornjih eona, naime božanskih emanacija; prikaz emaniranja «Oca Sviju»; popunjavanje božanskih nebeskih prostranstava mnoštvom po moći nižih bića i njihovih velikih carstava »u svim besmrtnim nebesima i njihovim svodovima» (Pismo Eugnostovo).

2) Narušavanje sklada božanske Plerome od strane Boga samog, naime, jedne njegove emanacije, nižeg androginog božanstva i to njegovog ženskog dela Sofije; rođenje Sofijinogmonstruoznog i nedovršenog sina Jaldabaota; stvaranje donjeg sveta i njegovih slugu Arhonata, zlih sila.

3) Stvaranje čoveka kao sredstva spasenja stanovnika donjeg sveta; borba gornjih i donjih eona oko božanske iskre svetlosti, odnosno čovečije duše, jer ona je, ne slične (kao kod hrišćana), već iste prirode kao i božanska.

4) Vraćanje duše u narušeno pleromatsko jedinstvo, kojim i Bog, «Otac Sviju», i Čovek (gnostik) postižu Spasenje; čovek prima svoje prvobitno obličije, doslovno se rastopivši, ili stopivši s Bogom, u njegovoj večnoj i nepromenljivoj svetlosti.

(Veliko pitanje je šta se u tom slučaju događa s ličnošću tj. sa samosvešću.)

Ovim se završava gnostički mit, ali isto tako i postizanje prvog stepena gnoze za onoga ko je mit istinski razumeo. Dalje usavršavanje gnoze postiže se tako što «svako treba da vežba na više načina i biće oslobođen od prirodnog zakona, te neće skrenuti s puta...» (Rasprava o vaskrsenju).

U prvoj fazi gnostočkog mita govori se, kao što smo već rekli, o onostranom božanskom svetu, koji je Neporočnost i Pleroma, savršenstvo svetlosti, čistote i punoće. Tu obitava u početku (ne u smislu vremena, već kao uzrok, jer se ovde radi o večnosti), sam «Istinski Bog, Otac Sviju, Duh Sveti», dok ne poželi da spozna samog sebe.

Božija samospoznaja inicira emaniranje, a interpretira se na sledeće načine:
«Jer On, Praotac bez početka, vidi sebe u sebi samome kao u ogledalu, kada se prikazao u obličiju Autopatora...On je uistinu po starosti ravan onome koji mu prethodi, ali mu nije ravan po moći» (Pismo Eugnostovo);
«Onaj ko žudi za sobom u savršenstvu svetlosti, poznaje nepomućenu svetlost...Onaj ko sebe vidi u sopstvenoj svetlosti, koja ga okružuje- on je izvor vode života...Izvor duha potekao je od žive vode života i on je ispunio sve eone i svetove» (Apokrif Jovanov).

Ovde se sasvim jasno uočava sličnost s antičkim mitom o Narcisu, jer i za Narcisa kao i za gnostičkog Boga, ovakav vid samospoznaje je, s jedne strane, poguban po identitet i celovitost, ali zato, s druge, on započinje neumitni dijalektički proces ka istinskoj samospoznaji, koja je izjednačena sa njegovom ontologijom- spoznati pravu sliku o sebi, jednako je: bivstvovati u svom idealnom ostvarenom smislu. Iako gnostici Jaldabaotu pripisuju pripisuju svo zlo, ovaj drugi, u potpunosti savršeni Bog ipak se emanira, ne da bi zbog svoje neograničene dobrote i ljubavi (kao kod hrišćana) stvorio nešto drugo od sebe, nego da bi na taj način jasnije sagledao samog sebe, razgrađujući svoje jedinstvo u mnoštvo personifikovanih atributa, dok na kraju ne izađe iz svoje onostranosti (transcendencije) i ne pređe u ovostranost (imanenciju). Njegov krajnji cilj je da preko čoveka, to jest, pomoću njegove duše, povrati ono što je sam sebi sebi oduzeo svojim emaniranjem- sopstvenu celovitost. Može se steći utisak da su motivi gnostičkog Boga egoistični, ali ipak ne treba prenagliti sa zaključkom, jer paradoks sadržan u dinamici njegove ličnosti je zapravo prividan, a bio je i neophodan da bi se gnostici učvrstili u svom laskavom uverenju da je njihova duša ista kao i božanska, te da tako oni, kao jedna duhovna elita jedini imaju pravo na spasenje; isto tako, taj paradoks bio je nužan da bi otpočeo veličanstveni proces stvaranja vasione i svega u njoj, a to nije mala stvar.

Ovakva kosmogoniska interpretacija mnogo je bliža Hesiodovoj Teogoniji, orfičkim i eleusinskim misterijama, kao i persijskoj Mazdajasni (zoroastrizmu) i drugim drevnim kutovima i religijama. Čitava gnostička filozofija zapravo pre podseća na neku dalekoistočnu (istovetnost božanske i ljudske duše, svet je privid, uloga Svetlosti i prosvetljenja, itd). Neki naučnici smatraju da su hinduizam i budizam mogli imati uticaja na gnostička učenja, jer su trgovački putevi između rimsko-helenskog i dalekoistočnog sveta upravo tada počinjali da se otvaraju, a postoje i izvesni podaci o delovanju budističkih misionara u Aleksandriji.

Za pravoverne hrišćane, gnostici su od najranijih vremena bili ništa drugo do jeretici i veoma su oštro osuđivani: lionski biskup Irinej, još u drugom veku, piše petotomno delo pod naslovom Uništenje i prevrat lažno- samozvanog znanja, a njegov poduhvat petnaest godina kasnije upotpunjuje jedan rimski učitelj Hipolit, koji je napisao veliko delo pod naslovom Pobijanje svih jeresi da bi njime «raskrinkao i pobio zločesto huljenje jeretika». Naime, treba imati na umu da je u prva dva veka posle Isusovog raspeća, dok još nije postignut konsenzus o pravoj veri na crkvenim saborima (počevši od onog u Nikeji 325. godine, na kome je ustanovljen Simbol vere ili nikejski kredo), postojalo mnoštvo sekti koje su sebe nazivale hrišćanskim, a zapravo su bile gnostičke. Hrišćanstvo su ozvaničili milanskim ediktom 313. godine Konstantin I (Veliki) i istočni car Licinije, a tada su biskupi bili nadrđeni policiji, pa je posedovanje jeretičkih knjiga tretirano kao krivično delo, a knjige bivale uništavane i spaljivanje. Ovakve mere bile su neophodne Konstantinu da bi osiguravši jedinstvo vere Istočnog i Zapadnog carstva, osigurao i političku stabilnost. To mu je na kraju i uspelo, a hrišćansto je nastavilo da živi u svom uzletu do današnjih dana, iako praćeno burnim i često krvoločnim previranjima.

Priča o eonima

Posle božanskog sozercanja, vasiona počinje da se odmotava kroz eone, ili božije hipostaze, a taj trenutak ujedno predstavlja i početak druge faze gnostičkog mita.

Grčka reč eon (aion) koja znači vreme, vek, život, sudbina, večnost, u gnostičkim tekstovima interpretirana je na više načina. Ona može pratiti izvorna značenja kada se govori o prostoru u kome se nalaze nadnebesna božanska bića, prostoru koji ima svoje vreme i svoju večnost. U ovom kontekstu uputna je Aristotelova konstatacija: «Tu su nam reč predali naši preci kao božansko znanje» (De Caelo, A,9,279a). Naime, u ovom pojmu premošćuje se razlika između ovostranog i onostranog, a eon dobija ulogu grčkog boga Hermesa, glasnika bogova, koji stoji upravo na ovoj teško premostivoj granici.

U eonima nalaze se takođe eoni, ali ne u smislu manjih prostora u većim, jednih večnosti u dugim, već kao hipostazirani (postvareni) i personifikovani božiji atributi, moći i sile. Tako da, svaki eon ima svoje lično ime: Barbelo, Misao, Prva Spoznaja, Neporočnost, Nous (Um), Hristos Iluminator, Elelet, Autopator, Besmrtni Čovek, Sin Čoveka, Sofija. Svaki eon razlikuje se po moći i spoznaji Oca. Najveću privilegiju među eonima ima Sin, Hristos, koji je ujedno i Otac.: «Sin je njegovo, Očevo ime» (Jevanđelje istine); «Ja sam Otac, ja sam Mati, ja sam Sin», govori Hristos Jovanu, sinu Zavedejevom u Apokrifu Jovanovom. Ipak, Hristosu je dodeljena značajna uloga, jer on je taj koji treba da obznani ljudima Oca, da bi potom, putem ovog spasonosnog saznanjai posebnog životnog režima oni mogli da se vrate Ocu od kojeg su potekli. Na taj način oni izvršavaju ne samo sopstveno spasenje, nego posredno učestvuju u spasenju samog Boga. Gnostici su, dakle, ti koji spasavaju Boga i ne samo to, svaki gnostik ponaosob može i mora svojom uzvišenom gnozom prevazići samog Isusa, jer na kraju svi će postati isto- Otac! Hristos, dakle, nema ulogu iskupitelja čovečanstva i spasitelja pale čovečije duše, već je on samo nosilac, k*rir, koji ljudima prenosi poruku od Oca. Oni tada primaju samo prvi stepen gnoze, dok njeno potpuno postizanje zavisi od samospoznaje, jer se svi odgovori zapravo već nalaze u njima samima. Ovako izgleda gnostička interpretacija prilično reducirane uloge Isusa Hristosa, a ujedno je i izložena treća faza gnostičkog mita.

U četvrtoj fazi ponovo se uspostavlja narušeno pleromatsko jedinstvo, istovremenim i uzajamnim spasenjem i Boga i Čoveka. Gnostici ponekad idu toliko daleko da samog Boga nazivaju Čovekom, Isusove muke na Golgoti prividom, a samog Isusa običnim čovekom u koga se spustio duh, a potom ga posle raspeća napustio. Slično viđenje Isusa imamo u Islamu i kod Monofizita- Isus nije Gospod Bog, već prorok ili niže biće. Jasno je da je ovakvo gledište za pravoverne hrišćane bilo krajnje neprihvatljivo. U ovim stavovim ogleda se jedan jasan antropozofski i na više načina izveden dualistički stav.

Priča o Sofiji

Prateći sudbinu jednog drugog, a u nekim tekstovima istog, androginog eona Sofije, vraćamo se na dugu etapu gnostičkog mita. Naime, eon Sofija poželeo je «...da iz sebe iznedri lik». Sofija je to učinila, ali «bez saglasnosti duha i bez znanja njenog družbenika» (Apokrif Jovanov).

Slično kao starozavetni pali anđeo Danica ili Lucifer (onaj koji nosi svetlost), koji kaže:» Učiniću sebe jednakim svevišnjem» ( Is. 14,12), Sofija je posegnula za onim što joj po prirodi njenog bića ne pripada, bila je gorda i poželela da stvara, tačnije emanira, bez saglasnosti Oca i «Nevidljivog Duha» (Uočavamo sličnost s Evinim praroditeljskim grehom). Isto kao što i Otac stvara promišljanjem, tako je i Sofija pomislila «misao o sebi» i stvorila jedno nesavršeno nakazno delo, himeričnog boga u obliku zmije i lava.

Taj bog je verovatno starozavetni jevrejski Bog Jehova, koji se kod gnostika naziva Jaldabaot, Saklas ili Samael. On predstavlja prvog Arhonta i ujedno poglavara svih Arhonata, koje je stvorio, a zapravo emanirao, da mu služe.

Arhonti predstavljaju donje eone, naime sile koje su navodno zle, ali neretko predstavljaju i samo ustrojstvo kosmosa (Sunce, zvezde, dane u nedelji, 365 dana u godini, itd.). Protiv ovakvog antikosmičkog stava, prvi je ustao filozof Plotin rekavši: «Zaista je besmisleno da oni koji imaju telo kakvo ljudi imaju, i žudnje, boli i nagone, ne preziru vlastitu moć, već tvrde da oni mogu dohvatiti umstveno, a da na Suncu ne postoji moć koja je od njihove bestrpnija, uređenija i nepromenljivija, i da Sunce nije mudrije od nas koji smo nedavno rođeni i od toliko toga varani i sprečavani da dođemo do istine.» (Eneade I-II). Jaldabaot je znao samo za svoju majku  Sofiju, dok mu je ceo pleromatski svet ostao nepoznat. Zato je i rekao: «Ja sam ljubomorni Bog, pored mene nema drugoga!»  (Apokrif Jovanov). Dakle, bio je lišen spoznaje Oca (identična sudbina dodeljena je palim dušama u Danteovom Paklu), bio je zao jer nije posedovao gnozu, kažu gnostici.

Slavljena zmija

Svođenjem zla na neznanje, na misaoni element, kakvo uostalom i jeste dobro, jer dobro je gnoza (grč. spoznaja), autori gnostičkih jevanđelja čini se da zaobilaze postojanje metafizičkog zla i njegove suštine (bar za hrišćane)- greha pokvarene volje, koji je čin, a ne misao. To potvrđuje i njihova interpretacija stvarnja sveta i prvih ljudi Adama i Eve, što nas opet vraća u treću fazu gnostičkog mita. Gnostici, naime, ne priznaju Istočni greh kao greh, već ga slave. Verovatno je zato zmija u pojedinim gnostičkim sektama visoko poštovana, jer ona je ta koja čoveku donosi dragocenu spoznaju dobra i zla. Oni smatraju da istinski čovek ne bi smeo biti sazdan od tri prirode (duhovne, duševne i telesne), već samo od božanske Pneume (Duha). Za njih je telo okov od materije u koji su ga bacili zli Arhonti, da bi zarobili božansku iskru u čoveku (njegovu dušu) i oteli je za sebe. Gnostici ne žele da priznaju realnost ovoga sveta, on je puki privid, turobno mesto sazdano od zle materije, koja je po definicij podložna propadanju. Zato kod njih  dominira misaona nad osećajnom komponentom, za razliku od hrišćana, gde je vera stvar srca, a ne uma. Premda je kranji cilj svakoga ko je primio gnozu upravo gubitak svog posebnog uma i rastakanje ličnosti u božanstvu, veoma slično postizanju Nirvane u Budizmu, ali i aktivnom umu kod islamskih filozofa.

Na kraju, s obzirom na sve navedene implikacije, gnostički mit prevazilazi okvire mita i postaje pravo sredstvo spasenja putem spasonosnog saznanja, gnoze. Gnosticima je mit bio potreban kao prikladna forma izlaganja njihovog tajnog učenja.

Iako u mnogo čemu protivrečna, gnostička filozofija predstavlja izraz određenih arhetipskih sadržaja u čoveku, što je Jung nedvosmisleno pokazao, ali iznad svega ona izražava jedno realno osećanje koje postoji u duši svakog čoveka. To osećanje je osećanje nemoći da se prevaziđe prolaznost koja prati telesnu prirodu, nemogućnost da se pobedi smrt i propadanje, apsurd života koji je unapred osuđen na smrt samim sobom. Gnostici to jednostavno nisu mogli da prihvate. Zbog toga su živeli kao da tela uopšte i nemaju: s jedne strane podvrgnuti strogom  asketizmu, a s druge, uronjeni u totalni razvrat (Barbelognostici su se čak pričešćivali svojim genitalnim izlučevinama).

Ako hrišćani mogu u ime pravovernosti i anđeoskog milosrđa da čine najgora zverstva i zločine, gnostici valjda mogu da se pričešćuju na ovaj način, iako nikada u istoriji nisu stekli zvaničnu političku moć da bi se pokazali u krajnjoj praksi. Odjeci gnostičke filozofije itekako su prisutni u srednjovekovnoj i modernoj Evropi, kako u književnosti i filozofiji, tako i u dušama onih koji njome upravljaju, premda, naravno, ne u njenom izvornom obliku.

What Is a Gnostic?

by Stephan A. Hoeller

Gnosticism, they say, is on the upsurge...
So just what is it?

Are we witnessing a rediscovery of Gnosticism? To judge from the burgeoning new literature and the increased use of the terms "gnosis" and "Gnosticism" in popular publications, the answer would seem to be yes. Only twenty-five years ago, when one used the word "Gnostic," it was very likely to be misunderstood as "agnostic," and thus have one's statement turned into its exact opposite. Such misapprehensions are far less likely today. Nevertheless, increased academic attention (beginning with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures in 1945) and the ensuing popular interest have produced a confusion of tongues which is anything but helpful for the sincere inquirer into matters Gnostic. It is often difficult even to tell what is meant by the word.

The difficulty in defining Gnosticism is not entirely of recent origin. As early as 1910, a small book was published in London that in many ways foreshadowed current trends, including the difficulties in definition. The title of the work was Gnosticism: The Coming Apostasy; the author, a certain D.M. Panton, was an anxious defender of Christian orthodoxy, which he felt was menaced by an emerging Gnostic revival. Gnosticism, Panton wrote, had surfaced in the twentieth century in the forms of Theosophy, Christian Science, some forms of spiritualism, and in what was called the "New Theology," which had been introduced primarily by German writers on religion. (A biography of Marcion by theologian Adolf von Harnack created much interest and controversy at that time.) While earlier crypto-Gnostics, such as Emanuel Swedenborg, William Blake, George Fox, and Elias Hicks camouflaged their heretical beliefs, Panton argued, twentieth-century Gnostics no longer bothered with concealment. The gnosticizing movements of the early twentieth century, wrote Panton, were "frankly and jubilantly Gnostic"; their thought and their movements carried within them the "throbbing heart of Gnosticism, perhaps the most dreaded foe the Christian faith ever confronted."

In some ways Panton's anti-Gnostic tirades have an advantage over much of the more recent literature, for Panton still possessed a clear understanding of what constitutes Gnosticism. Such is not the case today. If we contrast these early-twentieth-century analyses with some current ones, we may recognize how unclear our understanding has become. In a European publication concerned with contemporary aspects of Gnosticism, Ioan Culianu writes:

Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of Gnosticism occur again.

I was soon to learn however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka were gnostic…. I learned further that science is gnostic and superstition is gnostic…Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally gnostic.¹

At least one circumstance emerges from this statement that is widely overlooked in America. In Europe "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism" are almost always used interchangeably. The suggestion that term "gnosis" ought to be used to describe a state of consciousness, while "Gnosticism" should denote the Gnostic system, has never caught on. The use of such classical Gnosticism of Valentinus, Basilides, et al., persists in European literature, including the writings of such scholars as Gilles Quispel, k*rt Rudolph, and Giovanni Filoramo (to mention some of the most recent ones). It is true that the late Robert McLachlan put forth a proposal to use these terms otherwise, but current usage in Europe has not followed it.

It is evident that a word used in such contradictory ways has lost its meaning. No wonder GNOSIS writer Charles Coulombe despairs over the situation when writing recently in a Catholic publication:

In reality, "Gnosticism," like "Protestantism," is a word that has lost most of its meaning. Just as we would need to know whether a "Protestant" writer is Calvinist, Lutheran, Anabaptist, or whatever in order to evaluate him properly, so too the "Gnostic" must be identified.²

A Political Confusion

One of the most confusing voices comes from the discipline of political science. In his Walgreen Lectures at the University of Chicago in 1951, émigré scholar Eric Voegelin rose to the defense of what he called the "classic and Christian tradition" against what he perceived as the "growth of Gnosticism." This opening salvo was followed by such books as The New Science of Politics, the multivolume Order and History, and Science, Politics, and Gnosticism. Voegelin became a prophet of a new theory of history, in which Gnosticism played a most nefarious role. All modern totalitarian ideologies were in some way spiritually related to Gnosticism, said Voegelin. Marxists, Nazis, and just about everybody else the good professor found reprehensible were in reality Gnostics, engaged in "immanentizing the eschaton" by reconstituting society into a heaven on earth. Since Gnostics did not accept the conventional Christian eschaton of heaven and hell, Voegelin concluded that they must be engaged in a millenarian revolutionizing of earthly existence. At the same time, Voegelin was bound to admit that the Gnostics regarded the earthly realm as generally hopeless and unredeemable. One wonders how the unredeemable earthly kingdom could be turned into the "immanentized eschaton" of an earthly utopia. That Voegelin's new Gnostics had no knowledge of or sympathy with historical Gnosticism did not bother him either. Gnostics they were, and that was that.

Voegelin's confusion was made worse by a number of conservative political thinkers, mainly with Catholic connections. Thomas Molnar, Tilo Schabert, and Steven A. McKnight followed Voegelin's theories despite their obvious inconsistencies. In Molnar's view, Gnostics were not only responsible for all modern utopianism, but also for the inordinate attachment of modern people to science and technology. The scientific world view, said these folk, is in fact a Gnostic world view, and it is responsible for treating humans as machines and for making societies into machinelike collectives.

The politicized view of Gnosticism continues to have its adherents, but these are increasingly recruited from the lunatic fringe. Gnostics are still represented as dangerous subversives in pulp magazines and obscure conspiracy pamphlets "exposing" Freemasons, Satanists, and other pests. Meanwhile, respectable conservative thinkers have dropped the Gnostic issue. Some, like scholar and former U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa, have subjected Voegelin and his theories to severe criticism and ridicule.

Traditionalist Difficulties

Another sometimes confusing voice comes from writers who are bent on proving that within the existing major religions a secret tradition of gnosis may be found which is not identical to the "heretical" Gnosticism of the early Christian centuries. In his 1947 work The Perennial Philosophy, Aldous Huxley promulgated a kind of gnosis that was in effect a mystery reserved for elites, revealed at the dawn of history and handed down through various religious traditions, where it still maintains itself in spite of its ostensible incompatibility with the official dogmas of those traditions. With this view, Huxley approximated the more radical position held by Traditionalists such as René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon.

Huxley, on the other hand, never passed judgment on anyone who called himself a Gnostic. One could only wish the same could be said of other Traditionalists. Followers of Guénon (who, born a Catholic, converted to Islam in a somewhat untraditional manner) often castigate the early Gnostic teachers in a manner reminiscent of the more extreme ancient polemicists like Irenaeus or Tertullian. The Traditionalists' division of Gnostic writers into "false Gnostics" and "authentic Gnostics" reflects standards that are nothing if not arbitrary; contemporary research indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy and thus no heresy either. Instead, many opinions on religious matters, including gnosis, flourished side by side. Certainly there were disagreements, but to arbitrarily extrapolate standards of falsity and authenticity from these polemics does not seem justified.

Academic Ambiguities

The 1988 edition of The Nag Hammadi Library contains a lengthy afterword entitled "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism."³ Its author, Richard Smith, ostensibly reviews the numerous developments in Western culture which appear to be related to Gnosticism. One would hope that here at last we might find a definition of true Gnosticism and a list of modern writers and thinkers who might appear as its representatives. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Smith lists a number of important figures of modern culture from the eighteenth century onward who were sympathetic to Gnosticism. Reading this afterword, however, one gets the impression that few of these seminal figures possessed an adequate definition of Gnosticism, and that they thus more often than not misused and misappropriated the term. The eighteenth-century historian Edward Gibbon, for example, is accused of a "mischievous lie" in referring to the Gnostics in complimentary terms. (Admittedly Gibbon did not share the low esteem in which the Church Fathers held Gnostics, but does this make him a liar?) And the Gnostic and Manichaean sympathies of Voltaire are represented as being motivated by his opposition to churchly authority. But could the great philosophé have had other reasons for his views? It is well known that Voltaire was an ardent Freemason, and he might have received favorable information about Gnostics through the esoteric currents flowing in the secret fraternities of his time. Maybe he was privy to knowledge unknown to Smith.

In the same vein, Smith implies that C.G. Jung appropriated Gnosticism by turning it into psychological theory. "Jung takes the entire dualist myth and locates it within the psyche," Smith writes.⁴ Personally I have devoted the major part of my life to exploring the relationship of Jung's thought to Gnosticism, so such statements touch a nerve.

Jung was not only interested in the Gnostics, but he considered them the discoverers and certainly the most important forerunners of depth psychology. The association between Jung's psychology and Gnosticism is profound, and its scope is increasingly revealed with the passage of time and the wider availability of the Nag Hammadi scriptures. My studies have convinced me that Jung did not intend to locate the content of Gnostic teachings in the psyche pure and simple. To say that Gnosticism is "nothing but" psychology would have horrified Jung, for he opposed the concept of "nothing but." What made Jung's view radically different from those of his predecessors was simply this: he believed that Gnostic teachings and myths originated in the personal psychospiritual experience of the Gnostic sages. What originates in the psyche bears the imprint of the psyche. Hence the close affinity between Gnosticism and depth psychology. Jung's view may thus be called an interpolation, but not an appropriation. The need for definitions appears greater than ever in the light of such controversies.

Psychological and Existentialist Models

The Italian scholar Giovanni Filoramo calls attention to the fact that the Nag Hammadi scriptures were favorably received by a wide public in part because "certain areas of the cultural panorama showed a disposition, a peculiar sensitivity to the…texts,…which dealt with a phenomenon that they themselves had in some way helped to keep alive."⁵

One of the persons who kept the Gnostic phenomenon alive was C.G. Jung's close associate, the Gnostic scholar Gilles Quispel, who labored long and hard on relating the ancient gnosis of Valentinus and other teachers to the modern gnosis of analytical psychology. He saw the Gnostic effort as involving deep insight into the ontological self, and thus as analogous to the best in depth psychology. Quispel's major work on the subject, Gnosis als Weltreligion ("Gnosis as a World Religion," published in 1972), explains in detail the relationship of Jung's model to Gnostic teachings. Quispel, like Jung himself, did not reduce Gnostic teachings to depth psychology, but rather pointed to depth psychology as a key to understanding Gnosticism.

Another key figure in the reevaluation of ancient Gnosticism was Hans Jonas. A pupil of existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger in the 1930s, Jonas turned his attention to the wisdom of the Gnostics, and discovered in them an ancient relative of existential philosophy. Existentialism's pessimism about earthly life and high regard for experience as against theory thus found a forebear and analogue. Although critical of the Gnostics' apparent "nihilism," Jonas was, along with Jung, one of the most important figures to bring Gnostic teachings into modern perspective.

The linkage effected by Jung and Jonas between Gnosticism in the past and living philosophies in the present was of crucial importance and came very close to supplying gnosis and Gnosticism with vital, living definitions. The questions posed (and answered) by the ancient Gnostics revealed themselves now, not as outlandish and bizarre, but as earlier discussions of issues addressed in more recent times by Freud, Jung, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and many others.

Toward Definition

The search for definitions is never easy, particularly in such fields as the social sciences. In these disciplines much attention must be given to the historical context in which beliefs and actions unfold. Crucial differences and similarities in nuance, tone, and subtleties of mood are more important here than hard and fast definitions. The debate about Gnosticism, it would seem, turns on such nuances, and it may well be that not much can be resolved by definitions. Nevertheless, the present chaotic conditions warrant an attempt.

In 1966, a distinguished assembly of scholars convened in Messina, Italy, for the purpose of arriving at some useful definitions of Gnosticism. The results of this gathering were not encouraging. The scholars proposed restricting the use of the term "Gnosticism" to certain second-century "heretical" movements, while the broader term "gnosis" was to be used to refer to "knowledge of the divine mysteries for an elite." While a useful attempt, it did not manage to clear up the confusion.

The difficulties in pinning down a definition of Gnosticism are intimately connected with the controversy about its origins. Was it indeed no more than a heretical offshoot, an eccentric and aberrant branch of Christianity, or was it the latest expression of a long, mostly hidden tradition that had existed for centuries before the Christian era? No one has answered these questions with final authority.

To understand Gnosticism, said Hans Jonas, one needs something very much like a musical ear. Such a Gnostic "musical ear" is not come by easily. One person who seemingly possesses it is Professor Clark Emery of the University of Miami. In a small work on William Blake, Emery summarizes twelve points on which Gnostics tended to agree. Nowhere in the current literature have I found anything else so concise and accurate in describing the normative characteristics of the Gnostic mythos. Hence I shall present it here as a suggested collection of criteria that one might apply in determining what Gnosticism is. The following characteristics may be considered normative for all Gnostic teachers and groups in the era of classical Gnosticism; thus one who adheres to some or all of them today might properly be called a Gnostic:

• The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.

• As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.

• A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation (albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).

• In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.

• For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.

• Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.

• Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.

• What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.

• Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.

• Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.

• The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.

• Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man.⁶

The noted sociologist Max Weber wrote in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that "the perfect conceptual definition cannot stand at the beginning, but must be left until the end of the inquiry." That is what we have done in the present inquiry also. Emery's twelve points are in every consistent with the proposal set out by the colloquium at Messina. Second-century Gnosticism is taken as the principal model for all of these definitions, a practice that appears to be sensible. Nor is any separate recognition given to any so-called "orthodox gnosis" that is occasionally alluded to, more as a figure of speech than as any discernible historical phenomenon, in the writings of some of the Church Fathers who were contemporaneous with the Gnostics. It would seem that whatever is excluded by Emery's definitions and the protocol of Messina may be more profitably considered from doctrinal perspectives other than Gnostic.

Whatever the value of this line of inquiry, at least it calls attention to definitions that are historically unimpeachable and terminologically definite. This is much more than the current literature - especially of the semipopular variety - possesses. Divisive categorizations that separate "false Gnostics" from "authentic Gnostics," especially on the basis of orthodoxies which were never relevant to either Gnosticism or the Gnostics, may have to be discarded in the light of such definitions. The random projection of contemporary fads and enthusiasms (such as feminism and the Gaia hypothesis) onto Gnosticism might also have to be controlled. But all of this seems like a small price to pay for some order and clarity in this field. We might have to take to heart the ironic admonition of Alice in Wonderland:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said,…"it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

The Genesis Factor

by Stephan A. Hoeller

The following article was published in Quest, September 1997. It is presented here with permission of the author.

SOME YEARS AGO, Elaine H. Pagels, the noted religious historian, had the importance of the Book of Genesis brought to her attention in a most unusual manner. She was in Khartoum, in the African Sudan, holding a discussion with the then foreign minister of that country, who had written a book on the myths of his people. A prominent member of the Dinka tribe, her host told her how the creation myth of his people relates to the whole social, political, and religious culture in that part of the Sudan.

Shortly after this conversation, Pagels was reading a Time magazine in which several letters to the editor took issue with a particular article on changing social mores in America. To her surprise, four of the six letters mentioned the story of Adam and Eve--how God created the first human pair "in the beginning," and what kind of behavior was therefore right or wrong for men and women today. Stimulated by her conversation in Africa, she quickly recognized that many people, even those who do not literally believe it, still return to the archaic story of creation as a frame of reference when faced with challenges to their traditional values.

Pagels realized that, like creation stories of other cultures, the Genesis story addresses profound and basic questions. Americans and Dinka tribesmen are not so different after all; both look to their creation stories when attempting to answer such questions as, what is the purpose of human beings on earth? How do we differ from each other and from animals? Why do we suffer? Why do we die?

Recent events on the intellectual scene have served to affirm these insights. Autumn of 1996 brought a considerable revival of interest in Genesis. Foreshadowed by a series of semi-informal conversations at Manhattan's Jewish Theological Seminary, led by Rabbi Burton Visotzky, the major event of this revival became a much publicized television series entitled "A Living Conversation," devoted entirely to the Book of Genesis. Hosted by Bill Moyers, himself an ordained Southern Baptist minister who had later shifted his allegiance to the more liberal United Church of Christ, the series raised high expectations in many quarters. A number of recent books have also dealt with the Genesis story.

Robert Alter, one of the most recent translators of Genesis, said: "Moyers has hit upon an idea whose time has come. At this moment of post-cold war confusion about where we're going as a civilization, with all kinds of murky religious ferment, it makes sense to do some stocktaking.  Let's go back to the book that started the whole shebang."

Moyers's panelists included Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, a Hindu, a Buddhist, and several agnostics. Not included, however, were persons who could represent Gnostic Christianity, one of the most ancient and at the same time most timely and creative approaches to the interpretation of the Bible. Nor was there any appreciable mention of Gnostic views in the cover story of Time magazine (October 28,1996), which followed upon the television series, or in several books published in the ensuing months.

Had the recent revival of interest in Genesis occurred fifty or sixty years ago, this omission might have been understandable. Sources offering alternative interpretations of the Book of Genesis then were few and far between. All this changed, however, after 1945, when a veritable treasure trove of Gnostic scriptures was discovered in the Nag Hammadi valley in upper Egypt. This discovery would transform the character of biblical studies forever. The Nag Hammadi scriptures contain numerous creative variants of biblical teachings.

A Different View of Adam and Eve

William Blake, the Gnostic poet of the early nineteenth century, wrote of the differences between his view and the mainstream view of holy writ: 'Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white." The same words could have been uttered by Gnostic Christians and their orthodox opponents in the first three or four centuries A.D.

The orthodox view then regarded most of the Bible, particularly Genesis, as history with a moral. Adam and Eve were considered to be historical figures, the literal ancestors of our species. From the story of their transgression, orthodox teachers deduced specific moral consequences, chiefly the "fall" of the human race due to original sin. Another consequence was the lowly and morally ambivalent status of women, who were regarded as Eve's co-conspirators in the fateful deed of disobedience in paradise. Tertullian, a sworn enemy of the Gnostics, wrote to the female members of the Christian community thusly:

. . . you are the devil's gateway. . . you are she who persuaded him whom the devil did not dare attack. . . . Do you not know that you are each an Eve?  The sentence of God on your sex lives on in this age; the guilt, necessarily, lives on too.

The Gnostic Christians who authored the Nag Hammadi scriptures did not read Genesis as history with a moral, but as a myth with a meaning. To them, Adam and Eve were not actual historical figures, but representatives of two intrapsychic principles within every human being. Adam was the dramatic embodiment of psyche, or soul, while Eve stood for the pneuma, or spirit. Soul, to the Gnostics, meant the embodiment of the emotional and thinking functions of the personality, while spirit represented the human capacity for spiritual consciousness. The former was the lesser self (the ego of depth psychology), the latter the transcendental function, or the "higher self," as it is sometimes known. Obviously, Eve, then, is by nature superior to Adam, rather than his inferior as implied by orthodoxy.

Nowhere is Eve's superiority and numinous power more evident than in her role as Adam's awakener. Adam is in a deep sleep, from which Eve's liberating call arouses him. While the orthodox version has Eve physically emerge from Adam's body, the Gnostic rendering has the spiritual principle known as Eve emerging from the unconscious depths of the somnolent Adam. Before she thus emerges into liberating consciousness, Eve calls forth to the sleeping Adam in the following manner, as stated by the Gnostic Apocryphon of John:

I entered into the midst of the dungeon which is the prison of the body. And I spoke thus: "He who hears, let him arise from the deep sleep." And then he (Adam) wept and shed tears. After he wiped away his bitter tears he spoke, asking: "Who is it that calls my name, and whence has this hope come unto me, while I am in the chains of this prison?" And I spoke thus: "I am the Pronoia of the pure light; I am the thought of the undefiled spirit. . . .  Arise and remember . . . and follow your root, which is I . . . and beware of the deep sleep."

In another scripture from the same collection, entitled On the Origin of the World, we find further amplification of this theme. Here Eve whose mystical name is Zoe, meaning life, is shown as the daughter and messenger of the Divine Sophia, the feminine hypostasis of the supreme Godhead:

Sophia sent Zoe, her daughter, who is called "Eve," as an instructor in order that she might raise up Adam, in whom there is no spiritual soul so that those whom he could beget might also become vessels of light. When Eve saw her companion, who was so much like her, in his cast down condition she pitied him, and she exclaimed: "Adam, live! Rise up upon the earth!" Immediately her words produced a result for when Adam rose up, right away he opened his eyes. When he saw her, he said:  "You will be called 'mother of the living', because you are the one who gave me life."

In the same scripture, the creator and his companions whisper to each other while Adam sleeps: "Let us teach him in his sleep as though she (Eve) came to be from his rib so that the woman will serve and he will be lord over her." The demeaning tale of Adam's rib is thus revealed as a propagandistic device intended to advance an attitude of male superiority. It goes without saying that such an attitude would have been more difficult among the Gnostics, who held that man was indebted to woman for bringing him to life and to consciousness.

The Western theologian Paul Tillich interpreted this scripture as the Gnostics did, declaring that "the Fall" was a symbol for the human situation, not a story of an event that happened "once upon a time." Tillich said that the Fall represented "a fall from the state of dreaming innocence" in psychological terms, an awakening from potentiality to actuality. Tillich's view was that this "fall" was necessary to the development of humankind.

The Serpent of Wisdom

The sin of Eve, so the orthodox tell us, was that she listened to the serpent, who persuaded her that the fruit of the tree would make her and Adam wise, without any deleterious side-effects. It was Eve who then seduced the righteously reluctant Adam to join her in this act of disobedience, and thus together they brought about the fall of humanity.

A Gnostic treatise, The Testimony of Truth, tells a different story. While repeating the words of the orthodox version of Genesis, the Gnostic source states that "the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise." After extolling the wisdom of the serpent, the treatise casts serious aspersions on the creator: "What sort is he then, this God?" Then come some of the answers to the rhetorical question. The motive of the creator in punishing Adam was envy, for the creator envied Adam, who by eating the fruit would acquire knowledge (gnosis). Neither did the creator seem quite omniscient when he asked of Adam: "Where are you?" The creator has shown himself repeatedly to be "an envious slanderer," a jealous God, who inflicts cruel punishments on those who transgress his capricious orders and commandments. The treatise comments: "But these are the things he said (and did) to those who believe in him and serve him." The implication clearly presents itself that with a God like this, one needs no enemies.

Another treatise, The Hypostasis of the Archons, informs us that not only was Eve the emissary of the divine Sophia, but the serpent was similarly inspired by the same supernal wisdom. Sophia mystically entered the serpent, who thereby acquired the title of instructor. The instructor then taught Adam and Eve about their source, informing them that they were of high and holy origin and not mere slaves of the creator deity.

What, one may ask, motivated the Gnostic interpreters of Genesis to make these unusual statements? Were they purely motivated by bitter criticism directed against the God of Israel, as the Church Fathers would have us believe? Many contemporary scholars do not think so. These contemporary scholars suggest that the unfavorable image of the creator contrasted with the favorable one of Adam, Eve, and even of the serpent alludes to an important issue not frequently recognized.

The orthodox interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, tend to emphasize the distinction between the infinite creator and his finite creatures. Humans and animals are on earth, while God is in heaven, and never the two will meet. The orthodox have held, with Martin Buber, that the human's relationship to God is always "I and Thou." In the Gnostic position one can discern a keynote that is reminiscent of the attitude of certain other religions, notably Hinduism, which rather declares: "I am Thou."

The Gnostics share with the Hindus and with certain Christian mystics the notion that the divine essence is present deep within human nature in addition to being present outside of it. At one time humans were part of the divine, although later, in their manifest condition, they more and more tended to project divinity onto beings external to themselves. Alienation from God brings an increase in the worship of deities wholly external to the human. The Gospel of Philip, another scripture from Nag Hammadi, expresses it well:

In the beginning God created humans. Now, however, humans are creating God. Such is the way of this world-humans invent gods and worship their creations. It would be better for such gods to worship humans.

True God, False God

When discussing the story of Noah and the flood, author Karen Armstrong (A History of God, 1993), as a panelist on Moyers's program, asserted that God is "not some nice, cozy daddy in the sky," but rather a being who decidedly behaves frequently "in an evil way." With his actions in connection with the flood, Armstrong said, God originated the idea of justifiable genocide. Hitler and Stalin, one might deduce, acted on the instruction of such stories as that of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah when instituting the holocaust and the camps of the Gulag. Had the panelists called on Gnostic scriptures, they could have quoted many precedents for Armstrong's criticism of the vengeful God of the Old Testament.

The Gnostic Hypostasis of the Archons, for example, states that the cause of the flood was not the turning of humans to wickedness, causing God to repent of his creation, as the "official" version of Genesis declared. Quite the contrary, people were becoming wiser and better, so an envious and spiteful creator decided to wipe them out in the flood. Noah was told by the creator to build an ark and place it atop Mount Seir-a name that does not occur in Genesis, but in one of the psalms referring to the flood. Noah's wife, unnamed in Genesis but called Norea by the Gnostics, is a special person, possessing more wisdom than her husband. Norea is the daughter of Eve and a knower of hidden things. She tries to dissuade her husband from collaborating with the schemes of the creator, and ends up burning down the ark which Noah had built.

The creator and his dark angels then surround Norea and intend to punish Norea by raping her. Norea defends herself by refuting various false claims they make. Ultimately she cries out for help to the true God, who sends the golden Angel Eleleth (Sagacity), who not only saves her from the attack of the creator's dark servants, but also teaches her regarding her origins and promises her that her descendants will continue to possess the true gnosis.

There are other scriptures of the Nag Hammadi collection that repeat or refer to the story of Norea, including the Apocryphon of John and The Thought of Norea. The former does not mention her by name, but states that Noah's descendants were wise ones who were hidden in a luminous cloud, adding significantly, "[This was not] as Moses said, 'They were hidden in the ark."' In the latter it is not only one angel but "three holy helpers" who intercede on her behalf.

It is quite apparent that the creator god who visits humanity with the disaster of the flood is not identical with the "true God" to whom Norea calls out for help. Viewing the character of the deity of Genesis with a sober, critical eye, the Gnostics concluded that this God was neither good nor wise. He was envious, genocidal, unjust, and, moreover, had created a world full of bizarre and unpleasant things and conditions. In their visionary explorations of secret mysteries, the Gnostics felt that they had discovered that this deity was not the only God, as had been claimed, and that certainly there was a God above him.

This true God above was the real father of humanity, and, moreover, there was a true mother as well, Sophia, the emanation of the true God. Somewhere in the course of the lengthy process of pre-creational manifestation, Sophia mistakenly gave life to a spiritual being, whose wisdom was greatly exceeded by his size and power. This being, whose true names are Yaldabaoth (child of the chaos), Samael (blind god), and also Saclas (foolish one), then proceeded to create a world, and eventually also a human being called Adam. Neither the world nor the man thus created was very serviceable as created, so Sophia and other high spiritual agencies contributed their light and power to them. The creator thus came to deserve the name "demiurge" (half maker), a Greek term employed in a slightly different sense by philosophers, including Plato.

To what extent various Gnostics took these mythologies literally is difficult to discern. What is certain is that behind the myths there are important metaphysical postulates which have not lost their relevance. The personal creator who appears in Genesis does not possess the characteristics of the ultimate, transcendental "ground of being" of which mystics of many religions speak. If the God of Genesis has any reality at all, it must be a severely limited reality, one characterized by at least some measure of foolishness and blindness. While the concept of two Gods is horrifying to the monotheistically conditioned mind, it is not illogical or improbable. Modem theologians, particularly Paul Tillich, have boldly referred to "the God above God." Tillich introduced the term "ground of being" as alternative language to express the divine. The ideas of the old Gnostics seem not so outdated after all.

The Mysteries of Seth

Almost anyone today could declare that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. The third son is more difficult to name; he is Seth. The third son was provided by God as a replacement for the slain Abel, according to Genesis. He was sired rather late in life by Adam, for Adam is said to have been 130 years old at the time. The historian Josephus wrote that Seth was a very great man and that his descendants were the discoverers of many mysterious arts, including astrology. The descendants of Seth then inscribed the records of their occult discoveries, according to Josephus, on two pillars, one brick, the other stone, so that they might be preserved in times of future disasters.

In the treatise The Apocalypse of Adam, the Gnostics presented us with a scripture that tells not only of Seth (and his father) but of the future of the esoteric tradition of gnosis in ages to come. It begins:

The disclosure given by Adam to his son Seth in his seven hundredth year. And he said: "Listen to my words, my son Seth. When God created me out of the earth, along with Eve your mother, I went along with her in a glory which she had seen in the aeon from which she came forth. She taught me the word of Gnosis of the eternal God. And we resembled the great eternal angels, for we were higher than the God who created us."

After thus informing us once again of the spiritually superior status of Eve, the scripture goes on to recount how the creator turned against Adam and Eve, robbing them of their glory and their knowledge. Humans now served the creator "in fear and in slavery," so Adam stated. While previously immortal, Adam now knew that his days were numbered. Therefore, he said he now wanted to pass on what he knew to Seth and his descendants.

In the prediction it becomes apparent that "Seth and his seed" would continue to experience gnosis, but that they would be subject to many grave tribulations. The first of these would be the flood, during which angels would rescue the Gnostic race of Seth and hide them in a secret place. Noah, on the other hand, would advise his sons to serve the creator God "in fear and slavery all the days of your life." After the return of the illumined people of Seth's kind, the creator would once again wrathfully turn against them and try to destroy them by raining fire, sulfur, and asphalt down on them-an allusion, perhaps, to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Once again many of the Gnostics would be saved by being taken by great angels to a place above the domain of the evil powers.

Much later there would be a new era with the coming of the man of light ("Phoster"), who would teach gnosis to all. The Apocalypse of Adam concludes with this passage:

This is the hidden knowledge of Adam which he gave to Seth, which is the holy baptism of those who know the imperishable Gnosis through those who are born of the Logos, through the imperishable Illuminator, who himself came from the holy seed (of Seth) Jesseus, Mazareus, Jessedekeus.

These names, which are obviously versions of the name of Jesus (they are found in other scriptures also), identify the culmination of the Gnostic tradition in the figure of Jesus. The "Race of Seth" is thus a biblical metaphor for those following this tradition. In the Gnostic book Pistis Sophia, Jesus identifies himself as coming from the "Great Race of Seth".

Old Answers to New Controversies

The current interest in Genesis raises many serious questions. Not a few of these have been illuminated by the neglected light shed by the scriptures quoted earlier. Not unlike the old Gnostics, today's questioning scholars and laypersons are provoked by Genesis to critiques and even to inventions of new variations on the ancient theme. Consider how deeply the social conditions of many countries have been influenced by the picture the orthodox version of Genesis presents concerning Eve and, by implication, women in general. Any of the several scriptures of the Nag Hammadi collection would shed an entirely different and more benign light on these issues.

Secondly, consider the political implications of the story of Genesis. Elaine Pagels, in her fascinating book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (1988), pointed out that the long-held attitude of the Christian church of submitting to greatly flawed systems of secular government was usually justified by the "fallen condition" of humanity as first described in Genesis. Following largely the interpretations of Saint Augustine, most Christians felt that even bad governments were to be preferred to liberty because humans are so corrupted by Adam and Eve's original sin that they are in capable of governing themselves. The libertarian fervor of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that gave rise to the American and French revolutions was clearly not motivated by the spirit of Genesis. The statement that "all men are created equal" does not occur in that scripture, but sprang from the inspiration of the American revolutionaries, who drew from Hermetic, Gnostic, and similar non-mainstream sources.

Thirdly, there remains the terrifying problem of the character of the God of Genesis. Agreeing with Karen Armstrong, we find Jack Miles, in his provocative book God: A Biography writing: "Much that the Bible says about him is rarely preached from the pulpit because, examined too closely, it becomes a scandal." Perhaps we may need to take a second look at the Gnostic proposition that the creator mentioned in Genesis is not the true and ultimate God. The unfavorable potential present in the Book of Genesis did not go unnoticed throughout history. Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, a religious teacher prominent in the years after A.D. 70, warned that the Genesis story of creation should not be taught before even as many as two people. Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, wrote that many of the narratives in the Old Testament were "rude and repellent." He certainly included those in Genesis.

The Dinka tribesmen of the Sudan have a point. The creation myth of any culture has a profound effect on the attitudes, social mores, and political systems that prevail. So long as the Book of Genesis remains a basic text for Jews, Christians, and Muslims we can expect the societies within which these religions flourish to be influenced by this book. Still, there is some hope on the horizon. Although the Gnostic alternatives to the content of Genesis are still usually neglected, as indeed they were on television and in the press last year, some prominent figures of our culture are beginning to take notice. To mention but one such figure, Harold Bloom has become one of the most prominent voices calling attention to the creative character of the Gnostic alternative to mainstream religion. His books American Religion (1992) and Omens of Millennium (1996) have made a powerful case for the timeliness and perennial value of the positions taken by Christian Gnostics, Jewish Kabbalists, and Sufi mystics, all of whom are inspired by a common gnosis. It may be useful to conclude with an incisive and in our view definitive statement from the pen of this scholar:

If you can accept a God who coexists with death camps, schizophrenia, and AIDS, yet remains all-powerful and somehow benign, then you have faith, and you have accepted the covenant with Yahweh.... If you know yourself as having an affinity with the alien or stranger God, cut off from this world, then you are a Gnostic, and perhaps the best and strongest moments still come to what is best and oldest in you, to a breath or spark that long precedes this Creation.