Gnostic Views of the Virgin Mary etc.
Frederic Morton
Does anyone have any insights regarding the views of the various gnostic
sects regarding the virgin Mary and her role? I am also interested in
gnostic views regarding the "feminine aspect" of God. I suppose that
like other areas the views of the gnostic sects differ tremendously, but
I would appreciate any insights.
Also, what type of connection does Christian gnosticism have with
Sufism? Would it be correct to say that one can view Sufism as a
gnostic sect of Islam. Again, any insights would be appreciated.
Michael Gates
Frederic Morton wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any insights regarding the views of the various gnostic
> sects regarding the virgin Mary and her role?
The Gospel of Philip, a Valentinian text, discusses Mary briefly:
"Some said, 'Mary conceived by the holy spirit.' They are in error. They do
not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?
Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the
Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no
power defiled...the powers defile themselves. And the lord would not have
said 'My father who is in heaven' (Mt 16:17) unless he had had another
father, but he would have said simply 'My father.'"
I take this to mean that the Valentinians did not take the virgin birth
literally but rather as a metaphor for Mary's spiritual purity.
Michael
Mike Leavitt
> Does anyone have any insights regarding the views of the various gnostic
> gnostic views regarding the "feminine aspect" of God. I suppose that
> like other areas the views of the gnostic sects differ tremendously, but
> I would appreciate any insights.
>
> Also, what type of connection does Christian gnosticism have with
> Sufism? Would it be correct to say that one can view Sufism as a
> gnostic sect of Islam. Again, any insights would be appreciated.
>
>
manifestation--the great cathedral in Istambol (Constantinople) is the
Haga (Holy) Sophia, so there are ecos of this even in Eastern
Orthodoxy. This is an oversimplification of course.
Historically, it's hard to trace any connection from Gnosticism to
Sufism as the former ended in the 3rd century, and the latter didn't
appear till the 10th or 11th, but there are great similarities of
thought as there are to Qaballah (especially Isaac Luria). The
Manicheans were still around, so perhaps there is the connection.
Dean (the moderator can comment better than me on this).
The Gnostics tend to see the divinity as sysigies--male/female, and
generally gave the feminine more respect than their orthodox
compeditors. God is mother and father, yet transcendent to both.
--
Mike Leavitt ac...@lafn.org
Terje Dahl Bergersen
In article <deaneEE...@netcom.com>, fj...@snet.net wrote:
>Does anyone have any insights regarding the views of the various gnostic
>sects regarding the virgin Mary and her role? I am also interested in
>gnostic views regarding the "feminine aspect" of God. I suppose that
>like other areas the views of the gnostic sects differ tremendously, but
>I would appreciate any insights.
I am a little unsure whether or not you want to discuss/hear about
this by private email or in the context of this forum:
It would certainly make an interesting topic to address.
There are certainly different views, and different insights ( :) )
about the role of the *virgin* in the tradition of Gnosticism:
An example is how Mary is a "type" (in modern lingo "archetype") or
image of the Ecclesia - we know this to be a view held both by
Churches held to be Orthodox, or at least revered as such - as
well as churches and groups held to be Heterodox, such as among
the Manichaeans.
The Gnostics was known to ask such annoying questions as , "What do you mean
by *virgin*?" and "What does *virgin* mean, and what is the significance
of Mary of Bethany being a Virgin?" - in the face of the statement:
"Jesus was born by Virgin Mary". Those who did ask, did it mostly not
because they did not believe it to be true - but they assumed that the
entirety of the life of Jesus Christ served as an "mythic image"
for the Mysteries - much like the legend of Demeter and Persephone,
Herkules and other such. To the literal-minded these legends where
either the definite truth - some kind of cosmic drama which had happened
*just as it was told* - or it were recreationary fancy; much like our
reading the newspapers today, I suspect. However, there existed those
who would ask questions like "What do you mean? What do you see? What
does it mean to you?" - their business was finding the elusive red
thread.
Let`s consider the doctrine of the virgin birth - that boat is
certainly being rocked these days, for anyone of you who are sitting
in the middle of it, watching the waves splash in, it must certainly
be a nasty experience :
It is correct, or at least touches truth, when the Churchfathers say
that the gnostics of old couldn`t agree on much -
but what they couldn`t agree on, for the most part, were details -
which tends to be the tendency when one`s primary concern are the
wholeness, the whole picture - of a given reality or apparition, whatever
it is to you.
Among these details are the concern whether or not Mary conceived
as a virgin, if she continued to be a virgin - and also, how
Jesus would be said to have been born not of woman but of spirit in
some Gnostic texts.
Ireneaus reports that Basilides allegedly thaught, or someone in his
circle, thaught - a doctrine saying that Jesus was born through Mary
in the manner of a wholly developed child, as if through a "tube"
(Im not sure if tubes existed as such at that time, so this might be
a slip in the english translation indeed); suggesting that not only
did Mary not have sexual intercourse with Joseph (Im not really getting
it, when it comes to the taboo that they should have sexual relations,
as far as I have understood, they were married, at least engaged :) )
, but consequently she was not pregnant with Jesus either, she was
warned some 9 months before by Gabriel (the anouncement) and then
suddenly baby Jesus flew through her like through a water-slide from
some "astral realm". I think you can tell that Im not buying it,
in fact, this is an unlikely fiction I suspect Ireneaus has gleaned
from someone who didnt much care what Basilides meant with the few
convoluted statements he *did* make about the Incarnation.
The Ebionites, and quite a few other "gnostic" groups (using the term a
little well liberally) - held that the human being known as Jesus was the
product
of Mary and Joseph who were told about their being predestined to bring
him into existence, or incarnation, on this earth - this is a better known
situation - because many of the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets, as well as
figures such as Buddha, has some angelic being pronounce prior to their
conception that the offspring of the blessed couple would become great
men.. what would happen today, if this happened, you may ask - well..
there would probably be some sort of abortion, or someone would be
swallowing a lot of pills. People just aren`t ready for that sort of thing
- evidenced by the way modern man has turned all squishy, confused and
hysteric about all things "space alien" (makes me want to loose my lunch,
sorry..) - an angelic being in your bedroom while youre making out????
Call Mulder&Scully, call the National Enquirer, call the FBI.. call the
local Cable-network... Oh, I digress...
The Gospel of Philip (transl. Wesley W. Isenberg.)
contains a short description of the Valentinian take on this:
54,25-35: Some said: "Mary conceived by the holy spirit." They are in error.
They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive
by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no *power* defiled. (Therefore) She
is a great anathema to the hebrews, who are the apostles and apostolic
men. This virgin whom no power defiled (..) (rather) the powers defiled
themselves.
And the Lord would not have said "My father who is in heaven" (Matthew
16:17) unless he had another father, but he would simply have said
"my father".
The breakdown of these few lines can present us with the answers to the
first part of your inquiry : The feminine in relation to the Godhead - and
the position of Mary.
First: "When did ever a woman conceive by a woman"?
What it says are this - the Holy Spirit are *feminine*, whereas I am
sure there are some dissent on this, also a lot of questioning,
that is quite probably one of the *uniform* statements from the
Gnostic Christian tradition.
Mary couldnt have conceived "by" the Holy Spirit in any way -
not because it is not possible in our world, but because the whole
entirety or Pleroma consists of the complemention of the "opposite
partners", the Pleroma or "Heaven" in which the Holy Spirit and the
Father exists, exists in the complemention of different entities,
they are made one - all the time - because that world consists in
union and unification. Love is the power that makes the two into
one, and God is Love...
Second: Who *is* Mary, the Gospel of Philip hints at it, for it
says: "Mary is the virgin whom no *power* defile". "Virgin" or
Virgo does not mean celibate, rather it means Solitary - whose
masculine counterpart would be recluse or Monakhos (Solitary one)
, Mary as Virgin is not named, in any Christian tradition except
very recent ones - Virgo *Intacta* rather she is presented as the
*Virgin*, who are even more so, because her origin as having existed
before her birth, and having incarnated by her birth, is hinted at
, even in medieval latin Catholic literature.
If we look at the Gnostic Christian stance however, we have the
myth of the Fall and defilement of Sophia, which again reflect
the fall and defilement of the human soul. In later Gnostic
tradition we are not dealing with *one* Sophia, which is often
suggested - people keep dragging large statues of Isis and
that "old mother" figurette from the stone age and shouting
"Sophia/Mary the Virgin *is* the Goddess!!" and following the dictate
of the "Patriarchic" norms of religiousity they are supposed to
rebel against, they insist on there being only one Goddess, of course
that is what Gnostics would call "plain psychic religiousity", understandable
,yes - human, yes - but inferior to anything Pneumatic or truelly Spiritual,
sorry for my digressing again - we are dealing with three:
Barbelo, Sophia, Achamoth.
I`ll go fast forward at Wesley Isenberg`s translation of the Gospel of
Philip and end where there`s something about Mary "being three"...
59:5-10
"There was three who always walked with the lord: his mother,
and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his
companion (consort - <my comment>..). His sister (?) and his mother and
his companion were each a Mary."
This is just conjecture, of course - but this seems to be strikingly
a reference to a "triad" of Mary´s. The reason it is mentioned without
any specific context in the Gospel of Philip is that the author held
that it was *no accident* that it appears to be three Mary`s in the
"story" or Legend of Jesus, each possessing roles - the roles of
Mary Magdalene, his consort and Mary, his mother, perhaps being most
approachable.
Barbelo isnt a generic name to Gnosticism in general, it was either
unique to the Sethian and/or Barbelite branch of the classical Gnostics,
or adopted from older cultures (such as Thassa or Thossa of the Peratae)
- Valentinians, such as those who would make reference to the "three mary`s"
in the Gospel of Philip - went along with "conceptual" or "virtue"
association of platonism rather than the mythologizing of the Sethians -
and opted
for such name as "Sigč" or Silence - for Barbelo, or Epinnoia (First Mind)
which yet another Gnostic group of Pneumatic Christians called her.
As Barbelo probably applies as "type" to Mary the Virgin, Incarnating
Theotokos (Mother of God)
I`ll concentrate on "her" here; If God the Father, in the trinity - is
also Father proper of God the Son, who do *anyone* assume to be the Mother
of God the Son??? I can only find God the Mother to be the right answer,
and she "Is" God
the Holy Spirit, by another name....
The Logos was with God in the beginning, so we are told in the prologue of
the Gospel of John, famous for its ability to produce
"wild-eyed-speculation and mystification" and attempted suppressed by
certain powerful authorities more than once. Other places we are told
about "The Wisdom of God" as if it was a spouse, a comrade in the work of
manifestation - most certainly personified - even more so because HOKHMA
(Wisdom) are a feminine word in the Hebrew/arameic language.
In the Gnostic Myths - we shall see - or the majority of the versions of
the Gnostic Myth - we find a scenario before the whole "Cosmos" thing
happens, were the Wisdom of God provokes, advices or "desires" forth
certain qualities -
all appropriate for a world that would be perfect, eternal and whole - yet
alive, dynamic, vibrant and diversified - not your "dull white fluffy
clouds floating around, whilst chubby babies with clip-on wings play on
lyres" idea of Heaven, another reality which we cannot begin to guess at,
because of the degeneration of our instruments of guessing or imagining.
Evil or Good wasn`t a question of definition - neither was it a question
of nature, predestination or for that matter; choice. The "gap" between
that causes war, because a concept of "gain" and "loss" sets in - had not
yet begun to tear everything manifest "outward" in that mystery apart.
The Apocryphon of John says:
"And his (the Unknown Godhead, The Monad) thought performed a deed and she
came forth, namely she who had appeared before him in the shine of his
light .
This is the first power which was before all of them, and which came forth
from his mind, She is the forethought of the All - her light shines like
his light - the perfect power which is the image of the invisible,
virginal spirit who
is perfect. The first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory of
the aeons, the glory of the revelation, she glorified the virginal spirit
and it was she who praised him, because thanks to him she had come
forth.."
Inside of "himself" - The Virginal Spirit - he divided so that revelation
would become the means of what was to come; and his image shone forth
first in his thought, then in his radition - Barbelo is the completion of
the first thought, and becomes the embodiment of that first thought.
"This is the first thought, his image; she became a womb to everything for
it is she who is prior to them all, the Mother-Father, the first man, the
holy spirit, the thrice-male, the thrice-powerful, the thrice-named
androgynous one, and the eternal aeon among the invisible ones and the
first to come forth.."
Since I do not desire to discuss the endless myriads of "Pleromic" beings,
I will continue concentrating on who this Barbelo is supposed to have
been.
Barbelo initiated the process of emanation - emanation came not forth from
the father-alone, as he mirrored himself in the light, as with Barbelo, in
some sense she is more than an emanation of the First Virginal Spirit, she
is not conceived as such.
In becoming the "forethought" of all, she becomes more distinct from the
masculine form, the Autogenes, she is "syzygetic" to - and I will
consequently
refer to her as Epinnoia here, quoting the Apocryphon of John :
She requests "foreknowledge" to come forth, the Virginal Spirit consents,
and foreknowledge comes forth and stands by forethought, Epinnoia that is.
She requests "indestructibility" to come forth, the Virginal Spirit
consent, and indestructibility comes forth... likewise she requests
the spiritual powers such as "eternal life", "Truth"(Aletheia) and
so on until it formed ten principal qualities of the two.
Very crudely said : Autogenes-Barbelo/Barbelo-Autogenes had ten children.
These ten "form" the first Man and he looks down from the forethought
(his pre-existence in Autogenes-Barbelo´s "thought" or "mind") -
this First Man is the Christ. He was born of the Mother and the Father
in Heaven.
About the "incarnation" of Christ in Jesus, the Gospel of Philip says:
"Indeed, one must utter a mystery. The father of everything united
with the Virgin who came down, and a fire shone for him on that day.
He appeared in the great bridal chamber as one who came into being from
the bridegroom and the bride. So Jesus established everything in it
through these."
The "father of everything", united with the *Virgin who came down*
has to do with the Incarnation of that Virgin, or Image of the Virgin
that is discussed in The Apocryphon of John -
Thus, Christ was not born of a Woman, true - at least not in the
"speculation" - he was born of a Virgin, moreover he was born of
"the Virgin that came down", God the Mother *in* Mary - his form
was conceived in the Bridal Chamber, what bridal chamber?
That place wherein the beings of the higher world was conceived,
as being from the bridegroom and the bride - the bridegroom
consents with the bride, and the bride consents with that bridegroom
- and they engender a new life, as it were.
Consider this: If Christ even in Jesus - Jesus in Christ, Jesus Christ -
was not *fashioned* as a creature, or born out of an earthly union;
these two statements are of course anathema to suggest, although we
cannot but suggest them, on inquiry, looking into the doctrine of
Incarnation - what is he? Secreted by God the Father? Perhaps -
Now, the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son in terms
of being of one Nature and in a Unity that no created things can
have either towards other created things or beings, nor towards
its "creator" or origin ;
The birth of baby Jesus is refered to as the Incarnation , indeed
it was an "incarnation" for what had not formerly use, need or
business with the flesh of matter, was incarnated - turn that coin upside down;
and it says what had formerly no use of or need,or business with
Souls were "ensouled" - but it wasnt, at least not in ancient time,
and certainly not among Gnostics, considered to be the Epiphany -
the revelation of God or Divine Reality among mortal men and women....
A little heat generated after a couple of councils and synods after the
"big one" (Nicea) and after a while the two "holy days" of "Incarnation"
and Epiphany fused into one - voilą, you had "Christ Mass" - people
now go to Church and celebrate Christ at the original celebration of the birth
of Jesus. Epiphany and The Incarnation of Jesus was two different events,
which meant two different things. Epiphany, in case anyone wondered, because
they wont mention it at your protestant churches Sunday School or religious
education in school - was an *ancient*, indeed *apostolic* celebration of
the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan - as we know, it was there his real
ministry begun, and there he was "affirmed", not only by John the
Baptizer, but also by the descent of "the Holy Spirit in the form of a
dove", and the voice of the Holy Father. For those who accept the Trinity
- that event is the first NT report of the presence of a Trinity
consisting of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit",
people go to be baptised in said trinity`s name, and think nothing of it,
neither that they receive it on account of Christ making them worthy, they
themselves not possessing enough "dignity" or purity, or even inheritance,
to lay claim of what it is intended in that baptism.
For the man that is baptised in Life and Light, Water and Fire, Soul and
Spirit - is not only "born again" but begotten before his birth - his root
is eternal and his claim to the Kingdom true , he is no longer purely a
Christian, he has become ... a Christ. Why? First Man is Christ, First Man
is Adam -
Through Adam Jesus Christ becomes Son of Man, Through the Logos Jesus
Christ becomes Son of God - those who sought Christ and found him, found
the Father, and was born as Christ to him, for in the Pleroma or in Heaven
"what you see - you shall become".
This is more like my meditation/rant/whatever you call it - on the manifold
themes that emanated from The first quote I gave you, if that somehow was
a little difficult to follow you could try the following books -
from the Gnostic Literature, take good time reading:
The Gospel of Philip - Trimorphic Protennoia - The Sophia of Jesus Christ
- The Exegesis of the Soul - The Apocryphon of John - Thunder, Perfect Mind -
and -The Hypostasis of the Archons.
There exists several interesting books both on Mary and Sophia, written
in a more academic genre:
A small Bibliography (oh, these are titles concerning femininity in
Gnosticism culled from Lee Irwin`s very helpful bibliography
"Gnostic-Hermetic Bibliography" recently posted to the Hermetica
mailing-list) follows:
Arthur, Rose Horman. The wisdom goddess : feminine motifs in eight Nag
Hammadi documents / Lanham, MD : Unversity Press of America, c1984. xiv, 238
p. : port. ; 23 cm. LC CALL NUMBER: BT1390 .A77 1984
Good, Deirdre Joy. Reconstructing the tradition of Sophia in Gnostic
literature / Atlanta, Ga. : Scholars Press, c1987. xxi, 103 p. ; 24 cm. LC
CALL NUMBER: BT1390 .G65 1987
Marjanen, Antti. The woman Jesus loved : Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi
Library and related documents / Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill, 1996. xi,
261 p. ; 25 cm. LC CALL NUMBER: BT1391 .M37 1996
Matthews, Caitlin, 1952- Sophia--goddess of wisdom : the divine feminine
from black goddess to world-soul / London : Mandala, an imprint of
HarperCollins, 1991. viii, 378 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. LC CALL NUMBER: BL215.5
.M38 1990
(as a "first read" this is *very* good - it gives a lot of directions to
look in, although its rather encyclopedic about the whole thing - it
compares extensively such diverse feminine motifs as Theotokos, Mary
magdalene, Sophia in Jewish,Orthodox Christian and Gnostic Christian
tradition, Kabbalah and *Sufism*)
Pistis Sophia. English. Pistis Sophia : a gnostic gospel : a gnostic
miscellany, being for the most part extracts from the books of the Saviour
to which are added excerpts from a cognate literature / Translated by G.R.S.
Mead / 1st American ed. Blauvelt, N.Y., U.S.A. : Spiritual Science Library,
1984. lxix, 325 p. ; 23 cm. LC CALL NUMBER: BT1390 .P513 1984
Oh.. that was another authentic scripture that has a lot on Sophia.
To Norwegians I warmly recommend the pocket-book publication of
"Filipevangeliet", "Frelserens Dialog", "Maria Magdalenas evangelium"
and "En Manikeisk salme" - all rolled into one book with a longer
essay on the role of Mary magdalene among the gnostics (English speaking
folks will perhaps find a corollary in A.Marjanen`s "The Woman jesus loved")
in -
Turid Rian Nystoelen (ed.): Maria Magdalena`s Evangelium - fire gnostiske
tekster. Emilia forlag, 1996.
>Also, what type of connection does Christian gnosticism have with
>Sufism? Would it be correct to say that one can view Sufism as a
>gnostic sect of Islam. Again, any insights would be appreciated.
Dan Merkur, in his "Gnosis: An esoteric tradition of Mystical Visions
and Unions." State University of New York Press,Albany 1988 -
discusses the Gnosis in several traditions, he has devoted especially
many chapters on the discussion of "gnostic" Islam - as demostrated
in Dean Edwards Faq for this newsgroup (soc.religion.gnosis) it is
entirely a question of definition.
I would dare say that in Sufism we have a sophistication :) similar
to that of Christian Gnosticism (I prefer the term "Gnostic Christianity")
, and an attitude that comes close to the "Gnostic attitude".
More of that, possibly, in another post, if there is any interest in that
- I am also sure that there are many subscribers/participants in this
newsgroup as well as the Gnosis-list who can cast a much better and
coherent light on the matter than I can do.
In terms of "lineages" and "direct succession", I doubt there is a
direct link between Sufism and Christian gnosticism -
however, by way of the more syncretic and perhaps less obviously
Gnostic (with big G) religions such as Manichaenism, Mandaenism and
Mazdekian Zurvanism - and The shi`ite "Gnostics" : The neo-platonic
"Brethren of Purity", The Ismailies, the Alawites/Nusairies, the
Druze religion (originally an "Ismaili heresy") and to a certain degree
the Yezidis (another "Ismaili heresy") - and the Shi`ite Sufis such as
Attar, Rumi and Al-Hallaj - not to forget Ibn Arabi and Al-Ghazzali
which I am not sure if were "proper Sufi`s" or not.
I think I`ll sign off with that.
Pax Pleroma
Terje Dahl Bergersen
Societas Gnostica Norvegia
email: noe...@sn.no
url: http://home.sn.no/~noetic/SGN.html
(btw: that site has separate sections on *Sophia*,*Manichaenism*
and *Mandaenism* - and the library has a very small collection
of links (any hints to find more???) to excerpts from the Sufi
classics.)
--
Terje Bergersen
noe...@sn.no
D.K Harrison
You're one far out guy. How do you get on the hermetica mailing list.
You did a good job with your rant, But I wished you had refrenced the
Trimorphic Protenoia a bit more. You are obviously partial to Phillip's
Gospel (I am also) what is your position on the "anthology" perspective
that Bentley Layton advances. I agree with it. I actually think the
first scraps of the Gospel of Phillip are from the late 1st century and
the anthology that ends up in Nag Hammadi, covered about 75-100 years of
tinkering. Good job with the Mary issue, it's obviously a complex one.
As to Islamic Gnosicism, I can't remember where I read a good synopsis
of it it was a refrence book that dealt with the general topic of
Gnosticism (some religion encyclopedia, but not Eliade's). However,
there was a distinction made between Sufism and Gnostic Islam. It seemed
to revovle around rejecting the more "wrathful" components of the Koran,
as being inspired by a demiurgic type figure. Does any one know this
refrence book I've seen it so many times, but can't find it now. Is
there a distinction drawn between sufism and gnostic Islam, at least in
the scholarly world. Obviously no one agrees on the definition of
Gnostic or Gnosticism and thus the term is used so differently, however,
I think the distinction between Gnostic Islam and Sufism is a little
more cut and dry.
D. Kirkland Harrison II
Terje Dahl Bergersen
In article <5tii83$d...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, "D.K Harrison"
<harr...@oakland.edu> wrote:
>You're one far out guy.
I tend to be out a lot, and sometimes its very far, indeed,
sometimes im near by and at home with it also... :)
>How do you get on the hermetica mailing list.
The Procedure, if not anything has changed (how did *that* come into the
picture, here ???) is writing Zos Imos (who actually are Lee Irwin, a
splendid and imaginative scholar on Shamanism and other esoteric
traditions)
about it: the address still is, I believe :
I write this because although that discussion list (which I must warn
you has been very little concerned with the Hermetica from the
usual narrow definition most of us have of the Hermetica and "Hermetic
tradition" recently.. but newcomers interested in those things can look at
it as a challenge, but it will certainly be applauded by a lot of oldtimers
who are snoozing around on the group not really paying much attention,
such as myself for instance..) is closed-circle discussion group and not
an automatically driven mail-daemon group, I haven`t been told that Zos
Imos
didnt want it to be known that the list exists to others who might be
interesting in contributing to the discussion
Youre expected to give the reason for why you are interested in participating
, I seem to remember (bear with me, Its been something like 2 1/2 years
since I first subscribed).
>You did a good job with your rant, But I wished you had refrenced the
>Trimorphic Protenoia a bit more.
"Well if I didnt, Why don´t you??" -
A constructive discussion of a topic usually have two parties comparing
notes and making arguments from their findings, fortunate for myself, a
lot of such tea-time-talk has been with persons with whom I can actually
receive missing pieces to my own "puzzle", or who can remind me of
something I once knew but had forgotten...
I am just finishing listening to a 5-year old lecture a friend of mine
held, which were taped in connection with a Gnostic Society/Bruchion
Center of Art and Gnosis collaboration from sometime back - named
"Female Incarnation: Trimorphic Protennoia and Helene", the main reason
why I didnt throw in the Protennoia or Epinoia in the dish were that
the text itself is very demanding, although it perhaps are even more
appropriate when it comes to finding similitudes to the "Theotokos"
concept of later "Orthodox" (not "Orthodoxist") mysticism - applied
to Mary of Bethany. In that lecture my friend made a creative inquiry
into the similarities between the "mythic structure" of the text of
the Trimorphic Protennoia and also the material suggesting the role
and fate of Helen(e) of Tyr, the consort of Simon Magus - as believed
to be the incarnation of just that Protennoia or "First Thought",
but like I mentioned, taking the TP into consideration ( a Gnostic
text I am very sure, intuition-wise, were actually written by a female...
just like "Thunder, the Perfect Mind".) when comparing the "Orthodox
Mary", Theotokos - Mother-of-God with Gnostic Archetypes of the same
nature, is very useful and may bring startling results.
I am, however, a little resolved on the matter, because I feel that
I perhaps said "too much", in that a lot of it amounted to so much
speculation without anchoring that speculation with examples that
could make it more useful than it actually did become.
> You are obviously partial to Phillip's
>Gospel (I am also) what is your position on the "anthology" perspective
>that Bentley Layton advances. I agree with it.
So do I - like Layton exemplified in his preface to the text in his
"The Gnostic Scriptures", it looks like it contains many severly
excerpted statements that the compiler(s) and editor(s) of the
document that is in our hands today to consider, took from many sources:
Some obviously connected to Palestine (the structure of the temple in
Jerusalem as metaphor or example of states of being) or something
manifesting out
from Palestine - others from Syriac Christianity (it has been agreed that
the timeline of the introduction of Christianity into Syria was around the
very
last two decades of the first century or early second century, if so,
contemporary to the beginnings of Gnostic Christianity coming from Syria),
with a mention of the Sacraments as established structures ,the emphasis
on this aspect, as well as the Mysteries (which foreshadow Sacramental
emphasis in "Orthodox" forms of Christianity) has made scholars call
the Gospel of Philip a "Gnostic miscellany or anthology on Sacramentology"
, I think that is precisely what the main objective of the compilation was).
Some of it also may belong to the "Logia" tradition especially prominent in
the middle east and in Egypt.
>I actually think the
>first scraps of the Gospel of Phillip are from the late 1st century and
>the anthology that ends up in Nag Hammadi, covered about 75-100 years of
>tinkering.
The allegorical use of the "jews" and "gentiles", "circumcision" and
"uncircumcision" and similar statements in the very "beginning" (hard
to ascertain any actual beginning of the text actually)
remind me of what the Valentinian exegetes of the Pauline Letters ascribed
to Paul as being part of his "secret teaching"; even as a "heresy" and
"erratic reading of Paul" this kind of thing dates back to precisely the
time period you suggest here. The allusion to the seperation of Adam and
Eve
as an image of the fall, seems to be from an earlier form of Gnosticism
than Valentinianism proper also; more like perhaps Cerinthus or Simon Magus.
That is not to say that I contend that it was *written* by Cerinthus or
Simon Magus, or they themselves were the origin of such statements.
The Epistemology statements, if it can be called that, seems to be
Valentinian, but this in no way give away the actual authorship of the
entire text.
I also think that the Coptic translation we have, may be another "Version"
of an earlier anthology, which explains the representation of a later
"Alexandrian" trend in Gnostic Christian philosophy and argumentation
that is present in the text, and which may very well be dependent on
Coptic terminology itself... but having said that, I need repeat what
I believe I have said before also: I am absolutely not to be taken as
an authority on this on account of any academical schooling or any
recognized work with the Coptic language.
>Is there a distinction drawn between sufism and gnostic Islam, at least in
>the scholarly world. Obviously no one agrees on the definition of
>Gnostic or Gnosticism and thus the term is used so differently, however,
>I think the distinction between Gnostic Islam and Sufism is a little
>more cut and dry.
Some Sufis would be genuinly offended at being called "Gnostic", others
would be flattered had it not been that they would humbly decline to
have any such thing said about their person, and some would love it..
depends a little on the context it is brought up, I suppose.
Henri Corbin`s books are very good sources for any research into
"gnostic Islam" or "Islamic Gnosis", which it is suggested, are two very
distinct terms. > gnostic Islam (notice small "g")- to me, looks a little
like the hierarchical speculations about heavenly beings found in Alawite
and Druze "islam" as manifesting from the Ismailite branch of Shi`ite
Islam,
whereas Islamic Gnosis is a general definition applied to any orientation
or movement within the main "house of Islam" which accepts and applies
the axiom of "Knowledge of Self leads to a greater Knowledge of God",
as discussed by Al-Ghazzali in a summary of a greater work of his,
which I only know by the english title of "On the Alchemy of Happiness",
it is polemical against the charismatic and ecstatic "prophet" of
heterodox sufism, Al-Hallaj - who exemplifies more than anyone else
the realisation of the aforementioned axiom in practise, in flesh and
blood. Al-Ghazzali verified the truth of the Axiom, which exist,
if im not totally forgetful, in one way or another, within the very text
of the Holy Koran, in his writing (which were actually pitched against
the arabic thinker known to us as "Averroes", who again wrote against
a neo-platonic thinker of arabic origin known to us as "Avicenna"),
but advice moderation and modesty when applying the axiom to real life
and actual philosophizing.
The principle of "Knowledge of Self leads to, or is, Knowledge of God"
is not that much emphasized in the "heterodox" and "gnostic" form of
Islam known to us as the Druze religion, the Yezidis and the
Alawites, or rather - what we notice first of all is the emphasis
on an immense structure, a kind of "Kabbalistic Cosmic Tree" -
full of complex interrelational hierarchies, speculation on the
connection between parts of the body and celestial spheres, planets
, constellations or stars (reminds me also a little of some of
the wilder Mandaean speculations) - or rather, not in the sense
that such a Knowledge would lead to a deeper understanding first
and foremost of the transcendental reality of God, because :
first the individual would have to come to terms with an exact
knowledge about the structure and its individual components, before
, *by way of that structure* discovering the relationship between
itself and the greatest and first, the Transcendental Reality,
the Godhead, being the entirety of multiple universes and their
dimensions, rather than the "simple", singular God.
So... hmmm.. perhaps in Islam, even given that it is a younger of the
"greater religion", we may see from early on developements of thougths,
structures of Myth and allegorical reading, mystical experiences and
a quest for ecstasy as agents of religious insight and growth - that
are not so prominent in the "other two" of the "Abrahamic" religions
- except in their Gnostic forms. Men of power, with religious authority
, shielded several of the movements from their very beginning - from
the effective persecution as issued out from their enemies - in the
history of the Islamic world.. rather than investing time, men and
money in erradicating any "dissenting" or "unusual" opinion, practise
or sets of beliefs - at least, more often, than what was the case in
the West - but this kind of situation did not in any way include
non-Islamic groups and individuals. Its a complex image, and im
sure that we in the west are perhaps less likely to recognize all
its features or exavate its actual meaning and significance than
people in the Arab world, which is the true home of Islam - they
will, given a new renaissance, if such a wish can be granted to the
enlightened men and women in the Arab world, who have been hoping
for so long, in so much hopelessness, for such a situation,
undoubtedly, find many astonishing things, in the very origins and
the spiritual, social, psychological and historical foundations
- of Islam.
Oh well, enough of that - I am sure there are people with Sufism
as their speciality, and who have been following our "gnostic" debates
with mixed feelings, who will rise to the occasion on this one.
Sorry for the delay, but this post arrived in s.r.g much later than
it did in my email-box and I thought first about answering privately,
but since there are many things of what you brought up in your post
that are of interest to us all, I opted for replying here.
Pax Pleroma
Terje Dahl Bergersen
Societas Gnostica Norvegia
--
Terje Bergersen
Societas Gnostica Norvegia
email:noe...@online.no
url: http://home.sn.no/~noetic/SGN.html