Whitfield: There are some major tip-offs indicating serious problems in your essay.

For one, you call your particular translations "theologically unbiased." One of the largest tip-offs regarding bias concerns individuals who are absolutely sure they have none.

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" translation of a document because there are no perfectly unambiguous word-translation choices between languages, especially ancient forms of languages. It's not as simple as 1 + 1 = 2; there are always shades of meaning one must choose among.

You seem to have a strong bias, and a desired view you wish to promote. There's nothing wrong with that, but you should be honest about it.

A second is that you seem to assume orthodox Christianity arose because of modern, English translations of the bible. If we'd only read the Greek text literally, we'd agree with your views. Instead, Greek-speaking churches and most who can read and understand the originals are also theologically orthodox. That should be a tip off to you: they're seeing something you've overlooked, apparently. It's not just that it never occured to them to read carefully.

The third thing concerns what you indeed have missed, which seems to be a lot, from my (admittedly) cursory reading. For example, in John, you attempt to translate certain verses in ways which contradict the context, a context you apparently hide from the reader.

Example: Although you want to re-translate a few verses around John 13:22 to imply Jesus wanted Judas to betray him, at the very choosing of the disciples, chapters before, in John 6:70-71, we read:

Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

And then, later, in chapter 12, we learn that Judas was stealing from the other disciples -- not that he was a wonderful, trustworthy guy Jesus just relied upon. Even later still, in chapter 18, Judas is called, unambigously, "the traitor."

The idea that Judas was a bad guy doesn't arise because a few verse were, as you would have it, mistranslated. The evidence occurs throughout the text, over and over, unambigously. You say that your own word choices come from "context", but what context is that? The context does not lead to the idea that Judas was a trusted, "loyal" disciple, so I can't imagine what "context" you are citing for your "unbiased" choices.

The usual trick, which you employ here, is to blame "redactors" for anything in the text which doesn't support your view. But this is a trick which cuts both ways.

The basic premise is that there was an original version of the document which entirely supported your theology. Then, some bad people in the middle hacked it up, and produced one which (horrors) led to mine.

The big problem here is: Where is your evidence? What, other than circular reasoning, leads you to conclude passage A (which disagrees completely with you) must have been altered, but passage B (which, taken a certain way, might support your view) must certainly be original? If the rule is that if it supports us, it's right, if it opposes us, it's been changed, then that's circular reasoning, my friend.

You seem to imply that this idea -- Judas as traitor -- arose later, when the gospels were written, stating: "Judas was still considered a disciple in good standing when Paul wrote his letters... before the canonical Gospels", and stating "Paul seemed unaware of any betrayal or any scandal involving Judas in particular, or the disciples in general."

Yet in 1 Corinthians, believed among scholars that one of the oldest Christians writings Paul himself writes that he'd learned long ago that a disciple had betrayed Jesus:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... (1 Cor 11:23-24)

That's a pretty glaring omission. Shall we just call in the "redactors" to claim it was added later?

Next, you seem to be involved in a kind of (selective) hyper-literalism which makes even the most strident young-earth creationist seem theological liberal. You easily pass over John calling Judas a "devil", yet you get hung up on Paul saying "the twelve" saw the resurrected Jesus, as though it were a specific statement of number at that moment, rather than a cultural shorthand term for the disciples.

(I can't help but wonder what you would do with "three days and three nights"!)

I think it's very important to keep in mind that the authors of the GoJ were not trying to fool anybody, they were trying to tell a story and create continuity.

They did not believe that these exchanges between Jesus and Judas *happened*, nor did the first audiences of this material. The document exists to put new faces on older Mystery Religion constructs, thereby legitimizing Christianity as the heir to the authority of the older religions.

This technique is used in the canonical Gospels as well, when Jesus is restating Torah to connect with Jewish audiences, and quoting Socrates to connect with Jewish audiences. It's for reassurance that he's not just making stuff up but connecting with a foundation with which they're already familiar.

The detailed cosmologies in GoJ refer not to literal entities but to a system of thought, a kind of coles notes version of much longer theological treatises.

The GoJ authors assumed they were speaking to an educated audience who would not take the material to be historical. The only "shocking" point, even relevant point, to Christians is this: if Judas' betrayal was necessary for the Crucifixion, then Judas was not a villain as he tipped over the domino that eventually saved us all. He was not a bad guy, just fulfilling the Divine Plan.

sorry that should have been Socrates to connect with Greek audiences.

Guess the biblical Jesus didn't feel a need for is followers to know exactly how many valhallas were assigned to each ascendant spirit, in square cubits per good deed. How could they get along in his absense, lacking such crucial details?

-----------

Gnostic Christianity isn't the same kind of religion as the Christainity you're talking about. It's not an ideology based on a myth literally understood. It's an experiential form of mysticism whose concepts would (and do) seem baffling to outsiders in the same way that the tantras baffle people who aren't familiar with the deeper concepts of Hinduism, e.g.:

"Although some tantras appear at first glance to be straightforward, most, if not all of them, employ a type of language which can be taken on many levels....

Many terms used in the tantrik tradition have meanings which can be taken at face value but do not always have this meaning, thus making them difficult to understand to the literally-minded. The mentality of the pashu, or a person with a herd-disposition, is said to predispose him or her to misunderstand the meaning.

This cryptic way of speaking pervades many of the texts...."

I think it's very important to keep in mind that the authors of the GoJ were not trying to fool anybody, they were trying to tell a story and create continuity.

There weren't merely trying to tell a story. You could have told the same story with a dialog between two fictional characters, as many Greek philosophers did.

The reason they put their doctrines into the mouth of Jesus and other esteemed Christian founders was to add credibility to beliefs that otherwise lacked them. You strangely seem to have omitted this motive.

Further, you claim they did this to "create continuity." Really! What a creative use of English.

They claimed such figures in order to draw interested parties away from orthodox Christianity, with it's Jewish origins, and into a new cult based in Greek platonic idealism. In other words, they used it to create theological discontinuity among followers familliar with these figures; and to give them a false impression of continuity with their previous beliefs.

And you clearly know this full well, yet choose to phrase your argument this way.

They did not believe that these exchanges between Jesus and Judas *happened*, nor did the first audiences of this material.

Obviously, the authors knew, at least at some level, that it didn't actually happen.

But as to the rest of their motives, what are you basing this on? Most of these documents survive bereft of their context. Given that, I don't see how you can claim to know the motive in each case.

The documents themselves often seem to go out of their way to convince us they are authentic, adding details to well known scenes (as noted), and sometimes even imploring the reader to accept them on that basis. I don't see how you can confidently claim the authors didn't behave likewise.

This technique is used in the canonical Gospels as well, when Jesus is restating Torah to connect with Jewish audiences...

Sorry: Your brain and mine clearly work differently. I see a vast world of difference between quoting an existing document and trying to present a cleverly-modified version of it which imparts an entirely alien spin, clearly not present in the original.

Say I quoted a speech from George Washington.

Now Bob, over here, creates some old-looking documents which claim to be from Washington's diary, which promote Bob's belief that GW was actually a Hindu.

To you, these situations are the same "technique." To me, they're utterly different.

... and quoting Socrates to connect with Jewish audiences.

Rev Max!

Welcome, and thanks for your fairly sensible comments!

Gnostic Christianity isn't the same kind of religion as the Christainity you're talking about. It's not an ideology based on a myth literally understood...

I'm aware that's certainly how modern gnostics wish for us to think about the original ones. (Given the original gnostic texts, I can't blame them.) But I see no evidence that the original gnostics actually thought that way.

I'd completely agree with you that tantric Hindus and Buddhists sometimes didn't write down their actual ceremonies. (In some cases, the actual content would have been incriminating.)

But I see no evidence that this was the case for ancient Gnostics. Rather, the precise, intricate detail and literalism (totally missing from the aforementioned tantric texts) seems to argue against it in most cases.

I can believe, for example, that a reference to a "vase" in a Kalachakra Tantric ceremony might indeed represent "vulva." Of course. But on that basis, I see no reason to believe, for example, that this...

The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries...

Actually means something else, say, "Knowledge is freedom", or "Love one another." The math is a wee bit too precise.

And the Greeks tended to be rather literal sorts (read their philosophical treatises) so there's nothing to suggest any cultural similarity there either.

Otherwise, if you have any ancient evidence to bolster your assertions of this kind, I'd be more than happy to consider it. Thanks!

The reason they put their doctrines into the mouth of Jesus and other esteemed Christian founders was to add credibility to beliefs that otherwise lacked them. You strangely seem to have omitted this motive

Whoah! And the Evangelists didn't do this? Do you consider them to be eyewitnesses or were they composing from the data recorded on John's webcam? Almost all of the literature in The Bible is pseudopigrapha. This is a horrendously ignorant criticism!

Father Jordan, if you were invited here, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was solely to be the butt of ridicule and abuse. I am uncertain exactly what kind of hard-ass literalist you're dealing with, but my advice is to abort your brief stay in their company before he starts flinging pamphlets at you.

"to mikron therion",

Welcome! No, I don't think "Father Jordan" was invited here to be ridiculed. He was probably invited by Ryan, who frequents this blog, and certainly doesn't agree with me on every point, but probably wanted to see what a legitimate gnostic response might be to my writing here. Please do not think he's insincere: he's not.

Whoah! And the Evangelists didn't do this?

No, frankly, I don't believe they did.

In cases like this, I'm aware the temptation, on your part, will be to simply assume I was taught something on my mother's knee and am still blindly defending it, come hell or high water.

But (though I may of course be wrong in my convictions) that's certainly not the case: After a lot of thinking and research, and considertion of other faiths and options, I actually do believe, for example, that when Luke wrote that he "carefully investigated" and earnestly tried to write up an "orderly account" of what happened, that he wasn't actually writing something he or those he interviewed knew to be fiction.

I don't believe, for example, that John, who was later to be thrown into boiling oil for it (rather than recant), actually personally created the belief that Jesus was God in order to benefit himself. Nor Paul nor Peter nor James... These men lived hard lives of poverty and died painful deaths rather than simply recant their allegedly made-up stories.

Almost all of the literature in The Bible is pseudopigrapha. This is a horrendously ignorant criticism!

For reasonable people, there can be a difference between "ignorance" and "disagreement." I'm well aware that there are some people who believe that, for example, the New Testament is almost entirely pseudepigraphic. (For the reader, this refers to fictionalized stories falsely ascribed to well-known characters.)

But I'm also well aware the most serious biblical scholars -- even many theologically "liberal" ones -- dispute this contention. And, having examined the evidence, I happen to concur.

I don't believe for example, that someone just made up the sermon on the mount and placed it in Jesus's mouth. For one, I can't figure out how it could be done. Unlike Gnostic gospels, which were often penned hundreds of years later in far-away places, the christian tradition arose among the Jews -- the same society as Jesus -- within the same generation. Surely many would have been alive to dispute the matter. And surely, whoever could have come up with most that material would have been been a religious genius, worthy of the following Jesus purported had and still has today on the same basis. That person was more brilliant than the real Jesus (who presumably never said such interesting things), and certainly more brilliant than the gnostics who later unsuccessfully aped his style, and yet never accumulated his own following?

Sorry, just too improbable for me.

I'm not asking you to agree; I quite expect you won't, and that's fine; I have no plans to "fling pamplets at you", as you claim. (In fact, I suspect you'd rather prefer it.)

I'm simply explaining why, contrary to your assertion, I don't feel it's reasonable to characterize my position as mere "ignorance", as you insist. If you have evidence otherwise, you're more than welcomed to present it. (Though I suspect you will simply flee.)

But regardless, thanks for raising the point!

No, frankly, I don't believe they did.

You and I, good sir, are on opposite sides of a critical fence, here. No point in arguing valleys if you can't agree on where the mountains are! I concede to your viewpoint (you are, as always, right), as I am indeed a guest in your domain. Unfortunately I may in fact "flee," as prolonged engagements are painfully tiresome; and frankly, I got 'shit to do. My concession is my gift to you - no doubt, it will make you feel better.

He was probably invited by Ryan, who frequents this blog, and certainly doesn't agree with me on every point, but probably wanted to see what a legitimate gnostic response might be to my writing here. Please do not think he's insincere: he's not.

Your guess is dead on, Tim. I did post links to a few of your gnostic articles on various gnostic blogs (with my name) to see which way a genuine debate might run. I hope it produces more light than heat and doesn't ruffle too many feathers or take up too much of your time.

tmt: Whoah! And the Evangelists didn't do this?

Tim: No, frankly, I don't believe they did.

tmt: You and I, good sir, are on opposite sides of a critical fence, here. No point in arguing valleys if you can't agree on where the mountains are!

Ignoring the snarky bits, I agree, and other minds have certainly battled that out elsewhere. So at least we have clarity about differences, if not agreement.

My concession is my gift to you - no doubt, it will make you feel better.

No, actually, (a) I wasn't feeling bad in the first place, and (b) I must confess I put that final bit in there in hopes you'd be annoyed enough to post a bit more. >;-)

Oh well, best to you!

"Umm, but the gnostics were simply making stuff up, Jordan.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim, on one hand, they never wanted the audience to think this had anything to do with the actual Jesus, and then claim they did it to create "continuity" or assure them these new ideas were "already familliar.""

I'm not claiming both ways at all. You've misunderstood Gnosticism as a second century Christian heresy, an innovation. That's a false assumption, and the cause of your confusion.

Gnosticism predates Christianity. After the advent of Christianity, Gnostics employed Christian characters in their texts, not to distract from "orthodoxy" but to illustrate that there was, in their view, *continuity* between the NEW teachings of Christianity and the OLDER teachings of Gnosticism. Now, you may disagree with their view, but to assert that somehow Gn was trying to hijack Christianity is historically indefensible.

And yes, I spent 4 paras saying that GoJ is not historically relevent. The last para is not stating that it IS historical, but rather that some Christians might find value in reflecting on the final point. Not history, spirit. Inspiration. Contemplation. Y'know, religous stuff.

Yes, the GoJ authors didn't think they would be taken literally, we DO have the context, that of the entire literate ancient world. It's the assumption that somehow Mark, for example, WAS to be taken literally that is a scholastic innovation.

Hi again Jordan!

Well, I'm glad you decided to post some more.

You've misunderstood Gnosticism as a second century Christian heresy, an innovation. That's a false assumption, and the cause of your confusion.

Gnosticism predates Christianity. After the advent of Christianity, Gnostics employed Christian characters in their texts, not to distract from "orthodoxy" but to illustrate that there was, in their view, *continuity* between the NEW teachings of Christianity and the OLDER teachings of Gnosticism.

I only understand second-century Gnosticism to be a "heresy" to the extent that it attempted to use well-known Christian figures and words to imply unorthodox beliefs were "consistent with" Christian ones.

The age of the moment has nothing to do with that.

If you have trouble seeing why I see these two issues as separate, perhaps I can give an example or two to clear things up.

Lately, a number of people have been pushing "contemplative prayer" or "centering prayer" (basicly Zazen, using Christian words as a mantra) claiming it is an "ancient" Christian practice. While perhaps a few quotes from a mystic or two might be dredged up to bolster the claim, the truth is that the practice in its current form traces back to Thomas Merton and his work with Buddhist monks.

Now of course Buddhism is an old religion, and Zazen is indeed an ancient practice. But the sailent point is that it is not a traditional Christian belief nor practice. So while the practice may have existed for quite a while, it is still an "innovation" or "heresy" (take yer pick) to claim this is the traditional practice of Christian prayer.

Likewise, I could attempt to convince a group of Muslims that, yes, my belief that Jesus is God's son is "consistent with" Islam. Why not: Christianity predated Islam, right?

I'm not an "Islamic heretic" when I claim Jesus was God's son. But when I claim Islam is "consistent with" my belief, then any Muslim would be well within his or her rights to point out I am basicly full of it.

Further, my intentions would have nothing to do with it. I might be so collosally ignorant of Islam as not to realize their basic position on Jesus (prophet, not "son" -- "son" would be blasphemous) -- my misunderstanding wouldn't stop it from being an Islamic "heresy" or "innovation."

... to assert that somehow Gn was trying to hijack Christianity is historically indefensible.

Really? Then you need to have some words with your fellow Gnostics!

I'm aware that's certainly how modern gnostics wish for us to think about the original ones. (Given the original gnostic texts, I can't blame them.) But I see no evidence that the original gnostics actually thought that way.

I'd completely agree with you that tantric Hindus and Buddhists sometimes didn't write down their actual ceremonies. (In some cases, the actual content would have been incriminating.)

But I see no evidence that this was the case for ancient Gnostics.

-------------------

Hi Tim

It seems quite obvious (to me, at least) that many ancient gnostics were quite fond of allegory and freely used it to describe and explain esoteric physiological concepts in mythic and theological terms, e.g., Simon Magus:

"How and in what manner, then, [Simon Magus] asks, does God fashion man? In the Garden (Paradise), he thinks. We must consider the womb a Garden, he says, and that this is the "cave," the Scripture tells us when it says: "I am he who fashioned thee in thy mother's womb," {22} for he would have it written in this way. In speaking of the Garden, he says, Moses allegorically referred to the womb, if we are to believe the Word.

And, if God fashions man in his mother's womb, that is to say in the Garden, as I have already said, the womb must be taken for the Garden, and Eden for the region (surrounding the womb), and the "river going forth from Eden to water the Garden," {23} for the navel. This navel, he says, is divided into four channels, for on either side of the navel two air-ducts are stretched to convey the breath, and two veins {24} to convey blood. But when, he says, the navel going forth from the region of Eden is attached to the foetus in the epigastric regions, that which is commonly called by everyone the navel {25} ... and the two veins by which the blood flows and is carried from the Edenic region through what are called the gates of the liver, which nourish the foetus. And the air-ducts, which we said were channels for breath, embracing the bladder on either side in the region of the pelvis, are united at the great duct which is called the dorsal aorta. And thus the breath passing through the side doors towards the heart produces the movement of the embryo. For as long as the babe is being fashioned in the Garden, it neither takes nourishment through the mouth, nor breathes through the nostrils. For seeing that it is surrounded by the waters (of the womb), death would instantly supervene, if it took a breath; for it would draw after it the waters and so perish. But the whole (of the foetus) is wrapped up in an envelope, called the amnion, and is nourished through the navel and receives the essence of the breath through the dorsal duct, as I have said.

15. The river, therefore, he says, which goes out of Eden, is divided into four channels, four ducts, that is to say; into four senses of the foetus: sight, (hearing), {26} smelling, taste and touch. For these are the only senses the child has while it is being formed in the Garden.

This, he says, is the law which Moses laid down, and in accordance with this very law each of his books was written, as the titles show. The first book is Genesis, and the title of the book, he says, is sufficient for a knowledge of the whole matter. For this Genesis, he says, is sight, which is one division of the river. For the world is perceived by sight.

The title of the second book is Exodus. For it was necessary for that which is born to travel through the Red Sea, and pass towards the Desert—by Red the blood is meant....

In like manner Leviticus, the third book, is smelling or respiration. For the whole of that book treats of sacrifices and offerings. And wherever there is a sacrifice, there arises the smell of the scent from the sacrifice owing to the incense, concerning which sweet smell the sense of smell is the test.

Numbers, the fourth book, signifies taste, wherein speech (or the Word) energizes. And it is so called through uttering all things in numerical order.

Deuteronomy, again, he says, is so entitled in reference to the sense of touch of the child which is formed. For just as the touch by contact synthesizes and confirms the sensations of the other senses, proving objects to be either hard, warm, or adhesive, so also the fifth book of the Law is the synthesis of the four books which precede it."

{Hippolytus (?)} (Philosophumena, vi. 7-20). Text: Refutatio Omnium Hæresium (ediderunt Lud. Duncker et F.G. Schneidewin); Gottingæ, 1859.

############################

Here's Hippolytus' report another an anceint gnostic sect called the Peratae :

"...the brain, on being dissected, has within it what may be called a vaulted chamber. And on either side of this are thin membranes, which they term little wings. Now these are gently moved by the spirit, and in turn propel towards the cerebellum the spirit, which, careering through a certain blood-vessel like a reed, advances towards the pineal gland [epi to kônarion]. And near this is situated the entrance of the cerebellum, which admits the current of spirit, and distributes it into what is styled the spinal marrow. But from them the whole frame participates in the spiritual energy, inasmuch as all the arteries, like a branch, are fastened on from this blood-vessel, the extremity of which terminates in the genital blood-vessels, whence all the (animal) seeds proceeding from the brain through the loin are secreted (in the seminal glands). The form, however, of the cerebellum is like the head of a serpent, respecting which a lengthened discussion is maintained by the professors of knowledge, falsely so named, as we shall prove."

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book IV, ch. 51; Marcovich, 1986, p. 139; translation from Roberts & Donaldson, 1885-96, vol. V, p. 46

"...For a proof of this, they adduce the anatomy of the brain, assimilating, from the fact of its immobility, the brain itself to the Father, and the cerebellum to the Son, because of its being moved and being of the form of (the head of) a serpent. And they allege that this (cerebellum), by an ineffable and inscrutable process, attracts through the pineal gland [dia tou kônariou] the spiritual and life-giving substance emanating from the vaulted chamber. And on receiving this, the cerebellum in an ineffable manner imparts the ideas, just as the Son does, to matter; or, in other words, the seeds and the genera of the things produced according to the flesh flow along into the spinal marrow."

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies,, Book V, ch. 12; Marcovich, 1986, p. 187; translation from Roberts & Donaldson, 1885-96, vol. V, p. 64

Hope that helps!

Max

Hi Tim

You stated that gnostic texts were "obscure, spiritualistic... mumbo-jumbo" and that people who see value in them are "illiterate, stupid, and intellectually dishonest."

To buttress thsi view, you assert that the gnostic texts are characterized by "intricate detail and literalism", instead of the allegory, esoteric symbolism and somatic metaphor which characterize the tantras.

In response, I posted some rather lengthy description from Hippolytus in which two very different gnostic interprative strategies are laid out in some detail.

In the first, we are explicitly told that Simon Magus taught that Eden was the Womb, the four rivers which flow from Eden comprise the senses of the fetus in gestation, that various books from the OT are allegorical accounts of gestation, etc.

Intricate details of "the air-ducts, which we said were channels for breath, embracing the bladder on either side in the region of the pelvis, are united at the great duct which is called the dorsal aorta" are presented so your first charge does stick - these texts, and the ideas behind them - were often precise and detailed.

But literalism? Hmmm.... that's tough to argue when we read that Simon Magus states that "In speaking of the Garden.. Moses allegorically referred to the womb"

In like manner, we read also that the Peretae "adduce the anatomy of the brain, assimilating, from the fact of its immobility, the brain itself to the Father, and the cerebellum to the Son, because of its being moved and being of the form of (the head of) a serpent."

Does it sound to you as though the gnostics might indeed have thought "in this way" - as though these groups might have been describing esoteric anatomical concepts which would be baffling to people unfamiliar with the symbols these texts reference, as we find in the tantras?

Of course, I would never accuse people who insist on read these texts in an literalistic manner of being "illiterate, stupid, and intellectually dishonest".

Instead (to mix two different cultural references) I think what we might have here are "Pearls before pashtun."

Max