Harmonizing the Slavonic Book of Enoch and the Book of the Secret Supper

 

# Harmonizing the Slavonic Book of Enoch and the Book of the Secret Supper

The Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch) and the Book of the Secret Supper (Interrogatio Johannis) are two pivotal texts in the Gnostic and Bogomil traditions. While originating from different cultural and theological backgrounds, these works share striking thematic parallels, particularly in their cosmology, angelology, and eschatology. By examining these texts side by side, we can uncover a coherent narrative that reflects a unified Gnostic worldview.

## The Celestial Ascent: Enoch and John

Both texts feature a central figure—Enoch in the Slavonic Enoch and John the Evangelist in the Book of the Secret Supper—who undergoes a celestial journey to receive divine revelations.

In the Slavonic Enoch, Enoch is taken through multiple heavens, each revealing aspects of the divine realm:

> "And the Lord sent one of his glorious ones, the archangel Gabriel, and he said to me: Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise before the Lord’s face into eternity, arise, come with me."  

> (*Slavonic Enoch*, Chapter 21)

Similarly, in the Book of the Secret Supper, John ascends to the heavenly realm to converse with Jesus:

> "Lord, before Satan fell, in what glory abode he with thy Father?"  

> (*Book of the Secret Supper*, Chapter 1)

These ascents serve as the narrative framework for both texts, positioning the protagonists as intermediaries between the divine and human realms.

## The Fall and the Demiurge

A central theme in both texts is the fall of a high celestial being and the subsequent creation of the material world.

In the Slavonic Enoch, the narrative describes the creation of the world and the establishment of the priesthood:

> "And Michael did thus, as the Lord told him. He anointed me, and dressed me, and the appearance of that ointment is more than the great light, and its smell mild, shining like the sun’s ray."  

> (*Slavonic Enoch*, Chapter 22)

This passage emphasizes the sanctification of Enoch and the establishment of a divine order, paralleling the creation narrative in the Book of the Secret Supper, where Satan, a fallen angel, creates the material world:

> "Then did the contriver of evil devise in his mind to make paradise, and he brought the man and woman into it."  

> (*Book of the Secret Supper*, Chapter 1)

Both texts depict a cosmic fall leading to the formation of the material world, albeit with differing theological implications.

## The Role of Angels and Archangels

Angels play a significant role in both texts, acting as guides and agents of divine will.

In the Slavonic Enoch, archangels such as Gabriel and Michael guide Enoch through the heavens and facilitate his anointment:

> "And the Lord said to Michael: Go and take Enoch from out of his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of My glory."  

> (*Slavonic Enoch*, Chapter 22)

In the Book of the Secret Supper, angels are also depicted as messengers and agents of divine intervention:

> "The devil entered into a wicked serpent and seduced the angel that was in the form of the woman."  

> (*Book of the Secret Supper*, Chapter 1)

These accounts highlight the active participation of angels in the unfolding of divine plans, underscoring their importance in both traditions.

## Eschatology and the Final Judgment

Both texts present a vision of the end times, characterized by a final judgment and the triumph of divine justice.

In the Slavonic Enoch, the eschatological vision includes the establishment of a new order:

> "And the Lord with his lips said to me: Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise and stand before my face into eternity."  

> (*Slavonic Enoch*, Chapter 22)

The Book of the Secret Supper similarly describes the final judgment:

> "Then the Son of God will sit on the right hand of his Father, the righteous will be set among the choirs of angels, God shall be in the midst of them and wipe away their tears, and of His kingdom there shall be no end for ever and ever."  

> (*Book of the Secret Supper*, Chapter 1)

Both texts envision a cosmic resolution where divine justice prevails, and the faithful are rewarded.

## Harmonizing the Narratives

When placed side by side, the Slavonic Enoch and the Book of the Secret Supper present complementary narratives that reflect a shared Gnostic worldview. The celestial ascents of Enoch and John serve as conduits for divine revelation, providing insights into the nature of the cosmos, the fall of celestial beings, and the ultimate restoration of divine order.

By juxtaposing these texts, we gain a richer understanding of the Gnostic tradition, which emphasizes direct spiritual experience, the transcendence of the material world, and the pursuit of hidden knowledge. The harmonization of these narratives underscores the interconnectedness of Gnostic thought across different cultural and theological contexts.

In conclusion, the Slavonic Book of Enoch and the Book of the Secret Supper, when studied together, offer a profound exploration of Gnostic cosmology, angelology, and eschatology. Their shared themes and complementary narratives provide valuable insights into the Gnostic worldview and its emphasis on spiritual ascent, divine revelation, and the ultimate triumph of divine justice. 

Pistis Sophia Chapter 102: Renunciation and the Path to the Light-Kingdom

 Pistis Sophia chapter 102

JESUS continued again in the discourse and said unto his disciples: "When I shall have gone into the Light, then herald it unto the whole world and say unto them: Cease not to seek day and night and remit not yourselves until ye find the mysteries of the Light-kingdom, which will purify you and make you into refined light and lead you into the Light-kingdom.

What men should renounce."Say unto them: Renounce the whole world and the whole matter therein and all its care and all its sins, in a word all its associations which are in it, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from all the chastisements which are in the judgments.

"Say unto them: Renounce murmuring, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire of the dog-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce eavesdropping [?], that ye may [be worthy of the mysteries of the Light] and be saved from the judgments of the dog-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce litigiousness [?], that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the chastisements of Ariēl.

"Say unto them: Renounce false slander, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-rivers of the dog-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce false witness, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and that ye may escape and be saved from the fire-rivers of the dog-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce pride and haughtiness, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-pits of Ariēl.

"Say unto them: Renounce belly-love, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the judgments of Amente.

"Say unto them: Renounce babbling, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fires of Amente.

"Say unto them: |256. Renounce craftiness, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the chastisements which are in Amente.

"Say unto them: Renounce avarice, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-rivers of the dog-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce love of the world, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the pitch- and fire-coats of the dog-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce pillage, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-rivers of Ariēl.

"Say unto them: Renounce evil conversation, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the chastisements of the fire-rivers . . . .

"Say unto them: Renounce wickedness, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-seas of Ariēl.

"Say unto them: Renounce pitilessness, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the judgments of the dragon-faced [ones].

"Say unto them: Renounce wrath, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-rivers of the dragon-faced [ones.]

"Say unto them: Renounce cursing, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-seas of the dragon-faced [ones].

"Say unto them: Renounce thieving, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the bubbling seas of the dragon-faced [ones]. |257.

"Say unto them: Renounce robbery, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from Yaldabaōth.

"Say unto them: Renounce slandering, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the fire-rivers of the lion-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce fighting and strife, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the seething rivers of Yaldabaōth.

"Say unto them: Renounce all unknowing, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the servitors of Yaldabaōth and the fire-seas.

"Say unto them: Renounce evil doing, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from all the demons of Yaldabaōth and all his judgments.

"Say unto them: Renounce sloth, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the seething pitch-seas of Yaldabaōth.

"Say unto them: Renounce adultery, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light-kingdom and be saved from the sulphur- and pitch-seas of the lion-faced [one].

"Say unto them: Renounce murder, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the crocodile-faced ruler,--this one who is in the cold, |258. is the first chamber of the outer darkness.

"Say unto them: Renounce pitilessness and impiety, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the rulers of the outer darkness.

"Say unto them: Renounce atheism, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the howling and grinding of teeth.

"Say unto them: Renounce [magic] potions, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the great cold and the hail of the outer darkness.

"Say unto them: Renounce blasphemy, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the great dragon of the outer darkness.

"Say unto them: Renounce the doctrines of error, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from all the chastisements of the great dragon of the outer darkness.

**Welcome to Pleroma Pathways apocalyptic and mystic Christianity where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.**

**Pistis Sophia Chapter 102: Renunciation and the Path to the Light-Kingdom**

In Chapter 102 of the *Pistis Sophia*, Jesus delivers a powerful exhortation to His disciples, emphasizing the necessity of renunciation and persistent seeking for entry into the Light-kingdom. This passage captures the heart of the mystic journey: purification, transformation, and union with divine light through moral and spiritual discipline.

Jesus begins by calling His followers to a life of unceasing spiritual pursuit. He says: **"When I shall have gone into the Light, then herald it unto the whole world and say unto them: Cease not to seek day and night and remit not yourselves until ye find the mysteries of the Light-kingdom, which will purify you and make you into refined light and lead you into the Light-kingdom."** Here, the quest is not merely intellectual or devotional but existential—a total orientation of life towards the mysteries of divine illumination.

This refining process demands total detachment from the material world. Jesus commands: **"Say unto them: Renounce the whole world and the whole matter therein and all its care and all its sins, in a word all its associations which are in it, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from all the chastisements which are in the judgments."** The renunciation of “matter” signifies not hatred of creation, but the withdrawal from attachments that blind the soul to divine realities.

Jesus then enumerates a detailed list of vices to be renounced, each associated with specific punishments or threats in the afterlife. The repetition of “Say unto them: Renounce…” underscores the importance of each command as part of the path to purification. The pattern is clear: those who wish to be *worthy* of the mysteries of the Light must engage in deep moral transformation.

Among the renunciations, Jesus warns against behaviors both internal and external. He says: **"Renounce murmuring," "Renounce eavesdropping," "Renounce litigiousness,"** each being subtle seeds of discord that separate one from the harmony of the Light. Further, Jesus warns against **"false slander," "false witness,"** and **"pride and haughtiness,"** associating them with fiery chastisements from beings such as the “dog-faced one” and “Ariēl.” These symbolic figures represent the punitive forces of the lower realms, perhaps aspects of divine justice or corrupted cosmic rulers.

The emphasis on purity of speech continues with: **"Renounce babbling… Renounce evil conversation… Renounce cursing… Renounce blasphemy."** These warnings echo the deep importance placed on words and language in mystic tradition. Words form reality; corrupt speech is aligned with darkness, while disciplined, reverent language aligns with the Light.

Gluttony and material greed are also condemned: **"Renounce belly-love… Renounce avarice… Renounce love of the world… Renounce pillage."** These instructions urge the disciple to master desire and live in simplicity. Jesus even instructs: **"Renounce craftiness,"** a critique not just of deception, but of manipulative intellect that seeks gain rather than truth.

Some of the more severe condemnations include: **"Renounce adultery… Renounce murder… Renounce atheism."** Each is paired with a chilling image of punishment: **"sulphur- and pitch-seas," "the crocodile-faced ruler," "howling and grinding of teeth."** These are not to be understood as literal threats alone, but as powerful symbolic descriptions of the soul’s state when estranged from divine harmony.

The passage warns against **"magic potions,"** perhaps referencing the manipulation of nature or the use of occult powers to subvert divine will. Jesus also says: **"Renounce the doctrines of error,"** revealing that belief itself must be purified. One cannot access the mysteries while clinging to distorted teachings.

The beings mentioned—*Yaldabaōth, Ariēl, the dragon-faced ones, the lion-faced one, and the crocodile-faced ruler*—represent dark powers associated with judgment and punishment. In Valentinian cosmology, these figures may symbolize the misaligned archons or forces of the lower heavens, set in opposition to the Light. To be “saved from” them is to escape their influence entirely by aligning with the higher, incorruptible order of the Pleroma.

Throughout the discourse, the phrase **"that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light"** functions as the central goal. Worthiness is not inherited but cultivated through rigorous ethical commitment and conscious purification. The “mysteries” are not simply secrets to be revealed, but spiritual realities that require a corresponding moral state to be apprehended.

Jesus concludes this section with grave warnings about the “outer darkness,” “hail,” “cold,” “grinding of teeth,” and “great dragon.” These metaphors may correspond to existential states of alienation from God and symbolize the chaos that ensnares the unrepentant.

Thus, in *Pistis Sophia* Chapter 102, Jesus does not offer a simple invitation, but a call to deep personal transformation. His words echo the ancient understanding that enlightenment is not given lightly—it must be sought with fervor and attained through purity. As He instructs, one must **"Cease not to seek day and night and remit not yourselves until ye find the mysteries of the Light-kingdom."**

Reevaluating Voegelin: Why Apocalypticism, Not Gnosticism, Shaped Modern Ideology

**Reevaluating Voegelin: Why Apocalypticism, Not Gnosticism, Shaped Modern Ideology**

Eric Voegelin’s broad-brushed  application of “Gnosticism” to modern political ideologies such as Marxism,  progressivism,  and totalitarian  movements has long been critiqued by scholars  and  theologians. His most controversial assertion is that ancient Gnosticism — especially  in its  Valentinian form — somehow  resurfaced in secular ideologies to shape the modern world. However, this  interpretation  rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of Gnosticism’s limited historical reach and a misattribution of apocalyptic and prophetic dynamics to Gnostic metaphysics. It is more accurate and intellectually honest to reinterpret Voegelin’s theory through the lens of apocalyptic and prophecy-driven movements, which have played a far more significant and lasting role in shaping political history.

### The Historical Extinction of Gnosticism

First, let us begin by addressing the historical impact of Gnosticism itself. Gnostic groups such as the  Valentinians, Sethians, Bogomils, and Cathars were  all  thoroughly  persecuted and eliminated by the dominant Catholic Church. Their writings  were lost, hidden, or destroyed until rediscovered in modern times, such as with the Nag Hammadi texts in 1945. Far from  influencing the flow of world history, these groups were marginalized, their teachings demonized  and largely forgotten by mainstream Christianity and political thought. To suggest that their ideas somehow penetrated  centuries of theological censorship to shape the Enlightenment, French Revolution, or Marxist dialectics is speculative at best and delusional at worst.

Moreover, the Valentinians themselves did not advocate political revolution, social engineering, or  utopian schemes. Their focus was mystical and theological, centering on the emanations of the  divine Pleroma, the metaphysical restoration of the soul-body composite, and the incarnation and resurrection of Christ.  They did not seek to “immanentize the eschaton” — Voegelin’s favorite phrase — in a political or historical sense. Rather, they sought to understand the nature of God and the  cosmos in a deeply spiritual and allegorical mode. There is no evidence that Valentinian or other classical Gnostic ideas had any direct lineage into modern political ideologies.

### Misidentification of the Real Force: Apocalypticism

Voegelin’s real target should have been apocalyptic and prophetic movements, which have consistently sought to bring about the “Kingdom of God” on Earth. Unlike the mysticism of the Valentinians, apocalyptic groups are action-driven. From the Zealots of Second Temple  Judaism to the revolutionary millenarians of the Middle Ages, to modern Christian Zionists and Islamic revolutionaries, prophecy-driven ideologies have actively shaped history, often violently.

What Voegelin mistakenly calls “Gnosticism” — the belief in a  broken world that must be transformed or destroyed to reach an idealized state — is far more aligned with apocalyptic prophecy traditions. These groups often interpret history as a battle between good and evil, where divine intervention or  revolutionary action is required to usher in a new age. Unlike the contemplative Gnostic, the apocalyptic prophet believes they are called to participate in divine history by bringing about the end of the current age.

It is this revolutionary impulse — to change the world through prophecy, war, or politics — that has had a real, traceable impact on modern political  ideologies. Marxism, for example, borrows heavily from Jewish apocalyptic frameworks, such as the vision of a final upheaval and  the emergence of a new society. The Protestant Reformation, with its emphasis on reading  Scripture independently and awaiting the imminent return of Christ, gave rise to waves of millenarian unrest and utopian experimentation. Even contemporary movements such as Christian nationalism and the New Apostolic Reformation are clearly rooted in prophecy-driven models, not Gnostic cosmology.

### The Problem with Voegelin’s Conflation

Voegelin’s theory collapses these distinctions and muddles Gnostic metaphysics with prophetic activism. By failing to differentiate between mystical detachment and historical engagement, he  ends  up turning quietist Gnostics into political revolutionaries. This is not only historically inaccurate,  it also unfairly maligns ancient mystics who had no interest in establishing utopias on Earth.

His conflation also serves a polemical purpose: to brand modern ideologies as “heretical” or irrational by linking them to ancient “heresies.”  But this theological framing ignores the true complexity of political thought and  sidelines the real historical roots of ideological revolution: the prophetic-apocalyptic  traditions. Voegelin would have made a  stronger case if he had traced modern  political ideas through Joachim of Fiore, the Protestant radicals, and the radical  Enlightenment rather than through speculative links to Gnostic sects long extinguished.

### Reinterpreting Voegelin Correctly

If we reinterpret Voegelin’s insights in light of apocalyptic traditions rather than Gnosticism, his  critique becomes much more useful and grounded. His concern about utopian ideologies that seek to bring about an idealized future through political means is legitimate — but  it originates  not in the Pleroma, but in prophetic  eschatology. The belief that history has a direction, that a final transformation is imminent, and that chosen individuals or groups are tasked with realizing it, is the DNA of apocalypticism, not Gnosticism.

By reorienting Voegelin’s critique to focus on prophecy movements  and their historical impact, we can better understand the theological, psychological,  and political forces that drive revolutionary ideologies. And at the same  time, we can restore Gnosticism — especially  in its Valentinian form — to its proper context as a deeply symbolic, contemplative, and spiritual tradition that sought not to change the world, but to comprehend it.

The Valentinian Structure of the Body of Christ: The Assembly (Ecclesia

 **The Valentinian Structure of the Body of Christ: The Assembly (Ecclesia)**  

**Introduction**  

The Valentinian understanding of the Church, or *ecclesia*, diverged significantly from the hierarchical structures that came to define orthodox Christianity. While the orthodox Church emphasized concrete offices like bishops and presbyters, the Valentinians viewed the Church as a dynamic and inclusive assembly, reflecting the original meaning of *ecclesia* as "assembly" or "gathering." Their conception of the Church was closely tied to their understanding of Christ as the head of the body, with the assembly representing its members. This approach emphasized equality, shared participation, and spiritual unity among all believers.  

**Participation and Equality**  

Valentinians organized their gatherings to encourage active participation from all members. According to Tertullian, roles within the assembly rotated among individuals: “Today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow” (*Against the Valentinians*, 1). This fluidity of roles reflected their belief in the equality of all members, regardless of rank or status. Even women were permitted to take on roles such as teaching, healing, and even serving as bishops, a practice that sharply contrasted with orthodox Christian norms of the time.  

The emphasis on shared responsibilities reinforced the idea that all members of the assembly were spiritually equal and connected through Christ. Members took turns overseeing practices, offering teachings, and fostering the communal life of the group. This structure was rooted in the conviction that the assembly represented the body of Christ, where each member was a vital and active participant.  

**The Church as the Body of Christ**  

Valentinians drew heavily on Pauline theology to describe the Church as the "body of Christ" (e.g., Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13). In this model, Christ was the "head," and all members of the assembly were "members" of the body, each with unique roles and contributions. This concept underscored the interconnectedness and interdependence of all who were part of the assembly.  

According to Theodotus, a Valentinian teacher, "the body of Jesus . . . was of the same substance as the Church" (*Excerpts of Theodotus*, 42:3). This statement reflects the idea that the assembly was not merely a gathering of individuals but a manifestation of Christ's presence on Earth. In another passage, Theodotus described the Church as “the visible part of Jesus” (*Excerpts of Theodotus*, 26:1), emphasizing its role as both a spiritual and tangible reality.  

**The Role of the Spirit**  

The Holy Spirit, often identified with Wisdom (Sophia), was central to the Valentinian understanding of the *ecclesia*. According to Theodotus, the Spirit empowered the assembly, enabling its members to prophesy, heal, and bear spiritual fruit (*Excerpts of Theodotus*, 24:1). This outpouring of the Spirit ensured that the *ecclesia* was a living, dynamic entity rather than a static institution.  

In Valentinian thought, the Spirit sowed "spiritual seed" within individuals, uniting them with Christ and the assembly. This seed was viewed as the source of spiritual growth and transformation. Herakleon, another Valentinian teacher, described the *ecclesia* as a harvest, with some members ready for spiritual maturity, others nearing readiness, and still others just beginning their journey (*Herakleon Fragment*, 32).  

**The "Elect" and the "Called"**  

The Valentinian assembly distinguished between two groups within the Church: the "elect" and the "called." The elect, also known as the "spiritual" (*pneumatikoi*), were those who had attained gnosis, or spiritual knowledge. The called, also referred to as the "animate" (*psychikoi*), were those who believed in Christ based on the testimony of others but had not yet attained gnosis. Despite these distinctions, both groups were considered part of the body of Christ and shared in its spiritual mission.  

The elect were seen as having a responsibility to guide and support the called. They were urged to share their knowledge generously and help others grow spiritually. The *Interpretation of Knowledge* cautions against arrogance, reminding the elect that “you are ignorant when you hate them and are jealous of them” (17:27-31). Instead, the elect were to act as “illuminators in the midst of mortal men” (*Letter of Peter to Philip*, 137:8-9), serving the assembly through their insights and actions.  

**Women in the Assembly**  

The Valentinian approach to leadership within the assembly was notably inclusive, particularly in its treatment of women. Women were recognized as equals and were permitted to serve as prophets, teachers, healers, and even leaders within the assembly. This egalitarian perspective was rooted in the belief that all members of the assembly, regardless of gender, possessed the spiritual seed sown by Wisdom (Sophia).  

This inclusivity stood in stark contrast to the orthodox Church's restrictions on women’s roles. For Valentinians, the assembly was a reflection of the spiritual unity of all believers, transcending societal divisions and affirming the equal worth of every individual.  

**Conclusion**  

The Valentinian assembly, or *ecclesia*, embodied a vision of the Church that prioritized equality, participation, and spiritual unity. By rejecting rigid hierarchies and emphasizing shared responsibilities, the Valentinians created a structure that reflected their understanding of the Church as the body of Christ. This inclusive and dynamic approach allowed for a deeper expression of community and interconnectedness, with all members contributing to the life and mission of the assembly. For Valentinians, the *ecclesia* was not merely an institution but a living, spiritual reality that united all believers in the body of Christ.

Valentinian Priesthood of All Gnostics

# The Valentinian Priesthood of All Gnostics  

The concept of a universal priesthood is not unique to Protestant Christianity. Within Valentinian Gnosticism, the priesthood of all Gnostics mirrors the Protestant doctrine that every believer has direct access to God without relying on a hierarchical priestly class. This understanding, rooted in both scriptural and Gnostic traditions, underscores the equality and shared responsibility of all Valentinian believers as priests of God.  

## The New Testament on Priesthood  

The New Testament affirms the priesthood of all believers. In **1 Peter 2:4-10**, the apostle Peter writes that all Christians are "a spiritual house" and "a holy priesthood." He further emphasizes this in verse 9, stating, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood." The "you" in these passages applies to all Christians, not just a select group. This teaching is echoed in **Revelation 1:6** and **Revelation 5:10**, which describe believers as a kingdom and priests unto God.  

Similarly, Valentinian Gnostic Christians hold that all members are priests before God. This universality eliminates the need for an exclusive class of priests and emphasizes the collective role of all believers in spiritual service.  

## The Role of a Gnostic Priest  

As priests, Valentinian Gnostics share a threefold ministry:  

1. **Representing God to humanity** – This involves sharing the knowledge of God and teaching the divine mysteries to others.  

2. **Representing humanity to God** – Gnostics engage in intercessory practices, lifting their fellow believers before God in prayer.  

3. **Offering spiritual sacrifices** – These sacrifices include acts of devotion, service, and praise, as described in **Romans 12:1**, **Hebrews 13:15-16**, and **Philippians 4:18**.  

This approach emphasizes individual responsibility and the transformative nature of spiritual practice in devotion to God.  

## Valentinian Practices  

In Valentinian communities, the traditional roles of clergy and laity were fluid. According to Tertullian, "Today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood." (*Against the Valentinians*, 1).  

This practice ensured active participation from all members and highlighted the belief that every believer was equal before God. Women, often excluded from leadership roles in orthodox Christianity, were given significant responsibilities among Valentinians. Female prophets, teachers, healers, evangelists, and priests played prominent roles, reflecting the movement’s commitment to equality.  

Valentinians also rejected ecclesiastical authority, choosing instead to meet in smaller, autonomous gatherings. These gatherings fostered an environment of shared leadership and collective spiritual growth, where every member contributed to the community’s well-being.  

## The Role of Anointing  

The Gospel of Philip reflects the Valentinian understanding of spiritual empowerment:  

> "The anointing is superior to baptism, for it is from the word 'anointing' that we have been called 'Christians,' certainly not because of the word 'baptism.' And it is because of the anointing that 'the Christ' has his name."  

For Valentinian Gnostics, baptism signifies initiation into the priesthood, while anointing represents empowerment for ministry. This anointing, often equated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, provides the strength and authority to carry out the work of ministry. It is through this anointing that believers receive divine knowledge and the ability to act as witnesses of the truth.  

## The Priesthood of All Gnostics  

The Valentinian priesthood affirms that all Gnostics are equal in their spiritual calling. Each believer has the responsibility and privilege of serving as a priest, with direct access to God and the ability to minister to others. This egalitarian approach contrasts with the hierarchical structures of orthodox Christianity and reflects the radical inclusivity of Valentinian thought.  

Through their shared ministry, Valentinians embody the belief that the divine knowledge entrusted to them is not the possession of a select few but the inheritance of all who seek the truth. This priesthood of all Gnostics highlights their collective mission to reveal the mysteries of God and live out the transformative power of divine wisdom.

The Valentinian Demiurge is Not Yaldabaoth

 The Valentinian Demiurge is Not Yaldabaoth #Demiurge #yaldabaoth

The Demiurge, a concept originating in Platonic philosophy and incorporated into early Christian and Gnostic traditions, is often misunderstood. One significant misconception is the conflation of the Valentinian Demiurge with the hostile creator figure Yaldabaoth, prominent in Sethian Gnosticism. While both the Demiurge and Yaldabaoth are associated with the creation of the material world, their roles, characteristics, and theological meanings differ greatly.  

The Valentinian Demiurge: An Image of the Father 

In Valentinian cosmology, the Demiurge is not an independent or malevolent entity. Instead, he is a subordinate craftsman who acts as an intermediary between the spiritual and material realms. According to *Excerpts of Theodotus* (47:1-3) and the *Tripartite Tractate* (100:21-30), the Demiurge is a reflection or "image of the Father." He brings order to creation under the guidance of the Logos, the Word of God. Far from being hostile, he is seen as fulfilling a necessary role in the divine plan.  

Valentinians maintain a nuanced view of the Demiurge, acknowledging his limitations but rejecting the idea that he is evil. Ptolemy, a Valentinian teacher, criticizes those who portray the creator as malevolent. In his *Letter to Flora*, Ptolemy writes:  

 "The creation is not due to a god who corrupts but to one who is just and hates evil" (*Letter to Flora* 3:6).  

Ptolemy further explains that the Demiurge is distinct from both God and the Devil, describing him as "neither good nor evil," but "just" because he upholds justice within creation (*Letter to Flora* 7:5).  

#### **Yaldabaoth: The Ignorant Creator in Sethianism**  

In stark contrast to the Valentinian Demiurge, Yaldabaoth is a prominent figure in Sethian Gnosticism, described as a flawed and ignorant being. According to the *Apocryphon of John*, Yaldabaoth is a product of the Aeon Sophia’s misguided attempt to generate offspring without the consent of the Father. As a result, Yaldabaoth is disconnected from the higher spiritual realms and acts out of arrogance and ignorance.  

Yaldabaoth declares himself the sole god, saying:  

 "I am God, and there is no other God beside me" (*Apocryphon of John* 11:19-20).  

This declaration reflects his ignorance of the Supreme Deity and his place in the cosmic hierarchy. Yaldabaoth’s creation of the material world is viewed as an act of hubris, leading to a flawed and oppressive reality that traps spiritual elements in physical matter.  

#### **Key Differences Between the Valentinian Demiurge and Yaldabaoth**  

1. **Moral Character**  

   - The Valentinian Demiurge is described as just and aligned with divine will, fulfilling a constructive role in creation.  

   - Yaldabaoth, in Sethian tradition, is a malevolent force, creating the material world to trap spiritual beings.  

2. **Alignment with the Divine**  

   - The Valentinian Demiurge acts under the guidance of the Logos, reflecting the attributes of the Father.  

   - Yaldabaoth operates in ignorance, disconnected from the Supreme Deity and higher realms.  

3. **Theological Role**  

   - The Valentinian Demiurge is an intermediary who bridges the spiritual and material worlds.  

   - Yaldabaoth is a usurper who falsely claims ultimate authority, leading to chaos and suffering.  

4. **Symbolic Representation**  

   - The Valentinian Demiurge is never depicted as a monstrous figure.  

   - Yaldabaoth is described as a lion-faced serpent, a symbol of his aberrant nature and ignorance.  

#### **Valentinian Critique of Sethian Views**  

Valentinians explicitly reject the Sethian depiction of the creator as evil. Ptolemy criticizes those who fail to recognize the providence of the creator, stating:  

 "Only thoughtless people have this idea, people who do not recognize the providence of the creator and so are blind not only in the eye of the soul but even in the eye of the body" (*Letter to Flora* 3:2-6).  

Ptolemy insists that such views are as erroneous as the orthodox Christian belief that the Demiurge is the highest God. Valentinians position the Demiurge as a mediator who is essential to the cosmic order, neither supremely good nor inherently evil.  

#### **Biblical and Philosophical Contexts**  

The term *Demiurge* is found in philosophical and biblical contexts, emphasizing its positive connotation. Hebrews 11:10 refers to God as the “builder and maker (*dēmiourgós*)” of the Heavenly Jerusalem, reflecting a role of divine craftsmanship. This aligns with the Valentinian understanding of the Demiurge as a benevolent craftsman, in contrast to Sethian portrayals of Yaldabaoth.  

#### **Conclusion**  

The Valentinian Demiurge and Sethian Yaldabaoth represent fundamentally different theological concepts. While Yaldabaoth is depicted as a flawed and malevolent creator, the Valentinian Demiurge is a positive figure, 

The Valentinian Demiurge as a Collective Agent

 The Demiurge, in this interpretation, serves as the cosmic craftsman working on behalf of a higher divine power—the Word or *Logos*. This view aligns with various theological and philosophical traditions where the Demiurge is not the supreme deity but a subordinate being or collective entity carrying out the will of the Creator.  

#Demiurge #yaldabaoth

### The Demiurge and the Elohim  

The term *Elohim*, though grammatically plural, is often paired with singular verbs in Hebrew scripture, as in Genesis 1:1:  

 “In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth.”  

This linguistic structure suggests a unified collective acting under a single authority. The *Elohim* represent a multitude of mighty beings or angels, each carrying out the divine will under the direction of the Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2). Psalm 103:19-22 reinforces this unity, describing the *Elohim* as Yahweh’s ministers, obedient to His word and empowered by His Spirit.  

The *Elohim* function as extensions of Yahweh's will, manifesting His purpose throughout creation. They act as a harmonious assembly, motivated by the Spirit of God, forming what can be considered a corporate Demiurge—a collective agency through which Yahweh’s creative and administrative purposes are realized.  

---

### The Archangel Michael as Demiurge  

Within this framework, the Archangel Michael emerges as the highest among the *Elohim*. As the chief messenger and commander of heavenly armies, Michael relays and implements the commands of Yahweh. His position aligns with the concept of a Demiurge as a craftsman or mediator of divine will.  

The Book of Daniel (10:13, 12:1) portrays Michael as a protector and leader, while Jude 1:9 depicts him as contending on behalf of God’s purposes. These roles emphasize his intermediary function, akin to the Demiurge, as he shapes the cosmos and executes divine justice.  

In comparison to the Supreme Deity, Michael, like other angels, is described as "coarse" or "rough" (Excerpts of Theodotus 33:4), highlighting the ontological distinction between the Uncreated Deity and created beings. Michael is not the source of ultimate authority but operates as a faithful servant and administrator of the Father’s will.  

---

### The Demiurge as a Collective Agent  

Rather than viewing the Demiurge as a single entity, this perspective broadens the concept to encompass the collective agency of the *Elohim*. These spiritual beings, united in purpose, act as the manifestation of the Father's will in the material world. They are the means through which creation is shaped and sustained, embodying the Father’s qualities without being the Father Himself.  

Ephesians 3:15 refers to this assembly as “His family in heaven,” emphasizing their close relationship with the Creator and their role as His instruments. Through them, Yahweh’s presence is felt, His commands are enacted, and His justice is administered.  

---

### The Demiurge as a True God  

In this view, the Demiurge is not a "false god" or an adversary. Unlike certain Gnostic interpretations that equate the Demiurge with Yaldabaoth or an evil entity, this understanding holds that the Demiurge—whether personified as Michael or represented by the collective *Elohim*—is a real god, a legitimate agent of divine purpose.  

The Demiurge, as an *Elohim* or angel, acts in alignment with Yahweh’s will, creating and administering justice in the cosmos. While not the Supreme Deity, the Demiurge plays an essential role in the divine hierarchy, bridging the spiritual and material realms.  

---

### Distinction Between the Demiurge and the Supreme Deity  

The Demiurge is not synonymous with the One True Deity, the Uncreated and Eternal Spirit. Instead, the Demiurge operates as a mediator, crafting the universe and administering justice according to the divine blueprint provided by the *Logos*.  

John 1:1-3 clarifies the hierarchy: the *Logos* is the ultimate intermediary through whom all things are made, and the Demiurge functions as the craftsman energized by the *Logos*. Heracleon’s commentary on John reiterates this point:  

 “It was not the Word who made all things, as if he were energized by another, but the one 'through whom' all things were made.”  

Thus, the Demiurge works under the direction of the *Logos*, shaping the material universe while remaining subordinate to the higher divine order.  

---

### Conclusion  

The Demiurge, whether personified as Michael or understood as the collective agency of the *Elohim*, serves as the craftsman of creation, faithfully executing the will of the One True Deity. Far from being a false god or adversary, the Demiurge plays a vital role in the divine economy, bridging the spiritual and material worlds and ensuring the fulfillment of the Father’s purpose. Through the Demiurge, the Creator’s justice, wisdom, and creativity are made manifest in the cosmos.

The aeon Monogenes

 ### **Monogenes (Only-begotten)**  

#### **Greek Meaning**  

The term **μονογενής (monogenes)** is derived from two Greek words: **μόνος (monos)** meaning "only" or "unique" and **γένος (genos)** meaning "kind" or "offspring." It is often used to describe an only child, as seen in **Judges 11:34** and **Luke 7:12**, where it refers to someone's only son or daughter.  

In theological contexts, **monogenes** refers to Jesus Christ as the "only begotten Son of God," highlighting His unique origin and relationship with God. According to subordinationism, Jesus, as **monogenes**, emanated from the very being of God before the creation of the world, subordinate to the Father yet uniquely divine.  

---

#### **Valentinian Understanding**  

In Valentinian thought, **Monogenes** represents an aeon that emanates from the Father, embodying the unique and singular nature of divine wisdom and being. Aeons, as divine attributes or aspects, flow from the Father and the Son, with **Monogenes** signifying the indivisible unity and singularity of the divine source.  

Valentinians often interpreted Jesus' teachings in a mystical sense, such as in the **Gospel of Philip**:  

*"The Lord said, 'Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be.'”*  

This emphasizes the eternal nature of Christ as the **Monogenes**, existing before all creation and embodying the timeless divine essence.  

The **Gospel of Thomas** further explores this concept:  

**Saying 18**:  

*"The disciples said to Jesus, 'Tell us, how will our end come?'  

Jesus said, 'Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death.'"*  

**Saying 19**:  

*"Jesus said, 'Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being. If you become my disciples and pay attention to my sayings, these stones will serve you. For there are five trees in Paradise for you; they do not change, summer or winter, and their leaves do not fall. Whoever knows them will not taste death.'"*  

These sayings highlight the eternal, unchanging nature of the **Monogenes** and its role in revealing the unity of beginning and end. In Valentinian thought, the **Monogenes** represents the divine principle of timeless existence, a central concept in understanding the spiritual journey of believers.  

---

#### **Role in the Mind of a Believer**  

The concept of the **Monogenes** has profound implications for a believer’s mind. It represents the perfect and complete idea of humanity as conceived by God. Jesus, as the "Son of Man," embodies this ideal in expression, while Christ, the "Son of God," represents this idea in its absolute, eternal form.  

In this context, Jesus and Christ are two aspects of the same reality:  

- **Jesus as the "Son of Man"**: The expression of God’s idea in the physical realm, subject to the limitations of human existence.  

- **Christ as the "Son of God"**: The divine, perfect-idea man that transcends these limitations.  

As believers grow in spiritual understanding, they come to realize their relationship with God and their potential to embody this divine ideal. Jesus articulated this realization in **John 7:29**:  

*"I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me."*  

The believer’s journey involves recognizing their own identity as a child of God and striving to align with the divine nature represented by the **Monogenes**. This involves transcending limitations and embracing the universal, timeless essence of God’s perfect idea.  

---

#### **Conclusion**  

The **Monogenes**, as the only begotten, embodies the eternal unity and singularity of divine essence. In Valentinian thought, it is both an aeon and a principle that reveals the eternal nature of Christ and the divine origin of humanity. Through teachings such as those found in the **Gospel of Philip** and the **Gospel of Thomas**, believers are invited to contemplate their own spiritual journey and align with the divine nature. By embracing the mind of the **Monogenes**, they move toward a deeper understanding of their relationship with God and the timeless truth of their being.

The Two Wisdoms: Echamoth and Echmoth

---

**Welcome to Pleroma Pathways apocalyptic and mystic Christianity where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.**

**The Two Wisdoms: Echamoth and Echmoth**

The Gospel of Philip makes a profound distinction between two types of wisdom: **Echamoth** and **Echmoth**. It states, *"There is Echamoth and there is Echmoth. Echamoth is simply wisdom, but Echmoth is the wisdom of death—that is, the wisdom that knows death, that is called little wisdom."* This teaches us that there is true wisdom and a lesser, corrupted wisdom.

**Echamoth** represents pure divine Wisdom. It is the wisdom that comes from God, the single-minded alignment with the will of the Father. It is *Sophia*, wisdom that leads to life, righteousness, and truth.  

On the other hand, **Echmoth** is the wisdom of death. It is a *little wisdom*, based on human reasoning, double-mindedness, and worldly desires. It intellectualizes but ultimately leads nowhere but to death, because it is severed from the true source, God.

This duality reflects the consistent teaching in Scripture about two types of wisdom: the **wisdom of this world** and the **wisdom of God**.

Paul discusses this contrast in his letters:

- **1 Corinthians 1:21** - *"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."*  

- **1 Corinthians 3:19** - *"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."*

The wisdom of this world—philosophy, intellectual pursuits without spiritual foundation—is ultimately foolishness to God. The rulers of this age possessed *Sophia* in a worldly sense but did not possess **Christ-Sophia**, the higher wisdom revealed through the Messiah.

**Personification of Wisdom**

In the Book of Proverbs, wisdom is personified as a woman.  

- *"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom... She is more precious than rubies..."* (Proverbs 3:13–15)  

- *"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars."* (Proverbs 9:1)

However, just because wisdom is described as a woman does not mean it is literally a woman; it is a powerful image illustrating how desirable and life-giving divine wisdom is. Proverbs also contrasts **godly wisdom** with **human wisdom**, depicted as an adulteress luring people into destruction (Proverbs 2:16).

**Human Wisdom in Ecclesiastes**

The Book of Ecclesiastes shows us the emptiness of human wisdom:

- *"I gave my mind to know wisdom and to discern madness and folly; I perceived that this also is a chasing after the wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."* (Ecclesiastes 1:17–18)

Human wisdom, though it can achieve some practical benefits, ultimately leads to sorrow because it cannot bring lasting life or knowledge of God. It remains trapped in mortality—death is its inevitable end.

Paul echoes this in 1 Corinthians:

- *"Where is the wise? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"* (1 Corinthians 1:20)

**Divine Wisdom and the Feminine Aspect of God**

True wisdom is not only personified—it expresses a hidden aspect of God's own being.  

Jesus said, *"Wisdom is justified of her children."* (Matthew 11:19) Those born of the Spirit (John 3:6) are her offspring.

The Holy Spirit, understood in Hebrew as a feminine noun (**ruach**), can be seen as the *feminine aspect of God*. Thus, **Sophia** is linked to the Spirit—God’s dynamic, nurturing, and empowering force.

The Spirit is not a separate person but the power and presence of God Himself:

- *"You send forth Your Spirit, they are created."* (Psalm 104:30)

- *"There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."* (1 Corinthians 12:4)

Sophia, as Divine Wisdom, is the maternal, nurturing counterpart to the masculine Logos. Where the Logos is embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, Sophia expresses herself in the Church, empowering, anointing, and leading God's people (John 3:5–8; 2 Corinthians 1:21–22).

Proverbs 8 beautifully expresses Wisdom’s relationship to God and creation:

- *"The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old... When He prepared the heavens, I was there... I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him."* (Proverbs 8:22–30)

Wisdom is not a separate deity but the radiant beauty, truth, and faithful companion of God's creative work.

**Gnostic Insights and the Syzygy**

In Gnostic thought, Sophia is the syzygy (female counterpart) of the Logos. Together they reveal the androgynous fullness of God: Father and Mother united.

Thus, God is androgynous, encompassing both masculine and feminine principles. This is reflected in the Church’s anointing through the Spirit (Galatians 5:16, 18).

**Summary: Wisdom vs. Wisdom of Death**

Returning to the Gospel of Philip:  

- **Echamoth** is pure, divine wisdom: *single-eyed*, focused on the Father’s will, bringing life and true knowledge.  

- **Echmoth** is worldly, death-centered wisdom: *double-minded*, clinging to the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," never progressing to the tree of life.

Those trapped in *Echmoth* understand physical death but remain blind to the hope of Resurrection. Their wisdom is rooted in the material world, deceiving them into thinking that earthly existence is all there is.

Those who embrace *Echamoth*, however, seek the wisdom from above and move beyond the "letter" to the Spirit, bearing the fruits of life and entering the fullness of divine union.

Thus, the journey from **Echmoth** to **Echamoth** is the journey from death to life, from worldly wisdom to the eternal Wisdom of God.

---

The history of Sethian Gnosticism

# The History of Sethian Gnosticism

The origins of Sethian Gnosticism can be traced to a turbulent intersection of Jewish tradition, Greek philosophical speculation, and early Christian thought. As early as the first century, figures like Josephus and Philo of Alexandria criticized certain Hellenized Jews who, in their zeal to harmonize Scripture with Greek philosophy, abandoned the plain meaning of the Law for allegorical and speculative reinterpretations. This movement toward mystical and philosophical re-readings of sacred texts would, over time, give rise to the distinctive theological currents known as proto-Gnosticism. Within this context, the Sethians emerged—a small, syncretistic group whose complex mythologies and reinterpretations of biblical figures like Seth and Christ positioned them both within and against the broader developments of early Christianity and Platonism.

Two early witnesses, **Josephus** and **Philo of Alexandria**, offer piercing criticisms of what can rightly be seen as the seeds of early Gnosticism—individuals among the Jews who blended Greek philosophical speculation with the Hebrew Scriptures, leading to mystical reinterpretations that deviated sharply from the Law.

In *Against Apion* (2.256–257), **Josephus** laments:

> “Some among us have been so delighted with Greek culture that they have not only neglected their own laws, but have laughed at them and even attempted to misinterpret them with forced allegories, for the sake of Greek philosophy.”

Here, Josephus describes a trend among certain Hellenized Jews who abandoned the traditional, literal interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures in favor of allegorized, philosophical reinterpretations. These figures, in Josephus’s eyes, betrayed the integrity of the ancestral Law in their attempt to harmonize Judaism with the dominant intellectual currents of the Greco-Roman world.

**Philo**, a Jewish philosopher deeply immersed in both Torah and Platonic thought, also distinguishes himself from those who went too far. In *On Dreams* (1.29–31), he writes:

> “Some, boasting of wisdom falsely so-called, pervert philosophy into a cloak for impiety, weaving together fictions and monstrous tales, daring to call their own baseless opinions divine oracles… mixing plausible doctrines with ridiculous delusions.”

This scathing rebuke shows that even within Philo’s own allegorical approach, there were individuals or movements he deemed to be going beyond the bounds of reason and reverence. These "boasters" likely represent a form of **proto-Gnosticism**—combining Jewish traditions with speculative myths, secret teachings, and the language of divine revelation.

The **Sethians** (*Latin: Sethoitae*) are first mentioned, alongside the **Ophites**, in the second century by **Irenaeus**, a fierce opponent of Gnosticism. Later accounts from **Pseudo-Tertullian** (Ch. 30) and **Hippolytus** largely repeat the information provided by Irenaeus. According to scholar **Frederik Wisse**, almost all subsequent descriptions of Sethianism depend heavily on this early heresiological tradition.

According to **Epiphanius of Salamis** (c. 375 CE), Sethians were, in his time, found only in Egypt and Palestine. However, fifty years earlier, they were reported to exist as far away as Greater Armenia. This suggests that Sethianism was a **small localized group** of Jewish-Christians, rather than a widespread or dominant movement.

The 4th-century *Catalogue of Heresies* by **Philaster** places the Ophites, Cainites, and Sethians as **pre-Christian Jewish sects**. However, since Sethians identified **Seth with Christ** (as seen in *The Second Treatise of the Great Seth*), the belief that the Sethians were an entirely pre-Christian sect is not widely accepted today. Modern scholarship sees Sethianism as a syncretistic phenomenon that absorbed Jewish and Greek elements while emerging within the broader context of early Christianity.

It is best understood as **a distinctly inner-Jewish, albeit syncretistic and heterodox, phenomenon** that evolved over time under the influence of Christian and Platonic thought.

According to **John D. Turner**, Sethianism developed through six distinct phases:

**Phase 1:**  

Before the 2nd century CE, two groups formed the basis of Sethianism: a Jewish group of possibly priestly lineage known as the **Barbeloites** (named after **Barbelo**, the first emanation of the Highest God) and a group of **Biblical exegetes** known as the **Sethites**, who viewed themselves as the "seed of Seth."

**Phase 2:**  

In the mid-2nd century, the Barbeloites, a baptizing sect, fused with Christian baptizing groups. They began to view the pre-existent Christ as the "self-generated (Autogenes) Son of Barbelo," who was "anointed with the Invisible Spirit’s Christhood." Through baptism, Barbeloites believed they were assimilated into the archetypal "Son of Man." Jesus of Nazareth was seen not merely as a historical figure, but as an appearance of the Divine Logos.

**Phase 3:**  

Later in the 2nd century, the Christianized Barbeloites merged with the Sethites to form the **Gnostic Sethianists**. Seth and Christ were now fully identified together as bearers of the "true image of God," with the view that Christ had appeared in the world to rescue Jesus from the cross—a strongly **docetic** interpretation.

**Phase 4:**  

By the end of the 2nd century, Sethianism grew apart from the developing **Christian orthodoxy**, which rejected the Sethian docetic view of Christ’s body and death.

**Phase 5:**  

In the early 3rd century, Sethianism was fully rejected by Christian heresiologists. As a result, Sethianism shifted more deeply into the **contemplative practices of Platonism**, gradually losing its strong Jewish-Christian identity.

**Phase 6:**  

In the late 3rd century, Sethianism was attacked by **Neoplatonists** like **Plotinus**, who objected to its mythological speculations. Alienated from both Christian orthodoxy and Platonism, Sethianism fragmented into various **sectarian Gnostic groups**, such as the **Archontics**, **Audians**, **Borborites**, and **Phibionites**. Some remnants of these groups survived into the Middle Ages.

As Christianity solidified and became the state religion, other Christian groups, especially those forming the Catholic Church, viewed the Sethians as dangerous heretics. Persecution followed: Sethian writings were banned, their communities were suppressed, and references to their teachings were preserved mainly by opponents eager to refute them.

Thus, Sethian Gnosticism represents an early, bold, and deeply controversial attempt to reinterpret Jewish and Christian tradition through the lens of Platonic philosophy and mystical speculation—an attempt that provoked both fascination and fierce opposition throughout the ancient world.

Gnosis is Truth Mysticism is a Craft

 Gnosis is Truth Mysticism is a Craft

The Nag Hammadi Library : The Gospel of Thomas : When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

1. All areas of gnosticism are on different levels, no two gnostics are on or of the same understanding, and do not get Mysticism mixed up with Gnosis, Gnosis is Truth Mysticism is a Craft, they both can be like two glasses of clear liquid,

for all who wish to know themselves in the light of the knowledge of which Christ taught his disciples in private.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Poverty is the body, you live in the body, if you don't know this then you think, you are the body, then you shall become as the body is!

DEAD SEA community as source for Christianity

TWO PLAUSABLE SEPECULATIONS:


ONE, THAT THE SOURCE OF THE JESUS LEGEND WAS THE ESSENE FOUNDER/PROPHET, CALLED THE RIGHTEOUS ONE (c. 100 B.C.),



TWO, THAT THE GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS GREW OUT OF THIS HEBREW SECT AND FROM THEM CAME THE CHRISTIANS.

QUMRAN COMMUNITY AS SOURCE OF CHRISTIANTY?

There are two very different pictures of the antiquity upon which the gospels are woven. One is nurtured on faith and assumes that there is scant little that is relevant to the understanding of the New Testament other than religious dogma/theology and the teaching of the Old Testament that were incorporated into the teachings of Paul and Jesus[1]. The other is that the New Testament evolved from certain prior teachings in the Levant. Is it a coincidence that the DNA of the Chimpanzee is 98.5 % percent the same as that of homo sapient? Was Yahweh so fond of the chimp that he used its blueprint when creating us? Or is the identity in DNA sequences a result of common, recent linage? There is a hierarchy of solutions. Is the similarity of the New Testament (NT) to the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic Apocrypha,[2] and Jewish Pseudepigrapha because Yahweh liked those works? It is through knowledge of evolutionary biology that one comes to comprehend the cause of the 98.5% identity in DNA; and it is through the study of the works by uncompromised scholars such as Randel Helms and G.A. Wells that one comes to understand the development of the NT.

My purpose is to look at one important window of evidence, the Dead Sea Scrolls, (most of which was written a century before the New Testament) so that we may understand the soil upon which the Christian faith sprang. The scrolls are by no means the only evidence; however, it is enough to establish that the relatedness was not accidental.[3] Moreover, the evidence supports the speculation that the seed for the Jesus myth came from a particular Essence known as The Teacher of Righteousness. This journey into the foundation of Christianity serves two purposes, one to place the foundation of Christianity in its proper historical context, and secondly to advance the most historically sound explanation of the Jesus legend.

The first issue considered is one of direct influence versus parallel development. If parallel how much borrow occurred? Direct influence of the Qumran sect on the early church may turn out to be less probable than parallel developments in the same general situation. The quest here is the same one encountered when we attempt to explain similarities between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, or between Christianity and the pagan mystery cults (183).[4] Others (including JK) find, looking closely at the evidence that these similarities arise from inheritance. There are parallels [I]n language, (especially in John), in eschatological motifs, and in their order and liturgical institutions (baptism, liturgical meals, community of goods, leadership). In each case the Qumran covenanters and early Christians shared essential viewpoints (184). The parallels vary in quality, but the sheer quantity is more than impressive it is demonstrative of adoption. In 1966 a German scholar, Herbert Braun, published a two-volume work entitled Qumran und das New Testament containing a chain-like treatment of all New Testament passages, from Matthew through Revelations, for which parallels arguably exist. The book totals 326 pages of rather small print (185). The Qumran scrolls show a community communal life shaped by the anticipated Kingdom of God, a model assumed by the early Christian communities. The borrowing went so far as to be remarkable similar in theological vocabulary, in some major doctrinal tenets, and in several organizational and ritual practices (185). Such similarities within the same region make highly unlike the position of separate and parallel development.

The relationship between the two however can only be inferred. One strong piece of evidence is the usage of the same language. A number of Pauline expressions are the same (at 187). The entire passage of 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 sounds very much like what we find at Qumran. The name Belial (or Beliar) occurs only here in the whole New Testament, but it occurs several times at Qumran (188). A similar unique parallels is found with the Sermon on the Mount (Plain in Luke). Among the same phrases are poor in spirit (Matt 5:3). The then unique Essence practice of avoiding oaths is echoed in Matthew 5:33-37 and explains Josephus statement that the Essences were excused from taking the oath of loyalty to Herod. The duty to turn the other cheek (Matt 5:38-39) is found at Qumran in the Manual of Discipline (10:17-18), but not elsewhere (188). This degree of similarity to the NT is not to be found anywhere else in the Jewish literature.

Given the lack of an historical Jesus,[5] it has for sometime been speculated that one of their leaders was in fact the source for legend. In 1950 the French Scholar Andre Dupont-Sommer argued that the Teacher of Righteousnessthe founder and first leader of the Qumran group according the scrollshad a career that prefigured and paralleled Jesus:

The Galilean Master, as He is presented to us in the writings of the New Testament, appears in many respects as an astonishing reincarnation of the Master of Justice [that is, the Teacher of Righteousness, as the title came to be translated]. Like the latter He preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of ones neighbours, chastity. Like him, He prescribed the observance of the Law of Moses, the whole Law, but the Law finished and perfected thank to His own revelations. Like him He was the Elect and Messiah of God, the Messiah redeemer of the world. Like him He was the object of the hostility of the priests, the party of the Sadducees. Like him He was condemned and put to death. Like him He pronounced judgement, which was taken and destroyed by the Romans for having put Him to death. Like him, at the end of time, He will be the supreme judge. Like him He founded a Church whose adherents fervently awaited his glorious return (182).



These parallels given the silence of the Epistles and the historical fiction of the Gospels are strong support for the hypothesis that The Teacher of Righteousness grew into the Jesus legend. This is made all the more likely given the time gap: the Teacher of Righteousness was executed during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.). Paul comes 150 years after his death.[6] Thus there was enough time for a legend to grow inside and outside the Qumran community. Given the above-mentioned similarities between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT a relationship between the 2 must have existed. This relationship makes it all the more likely that the Teacher of Righteousness was the seed for the Jesus legend.[7]



Were the Gnostics the first Christians?

Another reasonable conclusion is that the Gnostics were before the Catholics. When puzzling over the silence of the Epistles (see 1 Corinthians 1:18-25), the fact that certain passages in Paul seem to be of a position that distinguish and thus opposes the Gnostics; that Mark seems to be aware and influenced by the Gnostics;[8] that as to sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas (Gnostic), they parallel the synoptic gospels in a more primitive (i.e. earlier) form;[9] and the literary relationship between the three groups, the Essences, the Gnostics, and the Christians (discussed above), the question of priority naturally occurred to me. But the Christian scholars naturally consider the Gospels as historically reliable and the Gnostics a later heretic development. This gap in years from the Essence teacher and Paul is sufficient for the Gnostic Christians to have developed before the Catholic Christians. I have not found any thing in my extensive research that which would confound this hypothesis. And on the affirmative side is the greater similarity of certain early Gnostic teachings to the Jewish Pseudepigrapha of the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C. When comparing to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish Pseudepigrapha (The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, The Book of Jubilees, The Sibylline Oracles) to both the Gnostic works such as On the Origin of the World and to the NT, one is struck by the greater divergence of the NT. Christianity could be an offshoot of the Gnostics and the Gnostics closer to the Essence source?

To rely upon analysis instead of faith entails a much different understanding of how Christianity developed:

It would seem an immense advantage for cultural and social intercoursethat is, for civilizationthat the rise of Christianity should, at last, be generally understood as simply an episode of human history rather than propagated as dogma and divine revelation. The study of the Dead Sea Scrollswith the direction it is now takingcannot fail, one would think, to conduce this (183).



Enlightenment comes from the persistent use of logical analysis. Analysis exposed the Gospel fictions, analysis set out the natural development of Christianity, analysis showed that the Gnostics could well be the first Christian cult, and analysis showed that an Essence Teacher could well be the seed for the Jesus legend. Unlike faith which affirms a remote possibility, logical analysis has shown new and more plausible possibilities concerning the Jesus legends and the first Christians.






[1] Consistent with my other essays thought I speak of Jesus teachings in fact there were none. This conclusion is based upon the silence of the Epistles. So though I write of the teachings of Jesus, what I mean is the fictional character, Jesus, as found in the Gospels. I use Jesus rather than Christ, because Christ means anointed (as a king of the Jews), and the Teacher of Righteousness was not anointed.


[2] I consider it more likely than not that the Gnostics were the first Christians developing in the 1st century BC from the deification of the Essence Teacher of Righteousnessmore on this point at the end of this paper.


[3] All this is supported by scholarship; however, not a consensus of scholars. As I have grumble in nearly every work on religion such a consensus is not possible because the majority of researchers wear the scholars gown yet come to the flock with religious intent.


[4] Hershel Shanks, Editor, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A reader from Biblical Archaeology Review, Random House, New York, 1992. Which particular author and work quoted in the article by James Vanjderkam in Chapter 14 will not be cited; it is of interest only to the academics.


[5] See my essays on the Historical Jesus at http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/enlightenment


[6] Paul admits that he never met Jesus, nor does he claim to know those who have met Jesus, nor does he place a date of Jesus birth or deaththough one interpolation does for his death.


[7] Differences between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Essence Teacher of Righteousness are not a telling criticism. For consider how the Paul of the Epistle had undergone changes in the author of Acts; and similarly how the Jesus of the Epistle was transformed by Mark in just one generation. Legends distort history, often to the point of uncertain; viz., that even the plausible episodes might too be fiction, for where the story telling process end and what if any historically accurate information did the story tell build up his tale upon. What for example is historical about the battle of Troy, other than that the city had been sacked. It was sacked 8 times.




[8] The afore mentioned passage in Mark 1 of Jesus being a mortal unto whom upon baptism the spirit of the Lord enters him.


[9] See commentary by Barnstone, 299, on the Gospel of Thomas.

















While these two thesis (Teacher of Righteousness being the seed of the Jesus legend and the Gnostic Christians coming before the Catholic Christians), lack the concrete evidence that amounts to a proof, there is suggestive evidence based upon textual exegeses to uphold their position as alternatives to the standard solutions based on the gospels. My position that is strengthened by the fact that the gospels cannot by scholars be read as an historical account.