Gnostic Doctrine

Saturday, 26 April 2025

The aeon Monogenēs

Monogenes (Only-Begotten)

Greek Meaning

The Greek term μονογενής (monogenes) is formed from two components: μόνος (monos), meaning “only,” “single,” or “unique,” and γένος (genos), meaning “kind,” “stock,” or “offspring.” When combined, the word conveys the idea of something that is one of its kind—singular, unmatched, and without equal. It does not merely mean “only” in a numerical sense, but “unique in category,” something that stands alone in its nature.

In the Greek Scriptures, monogenes is used in a literal sense to describe an only child. For example, in Judges 11:34, Jephthah’s daughter is described as his only one, and in Luke 7:12, a widow’s son is referred to as her only child. In these cases, the word emphasizes uniqueness, exclusivity, and irreplaceability.

When applied in a theological context, Monogenes carries a more structured and profound meaning. It describes not merely an only offspring, but a unique mode of origin—a singular emergence that has no parallel. It indicates something that comes forth directly from a source in a way that is unmatched and not repeated. Thus, the term expresses both origin and uniqueness together.

In relation to Jesus Christ, the term “only-begotten” highlights that his origin is distinct. He is not one among many of the same kind in an ordinary sense, but the unique expression that proceeds from the Deity. His generation is not comparable to human generation in a simple biological sense, but represents a direct and singular emergence.

Valentinian Understanding

Within Valentinian thought, Monogenes is understood as an aeon—an ordered expression proceeding from the Deity. The aeons are not separate beings in isolation, but structured expressions of the divine fullness. Each aeon represents a distinct aspect or mode of the Deity’s manifestation, forming a coherent and ordered system.

Monogenes, as an aeon, represents singularity and unity. It expresses the principle that what proceeds from the Deity can exist in a unique, undivided form. It is not fragmented, multiplied, or divided, but remains whole and complete in its emergence. This aeon reflects the idea that there is a primary, original expression that serves as the pattern or structure for what follows.

In this framework, Monogenes is not an abstract idea but a real mode of existence—a structured reality that embodies unity without division. It is the point at which origin and expression meet without fragmentation. It represents the first clear articulation of what proceeds from the Deity in a singular and undivided way.

The Gospel of Philip expresses this concept in a way that emphasizes continuity of existence:

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

This statement reflects a condition in which existence is not bound by linear sequence. The one described is not confined to a beginning point in the ordinary sense. Instead, there is continuity—what is, has been, and will be. In Valentinian understanding, this continuity is characteristic of the Monogenes, whose existence is not fragmented by time but remains unified.

The Gospel of Thomas develops this further through paradoxical sayings that point to the unity of beginning and end.

Saying 18 states:

"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.'"

Here, the beginning and the end are not separate points but are structurally identical. To stand at the beginning is to possess knowledge of the end because they are unified. This reflects the nature of Monogenes, where origin and completion are not divided.

Saying 19 continues this theme:

"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.'"

This saying presents a condition in which being precedes becoming. It describes a state that exists prior to ordinary emergence. In Valentinian interpretation, this aligns with the structure of the Monogenes, which represents a mode of existence that is not subject to change, decay, or fluctuation.

Thus, within Valentinian thought, Monogenes is the aeon that embodies singularity, continuity, and unity. It is the undivided expression that reveals how the Deity brings forth what is unique without fragmentation.

Monogenes and the Structure of the Mind

The concept of Monogenes is not limited to cosmology; it directly relates to the structure of the mind. It represents the state in which the mind becomes unified, no longer divided between conflicting elements.

In ordinary experience, the mind is often fragmented. It is pulled in different directions by competing thoughts, desires, and perceptions. This fragmentation leads to instability, confusion, and inconsistency. The mind operates in parts rather than as a whole.

Monogenes, however, represents the opposite condition. It is the mind in its unified state—single, whole, and undivided. Just as the term itself denotes uniqueness and singularity, so it describes a mind that is not divided against itself.

This unity is not achieved by removing complexity, but by bringing all elements into alignment. The mind does not cease to function in multiple ways, but these functions are no longer in conflict. They operate together as a coherent whole.

The sayings from the Gospel of Thomas illustrate this transformation. To “stand at the beginning” is to possess a unified perspective. The mind that perceives origin correctly also understands completion, because it sees the structure as a whole rather than in fragments.

Similarly, to “come into being before coming into being” describes a mind that is grounded in its source. It is not defined solely by its outward expressions, but by its underlying structure. This produces stability, as the mind is no longer dependent on changing conditions.

Role in the Mind of a Believer

For a believer, Monogenes serves as both a model and a process. It shows what the mind is meant to become and how it is to function.

Jesus expresses this awareness in John 7:29:

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

This statement reveals a clear and direct recognition of origin. The mind here is not uncertain or divided; it knows its source and its relation to that source. This is characteristic of the Monogenes—a state in which identity is not confused or fragmented.

In this framework, the distinction between Jesus as the “Son of Man” and Christ as the “Son of the Deity” can be understood structurally rather than metaphysically.

Jesus as the Son of Man represents the expression of the pattern within human conditions. It is the visible manifestation of the structure in operation.
Christ as the Son of the Deity represents the pattern itself—the perfect, unified structure from which the expression proceeds.

These are not two separate beings, but two aspects of the same reality: structure and expression. The Monogenes is the point at which these are perfectly aligned.

As the believer develops, the mind begins to reflect this structure. It moves away from division and toward unity. This involves recognizing origin, understanding structure, and aligning thought accordingly.

The process is not instantaneous. It involves a reordering of the mind, where false divisions are removed and coherence is established. As this happens, the mind becomes more stable, more consistent, and more capable of perceiving truth.

Unity and Stability

One of the defining characteristics of Monogenes is stability. Because it is undivided, it is not subject to internal conflict. This stability is reflected in the mind when it is aligned with this structure.

A divided mind is unstable because it contains opposing elements that cannot coexist harmoniously. This leads to inconsistency and uncertainty. Decisions fluctuate, perceptions shift, and clarity is lost.

In contrast, a unified mind operates with consistency. It does not shift arbitrarily because it is grounded in a coherent structure. This produces clarity, as the mind is able to perceive without distortion.

The imagery of the “five trees in Paradise” that do not change, whose leaves do not fall, illustrates this stability. It represents a condition that is not subject to decay or fluctuation. In terms of the mind, this corresponds to a state that remains steady regardless of external change.

Monogenes as Origin and Pattern

Another essential aspect of Monogenes is that it serves as both origin and pattern. It is not only the first expression but also the template for what follows.

This means that the mind, in aligning with Monogenes, is not becoming something foreign. It is returning to its proper structure. The process is not one of addition, but of alignment.

The sayings about beginning and end reflect this. The end is not something separate from the beginning; it is the fulfillment of what was already present. Likewise, the mind does not become unified by acquiring something new, but by recognizing and aligning with what is already inherent in its structure.

Conclusion

Monogenes, as the only-begotten, represents the principle of singularity, unity, and undivided origin. Within Valentinian thought, it is an aeon that expresses the unique and coherent emergence of what proceeds from the Deity. It is not fragmented or multiplied, but stands as a complete and unified expression.

Through the testimonies of the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Thomas, this principle is revealed as one that transcends ordinary concepts of time and sequence. Beginning and end are shown to be one, and true existence is described as continuous and unchanging.

For the believer, Monogenes provides a model for the transformation of the mind. It represents the movement from fragmentation to unity, from instability to coherence. The mind that aligns with this structure becomes whole, no longer divided against itself.

In this way, Monogenes is not merely a title or designation. It is a description of a state of being—a unified condition in which origin, structure, and expression are perfectly aligned. It is the pattern of the mind in its complete and undivided form.

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 distinction between gnosis and mysticism is essential for understanding the structure and progression of knowledge within early Christian and gnostic thought. Though they may appear similar—like “two glasses of clear liquid”—their substance, purpose, and outcome are fundamentally different. One is truth itself; the other is a method or practice. One is the end; the other is a means. To confuse them is to mistake the tool for the finished work.

Gnosis, in its pure sense, is not speculation, ritual, or symbolic abstraction. It is truth—clear, direct, and realized knowledge. It is not something constructed by human effort, but something discovered, or more precisely, uncovered. This is why the teaching preserved in *The Gospel of Thomas* is so central to understanding gnosis:

> “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.”

This statement establishes gnosis as self-knowledge, but not in a superficial or psychological sense. It is not merely introspection or emotional awareness. It is the recognition of one’s true condition, nature, and origin. To “know yourselves” is to perceive what you are in reality—not what appears outwardly, not what is assumed by habit, but what is true beneath all appearances.

Mysticism, by contrast, is a craft. It consists of practices, disciplines, symbolic systems, and methods aimed at reaching understanding. It may include visions, allegories, meditations, and structured teachings. It is something that can be learned, practiced, and developed over time. But it is not the truth itself—it is only a pathway that may lead toward truth.

This is why it is said: gnosis is truth; mysticism is a craft.

The confusion arises because both can appear similar. Both may involve language about light, knowledge, transformation, and awakening. Both may use symbolic or metaphorical expressions. But their nature differs in a crucial way. Mysticism operates in process; gnosis exists as realization.

All areas of gnostic thought exist on different levels. No two individuals possess the same degree of understanding. This is not due to favoritism or hidden elitism, but because knowledge is not evenly distributed in experience. Each person progresses according to what they perceive and grasp. One may engage deeply in mystical practice yet remain distant from true gnosis, while another may arrive at clarity without elaborate systems or rituals.

This difference highlights the danger of confusing mysticism with gnosis. Mysticism can give the appearance of depth without delivering truth. It can become an elaborate structure of symbols and practices that never resolve into actual understanding. Gnosis, however, cuts through all of this. It is simple, direct, and unambiguous when realized.

The teaching continues:

> “When you know yourselves, then you will be known…”

To be “known” is not merely to be recognized by others. It refers to being established in truth—aligned with reality as it is. Knowledge of oneself brings recognition in a higher sense: one stands in what is real, not in illusion.

The statement follows:

> “…and you will understand that you are children of the living Father.”

This does not refer to abstract theology or metaphysical speculation. It is a statement of identity rooted in knowledge. To understand oneself is to understand one’s origin and relation to the Deity. Without this knowledge, identity is misplaced.

The alternative is clearly stated:

> “But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”

This “poverty” must be understood correctly. It is not material lack, nor social condition. It is a state of ignorance. It is the absence of true knowledge. To live in poverty is to exist without understanding one’s nature. More sharply, “you are the poverty” means that ignorance is not merely external—it becomes the very condition of existence.

This leads to the interpretation:

Poverty is the body. You live in the body, and if you do not know this, then you assume that you are the body. If you identify entirely with the body—its impulses, its limitations, its decay—then your understanding is confined to it. And as it is written: if you think you are the body, then you shall become as the body is.

The body is subject to decay, limitation, and dissolution. To equate oneself fully with it is to accept these as defining realities. Without knowledge, there is no distinction between what one is and what one inhabits. This is the condition of poverty.

Gnosis breaks this condition—not by denying the body, but by correctly understanding it. It places the body in its proper context. It is not the self; it is something possessed, experienced, and inhabited. Without this distinction, a person remains bound to what is temporary and perishable.

Mysticism may attempt to approach this realization through symbols, practices, or disciplines. It may use allegories of ascent, light, or transformation. But these remain within the realm of craft. They are methods—useful or not depending on their application—but they are not the truth itself.

The danger is that one may become absorbed in the craft and never arrive at gnosis. One may master symbols, memorize teachings, or practice disciplines, yet still remain in ignorance. This is why the distinction must be maintained clearly.

Gnosis does not depend on complexity. It does not require elaborate systems. It is direct recognition. It is the moment when what is true becomes evident without confusion or distortion.

This is why the teaching emphasizes self-knowledge above all:

> “When you know yourselves…”

There is no substitute for this. No ritual, no symbolic system, no external authority can replace direct knowledge. Mysticism may guide, point, or suggest—but it cannot substitute for realization.

Thus, gnosis and mysticism stand in relation, but not in equality. Mysticism is a tool; gnosis is the result. Mysticism is the path; gnosis is the destination. Mysticism can be learned; gnosis must be realized.

Like two glasses of clear liquid, they may appear identical at first glance. But one is water, and the other is something entirely different. Only by tasting—by direct experience—can one know the difference.

And so the teaching remains:

This is the dividing line between ignorance and knowledge, between poverty and understanding, between mysticism as craft and gnosis as truth.

**Gnosis is Truth, Mysticism is a Craft**

The distinction between gnosis and mysticism is essential for understanding the nature of knowledge, self-awareness, and transformation. These two are often confused, blended, or treated as interchangeable, but they are fundamentally different in their purpose, method, and outcome. Gnosis is truth—direct, real knowledge of what is. Mysticism, by contrast, is a craft—a set of practices, disciplines, or techniques that may lead toward insight but are not themselves the truth. They can appear similar, like two glasses of clear liquid, yet their substance is entirely different.

Gnosis begins with knowledge of reality, and more specifically, knowledge of oneself. This principle is expressed clearly in the saying from the *Gospel of Thomas*:

This statement establishes self-knowledge as the foundation of gnosis. It is not abstract speculation or mystical experience that defines true knowledge, but recognition of what one is. To “know yourselves” is to perceive one’s actual condition, nature, and constitution. It is to see clearly, without illusion, what one is made of and how one exists.

The consequence of this knowledge is also stated: “then you will be known.” This indicates correspondence. When a person truly knows himself, he aligns with reality and becomes recognizable within it. Knowledge is not one-sided; it is relational. To know truly is to be known truly. This is not mysticism, but clarity.

The statement continues: “you will understand that you are children of the living Father.” This understanding is not granted through ritual or technique, but through knowledge. It is the result of recognition. Identity is not constructed through mystical ascent, but discovered through truthful understanding.

The contrast is equally important:

> “But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”

Here, ignorance is defined as poverty. This poverty is not economic, but existential. It is the condition of lacking knowledge of what one is. Without this knowledge, a person does not merely experience poverty—he becomes it. His condition defines him.

This poverty is directly tied to the body. Poverty is the body, in the sense that without knowledge, one identifies entirely with the physical condition. One lives in the body and assumes that the body is the totality of one’s being. This is the state of confusion. If one does not know himself beyond the immediate physical condition, then one is reduced to that condition.

To live without self-knowledge is to mistake the container for the identity. The body becomes the definition of the self. And if one believes he is nothing more than the body, then he becomes subject entirely to its processes—decay, limitation, and dissolution. “You shall become as the body is” is not a threat, but a description. Without knowledge, there is no distinction between the self and its physical state.

Gnosis, therefore, is the correction of this error. It is the recognition that one is not merely what is seen externally. It is not an escape from reality, but a clearer perception of it. It is truth.

Mysticism, on the other hand, operates differently. Mysticism is a craft. It involves methods—meditation, ascetic practices, symbolic interpretations, and experiential exercises. These may be useful, but they are not truth in themselves. They are tools. A tool can be used correctly or incorrectly. It can lead toward clarity or deeper confusion.

This is why mysticism must not be confused with gnosis. A person may practice mystical disciplines and yet lack true knowledge. He may have experiences, visions, or altered states, but these do not guarantee truth. They may even reinforce illusion if not grounded in reality.

The analogy of two glasses of clear liquid is appropriate. Both gnosis and mysticism can appear similar from the outside. Both may involve language about knowledge, transformation, and understanding. But one is substance, and the other is method. One is the end, the other is a possible means.

All areas of what is called gnosticism exist on different levels. No two individuals possess the same understanding. This is because gnosis is not a fixed system that can be uniformly applied. It develops according to the individual’s capacity, discipline, and engagement with truth. One person may remain at the level of hearing and belief, while another progresses into deeper understanding.

This variation does not negate the existence of truth. Rather, it demonstrates that truth must be grasped, not merely received. Gnosis cannot be inherited or transferred mechanically. It must be acquired.

This aligns with the earlier principle: knowledge must be gained. It is not automatic. It requires effort, attention, and correction of error. Mysticism may provide a structure for this effort, but it cannot replace the need for actual understanding.

The saying from the *Gospel of Thomas* is therefore not mystical in the sense of being obscure or symbolic for its own sake. It is direct. It places responsibility on the individual to know himself. It does not instruct him to perform rituals or engage in hidden practices. It tells him to understand.

> “When you know yourselves, then you will be known…”

This is a statement of reality, not technique. It does not describe a process of mystical ascent, but a condition of recognition. Knowledge produces alignment. Alignment produces clarity.

> “But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”

This is equally direct. Ignorance produces misidentification. Misidentification produces limitation. The individual becomes bound to what he does not understand.

The distinction between gnosis and mysticism can therefore be summarized clearly. Gnosis is truth—knowledge of what is real, grounded in understanding and expressed in clarity. Mysticism is a craft—methods and practices that may assist in the pursuit of knowledge but are not themselves knowledge.

To confuse the two is to mistake the path for the destination. One may walk many paths and never arrive if he does not recognize the destination when it is before him.

For those who wish to know themselves “in the light of the knowledge of which Christ taught his disciples in private,” the emphasis must remain on knowledge. Not hidden techniques, not external practices, but understanding. What was taught privately was not a set of rituals, but insight—insight into reality, identity, and truth.

The call is therefore simple, though not easy: know yourself. Recognize what you are. Distinguish between appearance and reality. Do not confuse the body with the self. Do not substitute practice for understanding.

Gnosis is truth. Mysticism is a craft. One is the substance; the other is a tool. Only one of them reveals what 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.

THE SONS OF ZADOK AND THE CHRISTIAN GNOSIS

The Galilean Master, as he is presented to us in the New Testament, appears in many respects as an astonishing reincarnation of the teacher of righteousness. Like the later He preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of one's neighbor, and chastity. Like Him, He prescribed the observance of the Law of Moses, the whole law, but the law finished and perfected, thanks 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 Sadducees. Like Him He pronounced judgment on Jerusalem, which was taken and destroyed by the Romans for having Him put 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.

Andre Dupont-Sommer

Many if not most of the scholars dealing with the origin of Christian Gnosticism lead us to the conclusion that the most paramount influence on Gnosticism was mystical Judaism, in particular the Merkavah mysteries and the early Kabala. The question most often neglected however is through what channels this transmission took place.

Within a relatively short period of time in the 1940's, two phenomenal caches of manuscripts were discovered; the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, and the Nag Hammadi Codices of Egypt. These finds have become not only invaluable sources to provide the missing links of transmission between the Essenes and the first Christian Gnostics, but they also give new insights on how early Jewish mysticism influenced later traditions such as Catharism and Templarism.

More than a century before the New Testament was written the Essenes were teaching ideas, proverbs, prayers, blessings and even parts of the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus later taught. Even the term New Testament is taken from the Essene term 'the New Covenant'. What became known as the Eucharist or re-enactment of the Last Supper can certainly be traced to the bread and wine communion of the Essenes known as the Messianic Meal. Let us recall that Jesus raised the 'cup of the new covenant' in true Essenic fashion, promising His disciples that they would eat and drink with Him in His coming kingdom.

The Manual of Discipline refers specifically to the Messianic Meal whose basic elements were bread and wine. "And when the table has been prepared for eating, and the new wine for drinking, the priest shall be the first to stretch out his hand to bless the first fruits of the bread and the new wine".

One of the most remarkable similarities between the Essenes and the early Christians was the institution of communal societies that were bonded together by their apocalyptic visions. Both communities practiced community of goods, liturgical meals and baptism. The Essenes as well as the Church of James at Jerusalem called themselves 'the Poor'.

And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples and said: Blessed are you 'Poor', for yours is the kingdom of God.

Luke 6:20

For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contributions for the 'Poor' among the Saints at Jerusalem.

Romans 15:26

And they would have us remember the 'Poor', which very thing I was eager to do.

Galatians 2:10

Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are 'Poor' in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to those who love Him?

James 2:5

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.

Acts 2:44-45

In relationship to the community of goods, we now have a bit better insight as to why the early Christians were told to give their possessions to the 'Poor'. The hierarchy of Qumran consisted of a council of twelve similar in some ways to the role of the twelve disciples.

Below the Essene council of twelve were the inspectors or overseers (Mebaqqer), whose function greatly resembled that of the early Christian inspectors known as Episcopoi. The roles of the inspectors are especially similar, whose duties included presiding at meetings, in particular Eucharistic or communal feasts; they were responsible for the admission of new members to their communities and the administration of communal goods.

There is little if any doubt that the eschatological ideologies of the two communities were very similar. Both communities held strong expectations that the 'end of days' was soon forthcoming, and ordered their communal beliefs and practices according to this article of faith. The eschatological nature of the two communities can also be seen in some of the major doctrines that they embraced. Both employed dualistic language to describe the options in the universe, being light and darkness. In the Manual of Discipline we find:

God has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of His visitation: the spirits of truth and falsehood. Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of falsehood spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the prince of light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children born of falsehood are rules by the angel of darkness and walk in the ways of darkness.

For a further elaboration of the Essene ideas on this subject we need look no farther than the scroll of the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of darkness which contains a detailed description of the eschatological final battle between the Sons of Light and darkness. For readers of the New Testament, these ideas will seem profoundly familiar.

Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has 'Light and darkness'?

Corinthians 6:14

Again Jesus spake to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life."

John 8:12

The Light shines in the darkness and darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:5

The Light is with you a little longer. Walk while you have the Light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the Light, believe in the Light, that you may become sons of Light.

John 12:35-36

And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and man loved Darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

John 3:19-20

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous Light.

1 Peter 2:9

He who says he is in the Light and hates His brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the Light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

1 John 2:9-11

John the Baptist

We are told in the New Testament of John the Baptist, the great harbinger of Christianity that, "The word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zachary, in the desert" (Luke 3:2). We might initially think that the desert might mean a desolate place in general, however, this most probably referred to a particular place, being the areas near Qumran. In fact the Essenes often called their community at Qumran the 'desert', and furthermore the region where John conducted his baptismal mission was only two miles from the Essene community. The New Testament Gospels apply the words of Isaiah to John "The voice of one crying in the 'desert'; prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness the paths of God". In the Essene Manual of Discipline we find, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness the paths of our God".

In the relationship of Jesus to the 'desert' found in Luke 1:80, "The child grew, and was strengthened in spirit and was in the 'desert' until the day of his manifestation in Israel". I doubt that Luke meant that the young Jesus grew up literally in the middle of the desert. We are also told that John came from a priestly family, as did a great deal of the Essenes, who called themselves the 'Sons of Zadok'. In many of the Essenes Hymns we find allusions to preparing the way of the Lord in the desert in order to give knowledge (Gnosis) of salvation.

We also know from the New Testament that John ate locusts. The Essene Damascus Document even states how locusts are to be prepared for consumption (roasted). Also in assuming that John and for that matter Jesus were not married and perhaps celibate, we must remember that the Essenes generally practiced ascetic celibacy, indicating that John nor the Essenes were aligned with mainstream Judaism.

Possibly the strongest connection of John to the Essenes will be found in their practices and beliefs concerning eschatology in relationship to baptism. Both stated that the coming judgment of the worlds was imminent, and that penance by means of baptism was the way of preparation, and the method of entry into the Essene community as well as the Christian community.

The Essenes and the Gnostics

To find hints of Essenism in Christian Gnosticism we may conveniently begin with Simon Magus, who is considered by many to be the father of Christian Gnosticism. Simon was a disciple of Dositheus who was clearly an Essene. He was described as a 'Son of Zadok', and lived near Damascus which was a habitation of Essene exiles. Dositheus was not only a disciple of John the Baptist but became chief of John's sect after his death. Also, Dositheus appears as the revealer in the 'Three Steles of Seth', in which connection it should be noticed that according to some heresiological reports he also played the role of godfather in the formation of the Gnostic schools rather than Simon.

One dominant connecting link between the Essenes and the Gnostics is the Book of Enoch. The church suppressed the Book of Enoch and accused by later church Fathers to be a product of Gnostic writers, until pre-Christian copies were found at Qumran. It was considered to be too ‘Essene’ for the Christians, and too ‘Christian’ for the Jews. It was popular in the second century with Barnabus and Athenagoras, and in the third century with Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian, but from the forth century onward it fell into discredit, and under the ban of Hilary, Jerome and Augustine it generally passed out of circulation and became lost to western Christianity.

If Qumran was the mother of Christianity then Enoch was the father. The verifiable connections of Enoch and Gnostic literature are too numerous to list here and deserve a specific work dedicated to this matter. We can say however that the French Gnostic Church has realized this connection long before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. In 1907 Bishop-Primate John Bricaud stated that the Book of Enoch along with the primitive Kabala was a major part of the ancient Gnosis that was committed to writing.

There is in fact a great deal of common literature among the Essenes and Gnostics. The Odes of Solomon were especially popular with Palestinian Gnostics, as is evidenced within the Pistis Sophia. Among the Odes of Solomon we find one of the Essene thanksgiving psalms that were found at Qumran, and thought by some to have been written by the Teacher of Righteousness.

The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs was also a common work, even though the Christian versions underwent certain changes in order to Christianize this piece of literature, which is perhaps the greatest of all the works of the pseudepigrapha. Most significant of all however is the fact that so much of the New Testament writings, especially Paul and John can be found dispersed throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The next step that we should take would be to trace Essene thought within the development of Gnosticism throughout the last two millennia. In the Middle Ages, the Cathars made use of a certain book, 'Barlaam and Josaph' as did the Essenes. This book has strong hints of the story of Buddha, which shows a common admiration for eastern thought.

Another name that will be found in so many western esoteric traditions is that of Melchizadek . We find that this name is prevalent not only among the Essenes and Gnostics, but also holds a great significance among the Templars, who were agents of the Gnosis. The name Melchisedek is derived from the Hebrew 'Melki Tzaddiq', meaning king or ruler of righteousness.

According to the Bible, Melchisedek was born without a father or mother. To the Templars this meant that he was not born on this planet, but was a spiritual being who came from elsewhere. The Bible states that Melchisedek gave Abraham bread and wine after the later had conquered the kings of Edom. In the Templar tradition, this relates to a symbolic act of highest importance. The giving of bread and wine to Abraham is just another way of saying that because Abraham had conquered the warring elements within himself, he had reached the stage where he was ready to take another step on the ladder of evolution. By a direct transmission of some type, initiated Abraham into a new level of consciousness and awareness.

The bread and wine administered by was of course the source of the communal meal of the Essenes and the Eucharist of the Christians. To the Templars, therefore, Melchisedek is one of the key figures of the Order of the Temple. He was the father figure of the Templars in the same way that Hiram Abiff is the father figure within the tradition of Freemasonry. At Chartres, one of the great French cathedrals, where construction was sponsored by the Templars, an impressive stone carving and a beautiful stained glass window pay homage to , the father of the Eternal Priesthood.

In conclusion, the Order of the Temple not only considered the Essenes to have been heirs and guardians of the Priesthood of , they also held a tradition that John the Baptist, Jesus and their parents (whom their tradition held to be Essenes) were also.

Hence the group we refer to as the Essenes, which has the outgrowth of the periods preparations from the teachings of Melchisedek, as propagated by Elijah and Elisha and Samuel. These were set aside for preserving themselves in direct line or choice for the offerings of themselves as channels through which there might come the new or Divine Origin.

Edgar Cayce (Reading 254-109)

Zacharias at first was a member of what you could term the orthodox priesthood. Mary and Elizabeth were members of the Essenes, and for this reason Zacharias kept Elizabeth in the mountains and in the hills. Yet when there was the announcing of the birth and Zacharias proclaimed his belief, the murder, the death took place.

Edgar Cayce (Reading5749-8)

THE SUPPRESSION

Within the last decade or so in America, Gnostic Churches have been springing up in great numbers, as heretical weeds that will not and cannot be suppressed. In bookstores, books on Gnosticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found side by side as they most rightfully should be. There seems to be a rising tide, a tide of the need of truth dawning within our new Age of Aquarius as there was in the dawn of the age of Pisces when the Essenes and the Gnostics flourished side by side.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been hidden from the public for far too long. It is ironic that the ‘Ecole Biblique’, a branch of the Dominican order, has suppressed them. Once again the villainy of Rome has attempted through its channels to give us a new Dark Age. Fortunately, the genocidal fires of the Inquisition have temporarily expired and the torture chambers deemed illegal. I truly believe that it was by Divine Providence that the finds of Qumran and nag Hammadi were protected until such time that they could be safely recovered. It is now not only up to the scholars but also the students of primitive Christianity to weave the threads of truth together.

In closing, let us remember that wonderful theosophical motto: 'There is no religion higher than the truth'.