Seth is Barbelo

Title: Seth as Barbelo: Unveiling the Gnostic Narrative of Divine Origin

Introduction:

In the intricate tapestry of Gnostic cosmology, the figure of Seth emerges as a transcendent being, intricately woven with the divine feminine principle, Barbelo. Within Gnostic texts, the narrative unfolds, revealing a complex interplay of celestial dynamics, the division of primordial beings, and the emergence of Seth as both saviour and progenitor. This article delves into the mystical depths of Gnostic thought, exploring the enigmatic connection between Seth and Barbelo, and shedding light on their roles in the creation and salvation of the elect.

The Division of Adam and Eve:

The Gnostic narrative, as detailed in the Apocalypse of Adam, speaks of Adam and Eve as androgynous beings resembling the great eternal angels. However, the wrath of Yaltabaoth, the ruler of the aeons, divides them into male and female. This division sets the stage for the emergence of Seth, a figure of great significance in Gnostic theology.

The Linguistic Key: Barbelo as the Sons of God

Rooted in Aramaic etymology, the term "Barbelo" suggests the confluence of 'son' ('Bar') and 'God' ('Belo' or 'EL'). It signifies the progeny of God, and within the Sethian Gnostic texts, this association unveils a profound link. Seth, often regarded as a son of God, assumes a central role as the progenitor of the Elect, described as 'the children of Seth' in these teachings. This association amplifies the notion that Barbelo encapsulates the sons of God, aligning with Seth's position as a pivotal figure among the Elect. Barbelo, the Male Virgin:

At the heart of Gnostic cosmogony lies Forethought Barbelo, an embodiment of the invisible spirit. Interestingly, in texts like the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Three Steles of the Great Seth, Seth extols Barbelo as a male and virginal entity. This paradoxical portrayal underscores the divine nature of Barbelo, transcending traditional gender distinctions. This characterization aligns with Seth calling Barbelo the 'Father of the Aeons,' emphasizing a fluid and transcendent understanding of gender in the spiritual realm.

Seth, the Saviour-Figure:

Within the Gnostic cosmogony, Seth emerges as a saviour figure akin to Christ, a divine catalyst resulting from the fusion of the Logos, Autogenes, and Adamas. The Gospel of the Egyptians vividly describes the mingling of the great Logos, the divine Autogenes, and the incorruptible man Adamas, culminating in the birth of the great incorruptible Seth. This triune convergence emphasizes Seth's divine nature, marking him as a pivotal figure in the celestial hierarchy.

The Heavenly Seth and the Seed of Seth:

The association of the Elect with Seth, often termed as Sethians, establishes Seth as a celestial saviour, mirroring Christ's role in traditional Christian theology. The Gnostic schema positions Seth as a cosmic architect, planting the seeds of the Elect in the Upper Aeons. The heavenly Adam, Geradamas, begets the celestial Seth, Emmacha Seth, who, in turn, sows the seeds of the Elect in the aeon of the Fourth Light, Eleleth. This celestial plantation becomes a recurrent theme in Sethian texts, including The Gospel of the Egyptians, Three Steles of Seth, and The Apocryphon of John. The seed of Seth, representing the knowledge hidden within, emerges as a central theme, destined to resurface after three parousias or manifestations.

Barbelo as Forethought and Thought:

Barbelo's dual nature as both Forethought and Thought symbolizes the intellectual and conceptual aspects at the heart of the Father's realm. This realm represents the capacity for cognition and comprehension, inviting seekers to delve into the highest planes of spiritual understanding. Barbelo, as Forethought, becomes the embodiment of Seth, the celestial being who bridges the realms of intellect and spirituality.

Conclusion:

In the rich tapestry of Gnostic thought the synthesis of Seth and Barbelo unveils a profound narrative of divine origin and salvation. Seth, as both a celestial saviour and an earthly progenitor, embodies the fluidity of gender and the transcendence of spiritual understanding. Barbelo, with its dual nature as Forethought and Thought, encapsulates the intellectual and conceptual aspects at the core of the Father's dominion. Together, Seth and Barbelo weave a narrative that challenges traditional theological paradigms, inviting seekers to explore the mystical depths of Gnostic cosmology and the interconnectedness of celestial and earthly realms.

Do Gnostics Need Priests?

 

The Gnostic Priesthood

or

Do Gnostics Need Priests?

Introduction: Liberating Gnosis from the Chains of Intermediaries

In the vast tapestry of spiritual exploration, Gnosticism stands as a unique thread, woven with threads of direct personal experience, self-discovery, and the pursuit of inner enlightenment. Gnosticism is often seen as a departure from traditional religious paradigms, encouraging individuals to seek gnosis – a profound knowledge that transcends dogma and societal constructs. One of the key distinctions that emerges from this departure is the question of whether Gnostics require priests or a priesthood to navigate the realms of the divine and the unknown.

Gnostic thought champions the sovereignty of individual consciousness, emphasizing direct communion with the divine spark within. As we delve into the heart of Gnostic philosophy, we encounter a perspective that challenges the traditional roles of intermediaries and priests. In this exploration, we will delve into the reasons behind the assertion that Gnostics do not need priests, examining the Gnostic worldview, historical context, and the centrality of personal experience on the path of gnosis.

Gnosticism, with its emphasis on personal revelation and transcendence, raises a crucial inquiry: Does the Gnostic journey necessitate the presence of intermediaries, such as priests, to facilitate the connection between the individual and the divine? As we journey through the corridors of Gnostic thought, we shall explore the reasons why the Gnostic path aligns with the conviction that the spark of divine knowledge resides within each seeker, rendering intermediaries obsolete. This exploration invites us to question established norms, to discern the essence of Gnostic principles, and to venture into the territory of an individual's direct relationship with the divine source.

Redefining Priesthood: A Shift from Old Testament Paradigm to New Testament Truth

Since the Jewish priesthood is referred to in some texts of the Nag Hammadi we should look at the Jewish priesthood normally referred to as the the Levitical priesthood

The concept of priesthood, deeply rooted in the pages of the Old Testament, has played a significant role in shaping religious practices and beliefs. From the Levitical priesthood of ancient Israel to the transformation brought about by the advent of Christianity, the idea of priesthood has evolved, inviting a reconsideration of its relevance in light of New Testament teachings.


Old Testament Foundations: A Divine Mandate for the Levitical Priesthood


In the annals of the Old Testament, we encounter the establishment of a sacred order known as the Levitical priesthood. Guided by divine commandments, this priesthood was entrusted with the solemn responsibility of facilitating the connection between humanity and the divine through rituals and sacrifices. The role of priests was intertwined with the offering of animal sacrifices, serving as a means of atonement and thanksgiving for the people of Israel.


Christ as the Ultimate High Priest: A New Covenant

The arrival of Christ heralded a transformative era in the spiritual landscape, ushering in a new covenant that redefined the role of priests and intermediaries. Jesus, often referred to as the High Priest, became the ultimate mediator between God and humanity. His sacrificial act on the cross, epitomized by the offering of himself, nullified the need for animal sacrifices and redefined the concept of priesthood.

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. ch 2 v 5 AV )

"Consequently he is able for all times to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb. ch 7 v 25 RSV)

The book of Hebrews serves as a cornerstone of this transition, emphasizing the eternal efficacy of Christ's role as a High Priest. "He is able for all times to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25, RSV). The apostle Paul's assertion in his letter to Timothy further reinforces this perspective, underscoring that Christ is the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5, AV).


A Departure from Conventional Hierarchy: Early Christian Ecclesiology


The landscape of early Christian communities starkly contrasts the established hierarchy of the Levitical priesthood. The New Testament paints a picture of shared leadership and mutual accountability, where the term "priest" takes on a radically different meaning. Acts chapter 3 verse 46 portrays believers gathering in houses, sharing meals, and praising God in a spirit of fellowship.

Later on in time, Paul writing to the church in Corinth said that:
". . . . God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets,. third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues". ( 1 Cor. ch l2 v 28 NIV )

He makes no mention of the need for priests.

Paul's correspondence to the Corinthian church emphasizes the diversification of spiritual gifts and functions within the community, with no explicit mention of a priestly role (1 Cor. 12:28, NIV). This underscores the transition from a priestly paradigm to a dynamic community of believers, each contributing their unique gifts to the collective well-being.


Redefining Priesthood: A Call to Shared Ministry


The evolution from the Levitical priesthood to the New Testament paradigm invites reflection on the essence of priesthood in the Christian context. Christ's role as the High Priest and ultimate mediator necessitates a departure from hierarchical structures and an embrace of shared ministry. The priesthood of all believers emerges as a powerful concept, wherein each individual is called to embody the principles of service, intercession, and communal support.


As believers navigate the tapestry of faith, it is paramount to recognize the transformative impact of Christ's sacrifice and mediation. The emphasis shifts from an exclusive priestly class to a collective priesthood, where believers are called to offer themselves as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1) and engage in acts of love and service. In this redefined priesthood, the intercession of Christ remains central, while the notion of human intermediaries gives way to a shared ministry that embodies the essence of Christ's teachings.

The Evolution of Ecclesiastical Roles: Revisiting Early Christian Leadership

8 “But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

In the tapestry of early Christianity, the roles and responsibilities within the community were defined by a sense of spiritual fellowship and mutual service. These roles were neither hierarchical nor priestly in nature, reflecting the essence of a community united in faith. As we delve into the annals of history, we encounter a paradigm shift that altered the landscape of Christian leadership, giving rise to the emergence of hierarchical structures and the concept of clergy. This transformation warrants a retrospective exploration to comprehend the evolution of ecclesiastical roles and its impact on the Christian community.


Shepherds Among Equals: Elders and Their Role

In the earliest Christian congregations, the term "elder" held a significance deeply rooted in the pastoral metaphor of a shepherd. These spiritual overseers, sometimes referred to as "bishops," fulfilled a role akin to shepherds, ensuring the well-being and spiritual nourishment of the community. Their responsibilities extended to the realm of spiritual guidance, offering solace and guidance to fellow believers. It's crucial to acknowledge that these elders did not assume the role of intermediaries between humanity and the divine, ascribed to priests in conventional religious frameworks.


Deacons: Guardians of Physical Well-being

Complementing the spiritual nurturing provided by elders, "deacons" took on the mantle of attending to the practical needs of the community. Their role encompassed addressing the physical well-being of the congregation, mirroring the holistic nature of Christian care. While the focus of elders was directed towards spiritual matters, deacons embraced the task of tending to the physical needs of their fellow believers. This duality of responsibilities, guided by the principles of mutual service, fostered a sense of unity and camaraderie within the Christian community.


The Absence of a Clergy Class: Early Christian Equality

A striking feature of early Christian congregations was the absence of a distinct clergy class. The teachings of Jesus emphasized the equality of believers, with a singular leader, the Christ. This principle resonated throughout the community, leading to a model of shared leadership and mutual accountability. No single individual was designated to occupy a position of supreme authority, nor were they vested with the exclusive role of intercession or mediation. Instead, the ethos of brotherhood prevailed, unifying believers as equals on their spiritual journey.

The Shift towards Hierarchy: Unraveling Apostolic Warnings

As the pages of history turned, a transformation began to take shape within the Christian landscape. The emergence of hierarchical structures and the delineation of clergy roles marked a departure from the early communal spirit. Apostolic warnings against 'lording it over' the congregation took on an increasingly poignant relevance as the apostasy unfolded. The egalitarian ethos that once defined Christian communities gradually gave way to the ascendancy of hierarchical leadership, altering the essence of fellowship and shared responsibility.


A Glimpse into the Past, a Call for Reflection

Exploring the evolution of early Christian leadership invites us to reflect on the dynamics of ecclesiastical roles and their evolution. The transition from a communal model of shared service to hierarchical structures carries profound implications for the nature of Christian fellowship. As we revisit the principles that underpinned the original blueprint of Christian leadership, we are beckoned to consider the significance of unity, mutual service, and the absence of an intermediary clergy class. In a world that often echoes with the voices of hierarchy, the echoes of the early Christian ethos remind us of the power of collective spiritual endeavor and the intrinsic worth of every believer.


The Evolution of Christian Authority: Valentinianism and the Challenge to Orthodox Hierarchy

The early centuries of Christianity witnessed a transformative journey from a fluid, egalitarian approach to an established hierarchical structure. The emergence of an organized Christian institution, marked by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, signified a departure from the diverse and decentralized early Christian communities. This shift is illuminated in Elaine Pagels' book "The Gnostic Gospels," where the evolution of authority and the divergence of Gnostic thought, particularly Valentinianism, are explored.

By the year A.D. 200, Christianity had undergone a significant transformation, with a hierarchical structure firmly in place. Bishops, priests, and deacons assumed roles of authority within the organized church, asserting themselves as the custodians of the "true faith." This institutionalization marked a departure from the earlier ethos of communal brotherhood and spiritual exploration that characterized early Christian communities.

Elaine Pagels highlights a critical perspective on this development, particularly through the lens of Gnostic thought. Gnosticism, including the followers of Valentinus, challenged the conventional interpretation of apostolic teachings and the authority vested in church officials. While some Gnostic groups did not fundamentally oppose the roles of priests and bishops, they viewed the church's teachings and hierarchy as insufficient for those who had attained gnosis – a profound, experiential knowledge of the divine.

In the Gnostic view, gnosis transcended the authority of the church's hierarchy. Gnosis offered a theological justification for individuals to question and even resist obedience to bishops and priests. Gnostics saw these church leaders as earthly representatives of the demiurge, the lower deity responsible for the material world. This perception detached the gnostic from the authoritative control of the church officials, as the initiate believed they had been "redeemed" from the limitations of the material world and its rulers.

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." ( Tertullian Against the Valentinians 1) He goes on to relate that even women could take the role of bishop, much to his horror.

Einar Thomassen's insights shed light on the organization of the Valentinian church, providing a deeper understanding of the movement's distinct approach to hierarchy and leadership. Valentinian congregations convened on Sundays, engaging in liturgical practices that fostered a high level of member participation. This participatory ethos was reflected in the rotational nature of liturgical tasks, allowing different members, regardless of their status, to assume different roles. Tertullian's commentary, cited in Thomassen's work, emphasizes the fluidity of roles within Valentinian communities, where a person could transition from being a bishop one day to a layman or a reader the next. Even women could take on leadership roles, illustrating the movement's disregard for traditional gender limitations.

The Valentinian perspective, as elucidated by Pagels and Thomassen, challenges the prevailing orthodox hierarchy by promoting a more dynamic and inclusive approach to leadership. The Valentinians' emphasis on gnosis, personal transformation, and the autonomy of individual experience positions them in stark contrast to the institutionalized structure of the broader Christian church. This divergence speaks to the diverse currents of thought within early Christianity and the multiplicity of interpretations that shaped the evolving religious landscape.

In conclusion, the evolution of Christian authority from early communal brotherhood to an institutional hierarchy marked a significant shift in the early Christian movement. Gnostic thought, particularly exemplified by Valentinianism, offered a unique perspective that questioned the ultimate authority of bishops and priests, emphasizing individual experience and gnosis as sources of spiritual insight. Valentinian congregations, with their participatory liturgical practices and fluid leadership roles, presented an alternative model that challenged the orthodox ecclesiastical structure. These diverse interpretations reflect the rich tapestry of early Christian thought, with Valentinianism standing as a testament to the dynamic evolution of religious authority and practice.

The Jew Priesthood in Gnostic Gospels Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Priesthood: Unraveling Religious Dynamics

The religious and social landscape of ancient Judea was marked by intricate dynamics among various Jewish sects and groups. Among these, the Pharisees and Sadducees held distinct roles and perspectives, often reflecting the broader social and religious tensions of their time. Their interactions with the concept of priesthood provide valuable insights into the intricate tapestry of religious practices and beliefs during this era.

The Pharisees: A Voice of the People

The Pharisees emerged as a prominent Jewish religious party known for their adherence to religious traditions and interpretations of the Law. Their name is derived from the Hebrew word "perushim," meaning "separatists" or "devoted ones." Josephus, a Jewish historian, noted that the Pharisees garnered substantial support and goodwill from the common people. They emphasized personal piety, the observance of ritual purity, and the study of the Law.

In the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocryphon of John, references to the Pharisees underscore their presence as a religious and social force during the time of Jesus. These references provide glimpses into the interactions between Jesus and the religious authorities of his day, including the Pharisees.

The Sadducees: Guardians of Priestly Privileges

Contrasting the popular influence of the Pharisees were the Sadducees, an elite and aristocratic Jewish sect. The Sadducees were closely associated with the priestly class and controlled the Temple in Jerusalem. Their authority was rooted in the priestly privileges established since the time of Solomon, with Zadok, their ancestor, officiating as High Priest.

The word priest is used in the gospel of Philip in relation to the Jewish priesthood:

If some are in the tribe of the priesthood, these shall be permitted to enter within the veil (of the Temple) with the High Priest. Therefore the veil was not torn at the top only, else it would have been opened only for those who are above; nor was it torn at the bottom only, else it would have been revealed only to those who are below. But rather it was torn from the top to the bottom. Those who are above opened to us who are below, in order that we shall enter into the secret of the truth. (Gospel of Philip)


The Gospel of Philip and the Second Apocalypse of James evoke the imagery of the priesthood, particularly in relation to the inner sanctum of the Temple. The Gospel of Philip uses the concept of the veil torn from top to bottom as a metaphorical representation of a revelation accessible to both those "above" and "below." This imagery invokes a connection between the priesthood and divine revelation.


The Gospel of Philip employs this symbolism to highlight the transformative nature of Christ's redemptive work. By tearing the veil, Christ is portrayed as opening a direct pathway to divine revelation and spiritual communion for all believers, irrespective of their position "above" or "below." This concept aligns with the notion of the priesthood of all believers, wherein each individual has direct access to God's presence without the need for hierarchical intermediaries.


This shift in access to divine revelation is integral to understanding the teachings of Christ and the implications of his sacrifice. The torn veil signifies the dismantling of the exclusive priestly role in mediating between God and humanity. Instead, Christ himself becomes the ultimate High Priest, granting believers immediate and unrestricted access to the mysteries of God.


In this new paradigm, the veil's tearing becomes a metaphorical representation of the removal of spiritual barriers, inviting believers into a deeper relationship with God. The concept of the veil being torn underscores the transformational nature of Christ's ministry, which emphasizes direct communion, divine knowledge, and personal revelation for all who follow his teachings.


The Role of Priests and Scribes


In the Second Apocalypse of James, the figure of Mareim, identified as a priest and scribe, gains prominence as the recorder of the words of James the Just. This sheds light on the role of scribes and priests in preserving and transmitting religious teachings. The interactions and discussions among these figures provide insight into the religious debates and dialogues of their time.


A Complex Tapestry of Beliefs and Practices


The references to Pharisees, Sadducees, priests, and scribes in ancient texts reflect the complexity of religious beliefs and practices during the period. These interactions highlight the diverse perspectives that shaped the religious landscape of the time of Jesus and the early Christian era.


While the concept of the priesthood was deeply intertwined with the Temple and its rituals, the emergence of Christianity brought about a significant paradigm shift. The role of Christ as the ultimate High Priest, as expounded in the New Testament, transformed the understanding of priesthood and mediation. As a result, the hierarchical priestly system gave way to the priesthood of all believers, emphasizing direct access to God through Christ.

Priest or Holy Man

114 The priest is completely holy, down to his very body. For if he has taken the bread, he will consecrate it. Or the cup or anything else that he gets, he will consecrate. Then how will he not consecrate the body also?

In the Coptic the word "priest" is not used, the word used is a "holy man" or a "saint" it is a dishonest translation to use the word "priest" it changes the meaning of the text. The Valentinians did not have a priesthood.

The correct word to be used is "holy man" or "saint" this is seen from the translations by Thomas Paterson Brown and R. McL. Wilson:

The holy man is holy altogether, down to his body. For if he has received the bread he .will make it holy, or the cup, or anything else that he receives, purifying them. And how will he not purify the body also? (Gospel of Philip R. McL. Wilson Translation)

The ancient texts of Gnosticism hold within their verses a treasure trove of insights into the nature of existence, the divine, and the human experience. Yet, like any ancient wisdom, the meanings of these texts can be elusive, requiring careful consideration and accurate translation. Among these texts, one verse has been a source of intrigue and contemplation – a passage that mentions the term "priest" in the context of consecration and holiness. However, as we delve deeper into the historical context and linguistic nuances, it becomes evident that the term "priest" has been inaccurately attributed, casting a shadow on the true essence of the Valentinian perspective.

Diverging Paths: The Misinterpretation of "Priest"

The verse in question reads: "The priest is completely holy, down to his very body. For if he has taken the bread, he will consecrate it. Or the cup or anything else that he gets, he will consecrate. Then how will he not consecrate the body also?" At first glance, the term "priest" appears to align with established religious conceptions, conjuring images of intermediaries between the divine and humanity. Yet, within the intricate tapestry of Gnostic thought, a different truth beckons to be uncovered.

The key to unraveling this mystery lies within the Coptic language itself. A careful examination reveals that the word "priest" is conspicuously absent, replaced instead by the terms "holy man" or "saint." This linguistic shift is far from arbitrary; it is a conscious choice that resonates more harmoniously with the essence of Gnostic philosophy. To employ the term "priest" in translation is to introduce an unintended distortion, altering the true intention of the text and veiling the Valentinian perspective.

Rediscovering Authenticity: The Gnostic Path of Personal Holiness

In essence, the Valentinian tradition did not adhere to the conventional concept of priesthood. It sought to illuminate the individual's innate capacity for direct spiritual connection and personal transformation. The translations by Thomas Paterson Brown and R. McL. Wilson offer a glimpse into this profound truth, articulating that the holy man, in the purity of his being, possesses the power to sanctify elements and purify his own body. This understanding reaffirms the Gnostic belief in the inherent potential of every individual to channel divine energy and consecrate the mundane, transcending the need for a priestly intermediary.

The Historical Context: Valentinian Congregations and Autonomy

Delving further into the historical context, the words of Tertullian provide a crucial perspective. He astutely notes, "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." This observation unveils a fundamental truth about Valentinian congregations – they were structured autonomously, devoid of a rigid priestly hierarchy.

This autonomy underscores the essence of Gnostic philosophy, which champions the direct relationship between the individual and the divine. The absence of a fixed priestly class allows each seeker to engage with the spiritual journey uniquely, unencumbered by external intermediaries.
Some Gnostic texts refer to the Catholic Priesthood:


The Gospel of Judas


THE DISCIPLES SEE THE TEMPLE AND DISCUSS IT They [said, “We have seen] a great [house with a large] altar [in it, and] twelve men— they are the priests, we would say—and a name; and a crowd of people is waiting at that altar, [until] the priests [… and receive] the offerings. [But] we kept waiting.” [Jesus said], “What are [the priests] like?” They [said, “Some …] two weeks; [some] sacrifice their own children, others their wives, in praise [and] humility with each other; some sleep with men; some are involved in [slaughter]; some commit a multitude of sins and deeds of lawlessness. And the men who stand [before] the altar invoke your [name], [39] and in all the deeds of their deficiency, the sacrifices are brought to completion […].” After they said this, they were quiet, for they were troubled.


JESUS OFFERS AN ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION OF THE TEMPLE Jesus said to them, “Why are you troubled? Truly I say to you, all the priests who stand before that altar invoke my name. Again I say to you, my name has been written on this […] of the generations of the stars through the human generations. [And they] have planted trees without fruit, in my name, in a shameful manner.” Jesus said to them, “Those you have seen receiving the offerings at the altar—that is who you are. That is the god you serve, and you are those twelve men you have seen. The cattle you have seen brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray [40] before that altar. […] will stand and make use of my name in this way, and generations of the pious will remain loyal to him. After him another man will stand there from [the fornicators], and another [will] stand there from the slayers of children, and another from those who sleep with men, and those who abstain, and the rest of the people of pollution and lawlessness and error, and those who say, ‘We are like angels’; they are the stars that bring everything to its conclusion. For to the human generations it has been said, ‘Look, God has received your sacrifice from the hands of a priest’—that is, a minister of error. But it is the Lord, the Lord of the universe, who commands, ‘On the last day they will be put to shame.’” [41] Jesus said [to them], “Stop sac[rificing …] which you have […] over the altar, since they are over your stars and your angels and have already come to their conclusion there. So let them be [ensnared] before you, and let them go [—about 15 lines missing—] generations […]. A baker cannot feed all creation [42] under [heaven]. And […] to them […] and […] to us and […]. Jesus said to them, “Stop struggling with me. Each of you has his own star, and every[body—about 17 lines missing—] [43] in […] who has come [… spring] for the tree […] of this aeon […] for a time […] but he has come to water God’s paradise, and the [generation] that will last, because [he] will not defile the [walk of life of] that generation, but […] for all eternity.” (Gospel of Judas)


The Apcapsel of Peter

And as he was saying these things, I saw the priests and the people running up to us with stones, as if they would kill us; and I was afraid that we were going to die.
And he said to me, "Peter, I have told you many times that they are blind ones who have no guide.
If you want to know their blindness, put your hands upon (your) eyes - your robe - and say what you see."
But when I had done it, I did not see anything. I said "No one sees (this way)."
Again he told me, "Do it again."
And there came in me fear with joy, for I saw a new light greater than the light of day. Then it
came down upon the Savior. And I told him about those things which I saw.
And he said to me again, "Lift up your hands and listen to what the priests and the people are
saying."
And I listened to the priests as they sat with the scribes. The multitudes were shouting with their voice.
When he heard these things from me he said to me, "Prick up your ears and listen to the things they are saying."
And I listened again, "As you sit, they are praising you".
And when I said these things, the Savior said, "I have told you that these (people) are blind and deaf. Now then, listen to the things which they are telling you in a mystery, and guard them, Do not tell them to the sons of this age. For they shall blaspheme you in these ages since they are ignorant of you, but they will praise you in knowledge." (The Apcapsel of Peter)


The Gnostic Critique of the Catholic Priesthood: Insights from Ancient Texts


Gnostic texts from the early centuries of Christianity provide a fascinating glimpse into the movement's perspectives on the established Catholic priesthood. These texts, such as "The Gospel of Judas" and "The Apocapsel of Peter," offer a critical and challenging view of the religious authorities of their time. By examining these texts, we can gain insights into the Gnostic critique of the Catholic priesthood and its hierarchical structure.


"The Gospel of Judas" presents a vivid description of a temple vision in which the disciples witness a scene with priests performing various ritualistic acts. The text portrays the priests as individuals who engage in questionable practices, including sacrifices, immoral behavior, and a range of sins. This depiction serves to highlight the perceived corruption and moral deficiencies within the priesthood.


The character of Jesus in "The Gospel of Judas" responds to the disciples' observations by revealing a deeper, allegorical interpretation of the vision. Jesus suggests that the priests' actions are symbolic of the broader spiritual condition of humanity. He identifies the priests with the flawed, earthly rulers and powers who mislead and deceive. This interpretation reflects the Gnostic belief in the material world's fallen nature and the influence of lower, ignorant deities.


Furthermore, the passage indicates that those with true gnosis – a profound spiritual knowledge – transcend the authority of the priests and their earthly rituals. Gnostics are encouraged to rise above the limitations imposed by the priests' teachings and practices, embodying a more authentic and spiritual understanding of their existence.


"The Apocapsel of Peter" similarly critiques the spiritual blindness and ignorance of the religious authorities. The text describes a scene where Peter, a disciple of Jesus, is shown the people's response to the Savior's teachings. The priests and multitudes react with hostility and praise, reflecting the dual nature of human perception. The Savior's response indicates that these authorities are "blind and deaf," incapable of comprehending the deeper truths he imparts.


This Gnostic critique of the Catholic priesthood can be understood in several ways:


Corruption and Deception: Gnostic texts suggest that the priesthood is tainted by corruption, moral compromise, and misguided practices. This aligns with the Gnostic belief in the material world's inherent flaws and the influence of deceptive cosmic powers.


Hierarchy and Control: The Gnostic critique challenges the hierarchical authority of the priests, asserting that those with true gnosis are beyond their control. This undermines the conventional idea of priests as mediators between humanity and the divine.


Spiritual Blindness: Gnosticism emphasizes the importance of inner spiritual awakening and knowledge. The priesthood, as depicted in these texts, is characterized by spiritual blindness, ignorance, and a lack of true understanding.


Transcendence and Authenticity: Gnostic texts encourage believers to rise above the limitations imposed by external religious authorities and rituals, seeking a more direct and authentic connection to the divine.

In conclusion, Gnostic texts such as "The Gospel of Judas" and "The Apocapsel of Peter" offer a unique perspective on the Catholic priesthood and its role within the broader context of spirituality. These texts highlight concerns about corruption, spiritual blindness, and the limitations of hierarchical authority. The Gnostic critique underscores the movement's emphasis on personal gnosis, inner transformation, and a deeper understanding of the mysteries of existence.

The Priesthood of the New Covenant

On Pentecost day of the year 33 C.E., the Law covenant came to an end and the “better covenant,” the new covenant, was inaugurated. (Heb 8:6-9) On that day God made manifest this change by the outpouring of holy spirit. The apostle Peter then explained to the Jews present from many nations that their only salvation now lay in repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ. (Ac 2; Heb 2:1-4) Later, Peter spoke of the Jewish builders rejecting Jesus Christ as the cornerstone and then said to Christians: “But you are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession.’”—1Pe 2:7-9. (Watchtower)


Peter explained also that the new priesthood is “a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1Pe 2:5) Jesus Christ is their great High Priest, and they, like Aaron’s sons, make up the underpriesthood. (Heb 3:1; 8:1) Yet, different from the Aaronic priesthood, which had no part in kingship, kingship and priesthood are combined in this “royal priesthood” of Christ and his joint heirs. (Watchtower)
Wisdom summons you in her goodness, saying, "Come to Me, all of you, O foolish ones, that you may receive a gift, the understanding which is good and excellent. I am giving to you a high-priestly garment which is woven from every (kind of) wisdom." What else is evil death except ignorance? What else is evil darkness except familiarity with forgetfulness? Cast your anxiety upon God alone. Do not become desirous of gold and silver, which are profitless, but clothe yourself with wisdom like a robe; put knowledge on yourself like a crown, and be seated upon a throne of perception. For these are yours, and you will receive them again on high another time. (The Teachings of Silvanus)


In the Teachings of Silvanus from the Nag Hammadi Library we find the author speaking about a "high-priestly garment" which is "woven from every kind of wisdom."

Let Christ alone enter your world, and let him bring to naught all powers which have come upon you. Let him enter the temple which is within you, so that he may cast out all the merchants. Let him dwell in the temple which is within you, and may you become for him a priest and a Levite, entering in purity. (The Teachings of Silvanus)




Revelation 7:7 12,000 from the tribe of Levi,


In the list of 12 tribes in Revelation 7 Joseph replaces Ephraim, suggesting that it is the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), and not natural Israel, to which reference is made. Levi is listed as possessing a tribal inheritance whereas under the Law he had none, suggesting that the Melchizedek priesthood has replaced the Levitical (Ezek. 44:15; Rev. 5;9-10).


The Temple, the naos, only priests could lawfully enter. Both the individual believer (1 Cor. 6:19), as well as

the Ecclesia (Eph. 2:21; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16) are treated as the Temple, or naos.In the Valentinian Exposition from the Nag Hammadi Library Jesus is the "true High Priest" and "the one who has the authority to enter the Holies of Holies"

When he willed, the First Father revealed himself in him. Since, after all, because of him the revelation is available to the All, I for my part call the All 'the desire of the All'. And he took such a thought concerning the All - I for my part call the thought 'Monogenes'. For now God has brought Truth, the one who glorifies the Root of the All. Thus it is he who revealed himself in Monogenes, and in him he revealed the Ineffable One [...] the Truth. They saw him dwelling in the Monad and in the Dyad and in the Tetrad. He first brought forth Monogenes and Limit. And Limit is the separator of the All and the confirmation of the All, since they are [...] the hundred [...]. He is the Mind [...] the Son. He is completely ineffable to the All, and he is the confirmation and the hypostasis of the All, the silent veil, the true High Priest, the one who has the authority to enter the Holies of Holies, revealing the glory of the Aeons and bringing forth the abundance to <fragrance>. The East [...] that is in Him. He is the one who revealed himself as the primal sanctuary and the treasury of the All. And he encompassed the All, he who is higher than the All. (A Valentinian Exposition)
According to Herakleon, the Fullness is "the Holy of Holies, into which only the High-Priest enters, into which the spiritual go" (Herakleon Fragment 13). The Gospel of Philip links the opening provided by Christ with the tearing of the veil at the time of Jesus' death (Matthew 27:51). According to Philip,

"If others belong to the order of the priesthood they will be able to enter within the veil with the High Priest. For this reason the veil was not torn at the top only, since it would have been open only to those above; nor was it torn at the bottom only, since it would have been revealed only to those below. But rather it was torn from top to bottom. The upper realm was opened to us in the lower realm, in order that we may enter into the hidden realm of Truth....The Holies of the Holies was uncovered, and the Bridal Chamber invites us in. " (Gospel of Philip 105).










It's evident from the statements and discussions you've provided that there is a wide range of opinions and perspectives within the realm of modern Gnosticism. This diversity reflects the complexity of Gnostic thought and its interpretation in contemporary times. Here are some key points that emerge from these statements:

Diversity and Misconceptions: Many individuals express concerns about the authenticity of modern Gnosticism and the presence of individuals who may not fully understand or represent its core principles. Misconceptions about Gnosticism's true nature, practices, and teachings appear to be prevalent, and some feel that certain groups or individuals may be distorting Gnostic ideas for various purposes.


Variety of Paths: The statements suggest that there are various interpretations and practices within modern Gnostic circles. Some individuals highlight the diverse array of groups, teachers, and teachings that claim the Gnostic label. This variety often leads to debates and disagreements about what constitutes true Gnosticism.


Relationship with Established Religions: The discussions often touch upon the relationship between Gnosticism and established religions, particularly Roman Catholicism. Some express reservations about the overlap between Gnostic and Catholic practices, while others emphasize the distinctiveness of Gnostic thought and its departure from traditional religious norms.


Skepticism of Leaders and Teachers: There seems to be skepticism toward certain Gnostic leaders, teachers, and figures. Some express concerns about potential motivations, commercialization, and the genuineness of their teachings. Critical examination of leaders and their teachings is encouraged to ensure a sincere and accurate understanding of Gnostic principles.


Individual Exploration and Self-Knowledge: Many emphasize the importance of self-knowledge, personal exploration, and direct experience as central to Gnostic practice. The notion that Gnosis is about understanding and connecting with higher truths through individual experience is emphasized by various individuals.


Rejection of Traditional Structures: Some express skepticism toward the need for traditional religious structures, such as priests or intermediaries. The idea that personal gnosis negates the need for external authority is a recurring theme in the discussions.


Positive Potential of Gnosis: Despite differing viewpoints, there is an acknowledgment of the transformative potential of Gnostic insights. Some believe that Gnosis has the power to bring about positive change, both individually and collectively, by illuminating higher truths and breaking away from societal norms.

In conclusion, these statements illustrate the complexity and diversity within modern Gnostic circles. While some individuals express concerns about the authenticity and motivations of certain groups or figures, others highlight the potential for positive transformation through genuine Gnostic exploration. The discussions underscore the importance of critical thinking, discernment, and a nuanced understanding of Gnostic principles in navigating this spiritual terrain.

Yaldabaoth a Political Understanding

Yaldabaoth a Political Understanding 

An opening reading 


Ezekiel 28:1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Because your heart is lifted up, And you say, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods, In the midst of the seas,’ Yet you are a man, and not a god, Though you set your heart as the heart of a god 3 (Behold, you are wiser than Daniel! There is no secret that can be hidden from you! 4 With your wisdom and your understanding You have gained riches for yourself, And gathered gold and silver into your treasuries; 5 By your great wisdom in trade you have increased your riches, And your heart is lifted up because of your riches),”

On account of the reality of the authorities, (inspired) by the spirit of the father of truth, the great apostle – referring to the "authorities of the darkness" – told us that "our contest is not against flesh and blood; rather, the authorities of the universe and the spirits of wickedness." I have sent this (to you) because you inquire about the reality of the authorities. The Hypostasis of the Archons

Since that day, the heaven has been consolidated along with its earth by means of Sophia, the daughter of Yaldabaoth, who is beneath them all. After the heavens and their powers and all of their government set themselves aright, the chief creator exalted himself and was glorified by the whole army of angels. And all the gods and their angels gave him praise and glory. On the Origin of the World

Gnostic Myths and Political Allegory in Light of Ezekiel 28

Introduction:

Gnostic scriptures, often conveyed through myths, delve into the complexities of power, rebellion, and the human psyche. The Gnostic scriptures carry layers of symbolic meanings that connect with socio-political realities, much like the allegorical dimensions found in Ezekiel 28. These myths, often misunderstood as mere fictitious tales, are detailed reflections of the social, political, and ideological landscapes of their times.

Myth as a Reflection of Mental Patterns: Myths are more than just stories; they reflect inherent patterns in human consciousness. These accounts often symbolize fixed mental structures, emphasizing contrasts like good versus evil or compassion versus cruelty, rather than unconscious feelings or desires.

Myths as Charters for Cultural Norms: Some myths, especially origin stories, serve as mythic charters that legitimize cultural norms and social institutions. They provide a foundational narrative that underpins the values and practices of a society.

Myths and Power Dynamics: Mythology is closely interconnected with power structures, political systems, and economic interests. Myths can be used as tools to reinforce or challenge existing power dynamics within a society.

Political Myths: Political myths specifically deal with political themes and typically revolve around a group of people who are portrayed as heroes or villains. These narratives often offer an ideologically charged account of a community's past, present, and future.

The majority of Gnostic scriptures take on the form of myths, but it's crucial to clarify that when using the term "myth," we don't imply falsehood. Instead, these myths convey truths of a different nature than theological dogmas or philosophical statements.

Myth as a Tool of Power and Legitimization:

Gnostic myths, including the Apocryphon of John, serve as narratives legitimizing cultural norms and societal institutions, much like how Ezekiel 28 conveys political themes through its metaphorical language. Myths, interpreted as fixed mental structures representing opposing forces, shape understanding and wield significant influence in the socio-political realm.

The Role of Myths in Gnostic Texts

Why do Gnostic texts for the most part employ myths? The answer lies in the historical context of Gnostic Christians who faced severe persecution, initially by the Roman Empire and later by orthodox Christian authorities. Unlike many early Christians who embraced martyrdom, Gnostic Christians rejected this path.

The Testimony of Truth highlights this departure from martyrdom, criticizing those who choose to be martyrs. It suggests that becoming "perfected" through martyrdom is an incomplete path. Instead, it implies that such individuals merely bear witness to themselves without achieving spiritual advancement.

Political Myths and Social Ideologies:

Like the Gnostic myths centred on opposition to political structures, Ezekiel 28 resonates with the portrayal of an arrogant ruler claiming divine status. Both accounts provide an ideologically marked account of past, present, and future, reflecting the political community's identity, much like the Gnostics' rejection of martyrdom in favour of a different ideological stance.

Gnostic Mythology and Resistance to Political Order:

The Gnostic texts, born from persecution by the Romans and rejection by orthodox Christian authorities, the Gnostic texts symbolize a revolt against established political systems. Likewise, Gnostic myths function as a mode of defiance, actively challenging the existing political order.

Allegorical Readings and Political Commentary:

An allegorical interpretation of Gnostic myths, like the Apocryphon of John, unveils parallels with the claims of Roman emperors. Just as Ezekiel 28:1-3 highlights the King of Tyre's excessive pride, these Gnostic texts are allegorically the Roman emperors' assertions of divine authority, echoing the deceptive doublespeak ingrained in imperial rule.

Interpreting Gnostic Myths

When interpreting Gnostic myths, it is crucial not to isolate them from the social, political, and economic factors that influenced their creation. The authors of Gnostic texts rejected the legitimacy of existing political orders. Gnosticism emerged as a response from a politically marginalized intellectual elite in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire during the second and first centuries CE.

These Gnostics overtly challenged the political structures of their time. While they did not explicitly detail the political views or activities of these individuals, their myths, featuring tyrannical creator-archons, serve as veiled political protests. These myths call on those living under oppressive power to rise against it.

Conclusion:

The Gnostic myths, similar to the allegorical representation in Ezekiel 28, serve as potent tools to challenge exsting socio-political structures. Their detailed accounts, misunderstood as mere stories, reflect a powerful resistance against oppressive political orders, shedding light on the ideological and power struggles of their times. The allegorical lens unveils a potential critique within these texts, offering a nuanced understanding of political resistance intertwined with mythic storytelling.

Political Deification and Cosmic Rebellion: A Gnostic Interpretation of Ezekiel 28

Introduction:

The biblical passage in Ezekiel 28 has been a subject of diverse interpretations, with some scholars drawing connections between the arrogance of rulers and the elevation of political figures to near-divine status. In this discourse, we delve into the Gnostic perspective, particularly examining the Apocryphon of John and its portrayal of Yaldabaoth, a cosmic entity associated with political power and rulership.

Yaldabaoth as a Political Image:

The Apocryphon of John paints a graphic picture of Yaldabaoth, a cosmic ruler associated with political imagery, specifically likened to the Roman emperors. Stationing seven kings over the heavens and five over the abyss, Yaldabaoth is portrayed as a figure who shares his fire but retains the power of light from his mother, representing an ignorant darkness.

Gnostic Cosmology:

The Gnostic narrative unfurls with a cosmic interplay of light and darkness, highlighting the duality emerging from the mingling of these forces. Yaldabaoth, also recognized as Sakla or Samael, asserts his divinity by declaring, "I am God." This declaration resonates with Ezekiel 28, where the King of Tyre similarly affirms, "I am a god, I sit in the seat of God." Drawing parallels between Yaldabaoth and earthly rulers, such as King Nebuchadnezzar in Isaiah 14 and Judith 3:8, 6:12, Antiochus Epiphanies in Daniel 11:36, Herod in Acts 12:21-23, and the transformative journey of figures like Julius Caesar and Augustus, Caligula and Nero (with Nero symbolizing the antichrist in typology) in Ascension of Isaiah 4:6-8. This transformation from men to Gods, within the thought world of the cosmic order, aligns with Yaldabaoth's bold claim, "I am God."

The Deification of Rome:

A key aspect of this Gnostic interpretation is the association of Samael with Rome, particularly the Roman angel or prince. Drawing from Jewish texts like the Ascension of Isaiah and the Third Book of Enoch, Samael becomes the symbolic representation of the Roman Empire's divine authority. The Gnostic rejection of political legitimacy is reflected in their view of Samael as the angel of Rome, challenging the ideals propagated by the Roman rulers.

Samael in Jewish Texts:

Jewish texts from the same period identify Samael with the angel of Edom, a reference to Rome. This cosmic connection between angels and earthly nations provides a context for interpreting Samael's role in the Gnostic worldview. The angelic embodiment of Rome, coupled with the rejection of political order, underscores the Gnostic rejection of the Roman Empire's claims to peace and justice.

Gnostic Resistance:

The Gnostic texts, emerging as a response to political marginalization in the Roman Empire, express a rejection of the legitimacy of political authority. The irony of Rome's claim to a peaceful reign, juxtaposed with the violence and displacement used to maintain control, reflects the Gnostic critique of the Empire's lofty ideals. The Gnostics perceive Roman virtues like peace, justice, and wisdom as veiled expressions of war, injustice, and ignorance for those under Roman rule.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Gnostic interpretation of Ezekiel 28, as reflected in the Apocryphon of John, presents a cosmic narrative intertwining political power, angelic entities, and the rejection of earthly rulership. By aligning Yaldabaoth with Rome and drawing parallels between the King of Tyre and other historical rulers, the Gnostics offer a unique lens through which to view the complexities of cosmic rebellion and political resistance in the ancient world.

The Allegorical Lens: Roman Emperors as Yaldabaoth

Consider the possibility of reading texts like the Apocryphon of John allegorically, interpreting Yaldabaoth as a representation of Roman emperors who claimed divine status and rulership over the world. In this interpretation, the term "Cosmocrator," meaning "lord or ruler of the world," parallels the contemporary Greek belief that rulers and authorities were controlled by malevolent forces.

The Apostle Paul's words in Ephesians 6:12&13, urging individuals to combat spiritual wickedness in high places, become a call to resist the manipulative machinations of emperors and authorities.

Notably, the Apocryphon of John assigns Yaldabaoth multiple names, including Saklas and Samael. The association of Samael with the angel of Rome aligns with the ancient belief that heavenly battles corresponded to earthly nations.

In the ancient world, politics and religiosity were deeply interconnected. Rather than solely viewing the material world as a realm where divine sparks are trapped, it becomes conceivable to interpret these Gnostic texts as critiques of Roman emperors' claims to godhood and their creation of a world in their image.

Yaldabaoth, in this context, symbolizes an arrogant ruler who ensnares people within the structures of the political system. This perspective prompts us to question the spiritual implications of such entanglement and offers a nuanced lens through which to understand the complex relationship between religion and politics within Gnostic narratives.

A Description of Yaltabaoth

And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance. And she surrounded it with a luminous cloud, and she placed a throne in the middle of the cloud that no one might see it except the holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his name Yaltabaoth. (The Apocryphon of John)

And when Pistis Sophia desired to cause the thing that had no spirit to be formed into a likeness and to rule over matter and over all her forces, there appeared for the first time a ruler, out of the waters, lion-like in appearance, androgynous, having great authority within him, and ignorant of whence he had come into being. Now when Pistis Sophia saw him moving about in the depth of the waters, she said to him, "Child, pass through to here," whose equivalent is 'yalda baoth'. (On the Origin of the World)

Since that day, there appeared the principle of verbal expression, which reached the gods and the angels and mankind. And what came into being as a result of verbal expression, the gods and the angels and mankind finished. Now as for the ruler Yaltabaoth, he is ignorant of the force of Pistis: he did not see her face, rather he saw in the water the likeness that spoke with him. And because of that voice, he called himself 'Yaldabaoth'. But 'Ariael' is what the perfect call him, for he was like a lion. Now when he had come to have authority over matter, Pistis Sophia withdrew up to her light. (On the Origin of the World)

Within Gnostic texts, Yaldabaoth embodies a symbolic representation reminiscent of a lion or a lion-faced serpent, both emblematic of kingship, rulership, and imperial power.

Yaldabaoth, as the ruler of the world, personifies the human ego, emerging as a manifestation within the political heavens.

This entity, representing ignorance rooted in the ego, arises when rationality succumbs to the influence of emotions or external senses.

Yaldabaoth: A Gnostic Symbol of Ego and Political Power

Introduction:

In Gnostic thought, Yaldabaoth emerges as a complex symbol representing the lord of this world, influencing the human condition and shaping psychological existence. This discussion explores the Gnostic perspective on Yaldabaoth, portraying this cosmic entity as the shadow of ego development and an archetype integral to human consciousness.

Yaldabaoth and the Ego:

For the Gnostics, the development of the individual ego is intertwined with the influence of Yaldabaoth. This cosmic figure becomes the archetype that propels human consciousness towards the formation of a focal narcissistic ego. Yaldabaoth, as the lord of this world, defines the human will and intellect, leading to the development of individual judgment and rulership.

The Will and Intellectual Learning:

Yaldabaoth's representation in individuals manifests as the human will and intellect, potent up to a certain point. Those embodying Yaldabaoth characteristics often exhibit reluctance to stand on their own judgment, seeking external sources for decision-making. The Gnostic view likens these individuals to rulers who rule arbitrarily, refusing to tap into their own wisdom. This behaviour can lead to a regression to an animal-instinct plane of consciousness, as observed in Daniel 5:21.

Yaldabaoth as a Symbol of Human Consciousness:

In Gnostic cosmology, Yaldabaoth symbolizes human consciousness, both individually and collectively in organized opposition to God. The lion-faced serpent imagery emphasizes Yaldabaoth's connection to the civil and military power of the Roman Empire. The serpent, representing the flesh in political manifestation, becomes identified with the civil and military authority of a supposedly Christianized Empire under Constantine. (Isa. 27:1; Ezek, 29:3; Jer. 51:34; Job 41:1),

Lion Symbolism in the Bible:

The Gnostic interpretation draws on biblical symbolism, where lions are associated with fierce and predatory characteristics. Wicked individuals, nations, false prophets, and oppressive rulers are depicted as lions in various biblical passages (wicked ones (Ps 10:9), persons who oppose God and his people (Ps 22:13; 35:17; 57:4; Jer 12:8), false prophets (Eze 22:25), wicked rulers and princes (Pr 28:15; Zep 3:3), the Babylonian World Power (Da 7:4). The lion's mouth is also employed to describe the seven-headed, ten-horned wild beast in Revelation 13:2, further aligning with the Gnostic view of Yaldabaoth.

The Sea Symbolism:

Yaldabaoth's ascent from the sea mirrors biblical symbolism where the sea represents nations and empires. (Isa. 57:20; Jer. 51:13 Rev. 17:15 ) Rising from the waters signifies the exercise of power over nations and international influence. The imagery parallels the Beast described in Revelation 13:1, emphasizing the political connotations of Yaldabaoth's symbolism.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Gnostic interpretation of Yaldabaoth offers a unique perspective on the interplay between ego development, political power, and cosmic symbolism. Yaldabaoth, as the lord of this world, becomes a powerful symbol in the Gnostic worldview, intimately linked to the human condition and the challenges of rulership in opposition to divine principles.

Original text

What are Myths

Since the term myth is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly political:

Myths reflect patterns in the mind and we interpret those patterns more as fixed mental structures, specifically pairs of opposites (good/evil, compassionate/callous), rather than unconscious feelings or urges.

Myths such as origin stories might provide a "mythic charter"—a legitimisation—for cultural norms and social institutions.

Myth is a form of understanding and telling stories that are connected to power, political structures, and political and economic interests.

Political myths simply deal with political topics and always use a group of people as the hero or protagonist

A myth is considered a political myth when the narrative provides an ideologically marked account of the past, present, and future of the political community.

One finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the form of myths. The term “myth” should not here be taken to mean “stories that are not true”, but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.

Why myths?

Why would the Gnostic text use myths the answer is because of persecution!

Gnostic Christians have been heavily persecuted, first by the Roman Empire and for centuries afterwards by orthodox Christian authorities

The Gnostic Christians rejected martyrdom

The Testimony of Truth They are blind guides, like the disciples. They boarded the ship; at about thirty stadies, they saw Jesus walking on the sea. These are empty martyrs since they bear witness only to themselves. And yet they are sick, and they are not able to raise themselves.

But when they are "perfected" with a (martyr's) death, this is the thought that they have within them: "If we deliver ourselves over to death for the sake of the Name we will be saved." These matters are not settled in this way. But through the agency of the wandering stars they say they have "completed" their futile "course", and [...] say, [...]. But these [...] they have delivered themselves ...
... (7 lines unrecoverable)

How does one Interpret the Gnostic myths?

Interpretation should not take place in isolation, of the social, political, and economic factors which influenced how the writers wrote these texts.

The writers of the Gnostic texts were rejecting the legitimacy of all political order, ancient Gnosticism arose as a reaction of a politically marginalized intellectual elite in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire in the second and first centuries C.E.

The Gnostics were explicit in revolt against the political structures of their age, and/or they showed little or no interest in surrounding society, or had even somehow radically severed their connections with society or were at least completely indifferent to the political well-being and future of society?

Gnostics never made any direct testimony about the political views or activity of these people, but rather in their myths about demiurges. In the mythic characters of tyrannical creator-archons. These demiurgical myths are veiled political protests, calling people who live under such power to rebellion. World rejection was therefore equivalent to the rejection of the legitimacy of all political structures in the world or the political structure of the Roman Empire.

Though the Roman rulers claimed  peaceful reign the violence intimidation and displacement used to maintain this piece made it ironic the lofty ideals with which the Empire framed itself were a type of double-speak for those under its rule The Peace of the Roman Empire meant War for those subjected by it Justice meant injustice Wisdom meant ignorance

What if the texts, such as the Apocryphon of John, were meant to be read allegorically, symbolizing the Roman emperors' assertions of divinity and their claims as saviors of the world, suggesting they've crafted the known world in their likeness? What if this aspect forms a significant part of the narrative?

for instance, the Apocryphon of John describes Yaldabaoth as a political image of the Roman emperor

"Cosmocrator" was the title of the Roman emperor, meaning "lord or ruler of the world", and contemporary Greek thought was, that rulers and authorities, were controlled by demonic forces of evil. The apostle Paul declares that the evil machinations of the emperor and those in high authority can be overcome, by putting on the whole panoply of God, which is described in the verses that follow as: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, sandals of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit. 

Ephesians 6:12&13 - "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood ['haimakai surka'], but against principalities ['archas', 'rulers'], against powers ['exousias', 'authorities'], against the rulers ['tous kosmokratoras'. 'world rulers'] of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places ['ta pneumatika tes ponerias en tois epouraniois', 'the spiritual hosts of evil in the heavenlies']. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God ['ten panoplian tou theou'], that you may be able to stand in the evil day ['te hemera te ponera'], and having done all, to stand."

The Apocryphon of John Now this weak ruler has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth. The second is Saklas. The third is Samael. He is impious in his Madness, she who dwells in him. For he said, am God and no other god exists except me,' since he is ignorant of the place from which his strength had come.

In the ancient world politics and religiosity are not two separate things they're part and parcel of one another and interwoven with one another and what might it mean instead of saying you know instead of saying this horrible material world where these divine sparks are trapped what if this was was about the Roman emperors in particular.

What if we consider Yaldabaoth as an embodiment of an overbearing ruler, akin to a Roman emperor, ensnaring people within the structures of a political system? How might this impact our spiritual understanding and perception of such circumstances?

Understanding the religious, political, social, and cultural significance embedded in the Gnostic texts is crucial in reshaping our interpretation. Neglecting these contextual layers inhibits a comprehensive comprehension of the myths.

It's essential to delve into the intricate interconnections among these facets of human existence, evident in the characters of Adam and Eve within these texts. They embody the complexities woven into human life.

The pursuit of transcending this world's disorder involves attaining extraordinary insight, knowledge, or understanding—a state referred to as gnosis.

To escape this disorder of the world one can transcend it by extraordinary insight, learning, or knowledge, called a gnosis

Ialdabaoth Greek Ιαλνταμπαόθ Yaldabaoth Hebrew ילדאבהות (Literally "Children of the Void," or Children of the Abyss (depth of the waters) from ילדה = yalda= child; בהו = bohu = void; אבהות = abbott = fatherhood, parentage, paternity).

a description of Yaltabaoth

And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance. And she surrounded it with a luminous cloud, and she placed a throne in the middle of the cloud that no one might see it except the holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his name Yaltabaoth.

The Apocryphon of John

And when Pistis Sophia desired to cause the thing that had no spirit to be formed into a likeness and to rule over matter and over all her forces, there appeared for the first time a ruler, out of the waters, lion-like in appearance, androgynous, having great authority within him, and ignorant of whence he had come into being. Now when Pistis Sophia saw him moving about in the depth of the waters, she said to him, "Child, pass through to here," whose equivalent is 'yalda baoth'.

On the Origin of the World

Since that day, there appeared the principle of verbal expression, which reached the gods and the angels and mankind. And what came into being as a result of verbal expression, the gods and the angels and mankind finished. Now as for the ruler Yaltabaoth, he is ignorant of the force of Pistis: he did not see her face, rather he saw in the water the likeness that spoke with him. And because of that voice, he called himself 'Yaldabaoth'. But 'Ariael' is what the perfect call him, for he was like a lion. Now when he had come to have authority over matter, Pistis Sophia withdrew up to her light.

On the Origin of the World

In the Gnostic scriptures Yaldabaoth is described as a lion or a lion-faced serpent these are symbols of kings rulers and empires

O Ialdabaoth, who art the ruler of the world, Yaldabaoth is a personification of the human ego manifested in the political heavens

Yaldabaoth (ignorance via the ego) is created when reason follows the emotions or outward senses

I am God

Secret Book of John
This gloomy ruler has three names: the first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Sakla, the third is Samael.

He is wicked in his mindlessness that is in him. He said, I am god and there is no other god but me, since he did not know where his own strength had come from.

Yaldabaoth is also referred to as Sakla or Samael. Samael God of the Romes in Jewish texts see the Ascension of Isaiah and the third book of Enoch Sammael is identified with the angel of Edom (Rome) the prince arkon of the Roman people is also frequently given the title of Prince of the world

The Reality of the Rulers (The Hypostasis of the Archons)

Their chief is blind. Because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance, he said, with his power, “I am god; there is no other but me.”

On the Origin of the World

Since that day, the heaven has been consolidated along with its earth by means of Sophia, the daughter of Yaldabaoth, who is beneath them all. After the heavens and their powers and all of their government set themselves aright, the chief creator exalted himself and was glorified by the whole army of angels. And all the gods and their angels gave him praise and glory.

And he rejoiced in his heart, and he boasted continually, saying to them, “I do not need anything. I am god and there is no other god but me.” But when he said these things, he sinned against all of the immortal imperishable ones, and they kept their eyes on him.

the statement I am God comes from Ezekiel 28 Yaldabaoth is described as proclaiming himself to be God or saying I am God this is a reference to the Deification of the Rome Emperors the same is also said of the King of Tyre Ezekiel 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyre, Thus saith the Lord Yahweh: Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art man, and not God, though thou didst set thy heart as the heart of God

The arrogant statement by Yaldabaoth the chief archon I am God should be explained in terms of Isaiah 14 a lamentation for the King of Babylon. in Ezekiel 28:2,9 the king of Tyre said "I am god" Notice other arrogant rulers who claimed to be divine or were acclaimed as gods King Nebuchadnezzar in Judith 3:8 6:12 Antiochus Epiphanies in Daniel 11:36 Herod in Acts 12:21-23 thus the transformation of Julius Caesar and Augustus, Caligula and Nero (Nero is symbol of the antichrist in typology) in Ascension of Isaiah 4:6-8 from men to Gods which in the thought world of the cosmologies would be akin to Yaldabaoth's claim I am God. 

The Gnostics held that Yaldabaoth was the lord of this world who dominates the human condition. Yaldabaoth defines human psychological existence. humans are of necessity ego-bound in the sense of being required to develop an individual ego for the gnostics the figure of Yaldabaoth is the shadow of ego development. Yaldabaoth is the archetype that creates and sustains an inevitable development within human consciousness toward the formation of the focal narcissistic ego.

Yaldabaoth represents in us the human will and intellect; this brings about human judgment. A ruler always represents some function of the will. The Will entrenched in intellectual learning, giving its full attention to material subjects, is very powerful up to a certain point. The world is full of these Yaldabaoth people. 

They are loath to stand on their own judgment in any matter. When a decision is required of them they fly to some oracle. It may be a friend whose good advice they ask or a medium, or they may even resort to the tossing of a coin or the cutting of a deck of cards. They are willful and they rule arbitrarily. Refusing to bring forth their own good judgment, they become mendacious and tyrannical. The ultimate of this sort of action is a return to the animal-instinct plane of consciousness, as described in Daniel 5:21.

Mankind animal characteristic

Mankind has observed the characteristics and habits of animals and has applied them in a figurative or symbolic sense to persons, peoples, governments, and organizations. Thus Yaldabaoth is a symbol of human consciousness individually and organised collectively (that is politically) in opposition to God

The lion-faced serpent The "serpent" represents the civil, or military power of the Roman Empire. The word is also rendered leviathan (Isa. 27:1; Ezek, 29:3; Jer. 51:34; Job 41:1), and is used as representing the flesh in political manifestation.

Finally, when Constantine transferred his civil and military headquarters from Rome to Constantinople (previously the very centre of pagan resistance), the "serpent" became identified with the civil and military power of a so-called Christianised Empire.

In the Bible wicked people and nations are described as a lion

.Because of the lion’s fierce and predatory characteristics, the animal was also used to represent wicked ones (Ps 10:9), persons who oppose God and his people (Ps 22:13; 35:17; 57:4; Jer 12:8), false prophets (Eze 22:25), wicked rulers and princes (Pr 28:15; Zep 3:3), the Babylonian World Power (Da 7:4). And the seven-headed, ten-horned wild beast out of the sea, which gets its authority from the dragon, was depicted as having a lion’s mouth. (Re 13:2) At Psalm 91:13 the lion and the cobra seem to denote the power of the enemy, the lion being representative of open attack and the cobra of underhanded scheming, or attacks from a concealed place.—Compare Lu 10:19; 2Co 11

The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Like the Beast in Rev 13:1 Yaldabaoth is described as ascending out of the sea there appeared for the first time a ruler, out of the waters, lion-like in appearance the beast of the sea

And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent.

And when Pistis Sophia desired to cause the thing that had no spirit to be formed into a likeness and to rule over matter and over all her forces, there appeared for the first time a ruler, out of the waters, lion-like in appearance,

The "Seas" Sea is symbolic of nations and empires (Isa. 57:20; Jer. 51:13 Rev. 17:15 ). it is international in its influence; it dominates "the waters," or nations. To rise out of the waters is to exercise power over them


Yaldabaoth is not Yahweh but represents the carnal mind or the ego

Yaldabaoth is a personification of human nature

Yaldabaoth describes human psychological existence

the figure of Yaldabaoth is the shadow of ego development Yaldabaoth is the archetype that creates and sustains an inevitable development within human consciousness toward the formation of the focal narcissistic ego