Gnostics and the Old Testament
(Revised)
By James M. West. Copyright © May
26, 2008; revised
E-mail: ogdood@yahoo.com
It’s quite common today to hear people say
that the “Gnostics” rejected the Old Testament. This popular opinion is
bolstered by some of the biggest names in modern scholarship and theology. Dr.
Adolph von Harnack expressed this opinion in his magisterial treatise The
History of Dogma (
“Gnosticism
was a great danger for Christianity. If Christian theology had succumbed to
this temptation, the particular character of Christianity would have been lost. Its unique basis in the person of Jesus would
have become meaningless. The Old Testament would have disappeared, and
with it the historical picture of the Christ.” (Paul Tillich, A History of
Christian Thought, Harper & Row, NY, pg. 36f. emphasis added.)
In the context of Tillich’s words I now
want to raise the issue that I want to discuss: Did the Gnostics really reject
the Old Testament; is it really that simple?
Now certainly I will not be so bold as to insinuate
that sirs Harnack and Tillich are wrong. I’m not saying they’re wrong;
but I do believe that this is all a matter of perspective. I see the opinions
of Harnack and Tillich as being based on a limited theological perspective. They
see the Gnostics as rejecting the Old Testament because the Gnostics in fact rejected
the system of theology that “orthodox” Christians project into the Old
Testament. From this perspective one could say that the Gnostics rejected the
Old Testament. But then again there are different perspectives from which this
issue can be defined. The reality is that to simply say that the Gnostics
rejected the Old Testament is to state a simple opinion on a complex issue on
the basis of one narrow perspective. From another perspective the argument can
also be made that the Gnostics did not simply reject the Old Testament. This fact
becomes obvious when one realizes the extent to which the ‘OT’ was used in
Gnostic tradition. In the bigger picture, outside of “orthodox” considerations,
the Gnostics did not simply reject the Old Testament. What they did do was
project an entirely different system of theology, and interpretation, into the
texts.
The only heretical leader who can be said,
without question, to have rejected the Old Testament is Marcion of Pontus (c.
90–160). Marcion is well-known to historians for the following precedent: He
developed the first known “canon” of Christian scripture, which was comprised
of Paul’s letters and the Gospel of Luke. Marcion edited and arranged these
documents into a book of scripture in order to replace the Old Testament and to
ban the latter from the Christian religion (A. Harnack, Marcion, ET: The
Labyrinth Press, pg. 57; B. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pg. 107; New
Catholic Enc., Canon NT., vol. 3, pg. 30, Marcion, vol. 9,
pg. 143).
The popular notion that the Gnostics
rejected the Old Testament is probably based in many instances on a confusion
of Gnostic tradition with Marcionite tradition; when in fact these two
traditions have radical differences. Marcion saw the Old Testament simply as
Jehovah’s death warrant for all of mankind; whereas the Gnostics saw the Old
Testament as a concealed record of Sophia’s plan for salvation. The
Gnostic view appears most dramatically in this quote from Irenaeus regarding
the Ophites:
“[T]hey
maintain that Sophia herself has also spoken many things through [the prophets]
regarding the first Anthropos (Man), and concerning the Christ who is above,
thus admonishing and reminding men of the incorruptible light, the first
Anthropos, and of the descent of Christ. The [other] powers being terrified by
these things, and marveling at the novelty of those things which were announced
by the prophets, [Sophia] brought it about by means of Ialdabaoth (who knew not
what he did), that emissions of two men took place, the one from the barren
Elizabeth, and the other from the Virgin Mary.” (Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, 1.30.11.)
In this passage it is obvious that the Ophites
traced the revelation of the Savior back to Old Testament prophecy. Moreover
these prophecies are attributed to the spirit of Sophia, and not Jehovah (or
the “Son” or “Logos”) as “orthodox” theologians insist. Also, the Gnostics do
not deny that the savior was prophesied in the Old Testament. What the Gnostics
actually say is that the Savior was prophesied in the context of an occult
spiritual economy, and that this hidden economy cannot
be discerned through the traditional monotheistic mandate that has been imposed
on the OT by Pharisees and “orthodox” Christians (see below).
Irenaeus’s description of the Ophite system
also shows an example of the radically different theological structure that
Gnostics often projected into the Old Testament. He describes the Ophites as
dividing up the OT godhead into seven different entities (names in italics)
each speaking through their own prophets.
“Moreover,
they distribute the prophets in the following manner:
Moses,
Joshua, Amos, and Habakkuk, belonged to Ialdabaoth
(i.e. the Creator);
Samuel,
Nathan, and Jonah, and Micah, to Iao;
Elijah,
Joel, and Zechariah to Sabaoth;
Isaiah,
Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel, to Adonai;
Tobias
and Haggai to Eloi;
Michaiah
and Nahum to Oreus;
Esdras and Zephaniah to Astanphaeus.
Each
one of these, then, glorifies his own father and God, and they maintain that
Sophia, herself, has also spoken many things through them…” (Ibid.)
Irenaeus here describes a pattern which is
reflected throughout the Nag Hammadi Library, where the Gnostics divide the OT
godhead into an organization of Seven, with Sophia being the hidden power above
(e.g. NHC: Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the Archons, On
the Origin of the World).
Irenaeus also confirms that the
Valentinians likewise view Sophia as the hidden power above the Creator and as
a source of Old Testament prophecy: “This mother they also call Ogdoad, Sophia,
Terra (Gaia),
Notice that in the passage above that
Irenaeus states that “Lord” is one of the names that the Gnostics used for
Sophia. This goes back to the idea that some utterances of the biblical
prophets were actually the expressions of Sophia, which appear under the name
of the “Lord” in scripture (LXX: Kurios). Irenaeus does not offer any
detailed analysis of how these interpretations were worked out. But he does
state the basic underlying principle: “They divide the prophecies, maintaining
that one portion was uttered by the Mother, a second by her seed, and a third
by the Demiurge.” (Ibid. 1.7.3.)
And regarding Sophia’s seed Irenaeus also
reports: “They maintain that those who possess the seed of Achamoth (Sophia)
are superior to the rest…and they declare that many things were spoken by this
seed to the prophets…” (Ibid.)
In the above passage Irenaeus refers to the
doctrine that Sophia Achamoth distributed her seed among mankind,
and that the biblical prophets possessed this seed and were able to speak of
spiritual truths. Irenaeus writes further of this arrangement that “The
Demiurge, while ignorant of those things which are higher than himself, was indeed excited by those things which were
announced through the prophets, but treated them with contempt… He thus
remained ignorant until the appearing of the Lord…” (Ibid. 1.7.4)
What Irenaeus describes in the above
passages is the alternative theology and system of interpretation that the
Gnostics (various sects) projected into the Old Testament. Irenaeus’s report
above shows that the Gnostics did not believe that all prophetic utterances
could be reconciled with Jehovah (i.e. the Demiurge), and that some part of the
body of prophecy was derived from a higher source.
I believe personally that the Gnostics
developed this system of interpretation for the following reason: the Old
Testament does not contain a single uniform system of theology. This fact is
admitted in modern scholarship; and it has been noticed that Judaism resolves
this problem by focusing on “orthopraxy” (correct practice) rather than debating
the scriptures (e.g. A. Harnack, Marcion, pg. 10, A. Segal, Two
Powers in Heaven, pg. x). Thus rabbinical tradition simply states its
theology as a dogma (monotheism) without attempting to actually organize the
scriptures into a consistent system. In contrast, Jewish heretics and Gnostics developed
varying systems by which the theology of the Old Testament could be organized,
and its theological integrity preserved. The underlying reality is that these
schools were working to resolve the problem in that the OT contains conflicting
theological elements and language (see also R. Grant, Gnosticism and Early
Christianity, pg. 56ff.).
The Gnostics did not view the Old Testament
as flawed and contradictory as many skeptics did (including Marcion). What the
Gnostics did was discard the doctrine of monotheism, and they proceeded with
the notion that different theological principles were speaking in the diverse
texts. Typically the Gnostics saw in the OT the inspirations of three different
principles. As Irenaeus reports above, the Valentinians divided the divine
utterances and prophecies between Sophia, the seed, and the Demiurge. The
Ophites (described above) divided those prophecies between Sophia, Yaldabaoth
and his angels. Other Gnostic systems, viz. of Saturninus and the Naassenes (as
reported by Hippolytus) attributed some part of the Old Testament to Satan. In
both of the latter schools the institution of marriage and procreation are
attributed to Satan (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.24.2., Hippolytus, Refutation
of All Heresies, 5:2; R. Grant, ibid., pg. 17). In
theory this implies that these schools divided the Bible into the three main
essences that all Gnostic systems embrace in varying ways: i.e. that the
universe is divided into three essences and realities: the Spiritual, the
Natural (Soul) and the Material. Each reality has its own God: Sophia is the
God of the Spiritual level and she is a proxy for the unknown Father above (Pleroma).
The Demiurge is the God of the Natural level, and he is judicial by nature, but
not good; and has no capacity for spiritual virtue. Satan is the God of the
material level and the flesh (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.4.,
Tertullian, Against Valentinians, 15, 22). This
three-fold system is also manifest in three races of Humans: the spiritual, the
natural, and the material (Tripartite Tractate, 118:15ff.,
Irenaeus, ibid., 1.7.5., Tertullian, ibid., 26, 29, Hippolytus, ibid., 5:1).
Irenaeus attributed the theology I have
described to the Valentinians as their basic concept of the universe (ibid,
1.5.4.). But Irenaeus also affirms that they did not project this directly into
the Bible, thus refusing to admit that there was any material element in
scripture. This fact is also confirmed by the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy in
his Letter to Flora. In this letter Ptolemy actually discusses the
contradictions of the Law of Moses, and he rejects the proposition of other
Gnostic schools that the Lawgiver of the Old Testament is evil (B. Layton, Gnostic
Scriptures, pg. 308). Ptolemy’s statements refer to the historic reality
that the Valentinians, on one side, and the Saturnilians and Sethians on the
other, disagreed on the nature of the Demiurge. The latter schools believed
that the Demiurge, whom they called “Yaldaboath”, was evil by nature, whereas the Valentinians maintained that the
Demiurge was neutral, being just, but not good. The latter schools
believed that Yaldabaoth was the source of both the just and evil elements in
the Old Testament, whereas Ptolemy argued that these elements came from Moses
and the elders who added their own statutes to the Law (B. Layton, ibid., pg. 309f.). Ptolemy also maintained that all the
rituals and sacrifices of the Mosaic Law were an image of the Pleroma when
these were practiced spiritually (ibid. pg. 312).
A brief point I will also mention, for its
irony, is that the Clementine Homilies portray “Peter”, in his
opposition to Simon Magus, as conceding the point that the “wicked one”
added certain things to the Law of Moses. In Homily 2:38, Peter is
quoted as explaining this concept to his disciple Clement:
“For
the Scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God… The prophet
Moses having by the order of God delivered the Law, with the explanations, to
certain chosen men, some seventy in number, in order that they might instruct the
people… But after a while the written Law had certain falsehoods added to it
contrary to the Law of God, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things
in them; the wicked one having dared to work this for some righteous
purpose.” (Homily 2:38; emphasis
added)
Peter then gives a list of falsehoods about
God which have been added to the scriptures by the wicked one:
“Wherefore,
far he it from us to believe that the Lord of all, who made the heaven and the
earth, and all things that are in them, shares His government with others (Dt.
32:8–9, Job 1:12), or that He lies (Ex. 6:3, Gen. 22:14). For if He lies, then who speaks truth? Or that He makes experiments as in
ignorance (Gen. 2:19); for then who foreknows? And if He
deliberates, and changes His purpose (Gen. 2:18), who is perfect in
understanding and permanent in design? If He envies, who is above
rivalry? (Ex. 20:3–5) If He hardens hearts, who makes wise?
(Ex. 7:2–3) If He makes blind and deaf, who has given sight and hearing? (Is.
6:10) If He commits pilfering, who administers justice? If He mocks,
who is sincere? If He is weak, who is omnipotent? If He is unjust, who is just?
If He makes evil things, who shall make good things?
(Is. 45:7, Prov. 16:4) If He does evil, who shall do good?
(Homily
In the above passage we can get an idea of
the biblical passages and ideas that “Peter” believed were from the “wicked
one.”
Historians believe that the Clementines are
based on a Jewish Christian tradition of Peter which opposes Gnosticism as
symbolized by Simon Magus. Some historians believe in turn that Simon is really
Paul; but this issue will have to wait for a future article. The point to be
noted here is that this passage is an example of where some ancient theologians
were willing to attribute some part of the Old Testament to the devil; not so
as to condemn the OT, but in order to preserve its consistency. In the same
time period (second century) the Gnostics were doing the same thing:
attributing some parts of the OT to Sophia, to the Demiurge, or to the devil
(Yaldabaoth).
Let us now look at some simple examples
from the Old Testament which would have led Gnostics to abandon the creed of
monotheism, in favor of other solutions. Let’s compare the following passages:
Hosea, 6:6
“For I desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of
God more than burnt offerings.”
Psalm of David 40:6,
“Sacrifice
and sin offering you did not desire; my ears you have opened: burnt offering
and sin offering you have not required.”
Now let’s compare Numbers 28:1, where the
“Lord” commands Moses:
“And
the Lord spake to Moses saying, Command the children of Israel and say to them,
My offering, and my bread for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savour
unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in due season.”
And also, Leviticus
“This
is the law of the burnt offering, the meat offering, and of the sin offering,
and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of
the peace offerings; which the Lord commanded in
The question is can the passages above be
reconciled theologically? Obviously the passages from Psalms and Hosea refer to
a “Lord” that did not require, nor desire, burnt offerings. Yet we know that
the Law of Moses is specific on this matter, as the latter passages show. And
indeed in Numbers 28 the “Lord” even expresses his desire for the “sweet
savour” of the sacrifices made by fire.
I offer the theory here that this is where
the Gnostics saw Sophia. Sophia is the “Lord” either speaking or being spoken
of in Hosea 6:6 and Psalms 40:6. I believe it is highly probable that Irenaeus
and other Catholic theologians omitted these kinds of examples from their
polemics because they would have been too difficult to explain away. Moreover
let us also remember Tertullian’s “prescription” on the matter: “…our treatise
has rather taken up a general position against heresies, showing that they must
all be refuted on definite, equitable, and necessary rules without any
comparison with the Scriptures” (Prescription Against Heretics, 44;
emphasis added). Tertullian was willing to admit that many Gnostic arguments
from the scriptures were unassailable, and that the only solution was to remove
those scriptures from the debate (ibid., 15, 19, 39).
So why exactly did the Gnostics choose
Sophia as the spiritual voice of the Old Testament? One important reason is
that Sophia is actually in the Old Testament. She appears as the allegorical
“wisdom” figure in the book of Proverbs and in the apocryphal book The
Wisdom of Solomon. (The latter book is included only in the ancient Greek
translation of the OT, viz. the LXX, which is the manuscript that the ancient
Gnostics used.) Among Judeo-Christian readers the “wisdom” allegories are
strictly that: an allegory. But among the Gnostics “wisdom” (=Sophia in
Greek) became a symbol of the occult spiritual economy that was concealed in
the OT.
For the Gnostics the presence of “Sophia”
in the Old Testament represented an enigma that needed to be explained. In
Proverbs 8 and 9 we can find some enigmatic passages that undoubtedly
contributed to the Gnostic theosophy. For example, when Wisdom states that she
was with the Lord even before creation, the question naturally arose as to why
her presence was not mentioned in Genesis? In Gnostic myth the answer was
consigned to the spiritual ignorance of the Demiurge. He had no knowledge of
his mother! – and he proclaimed in ignorance of the
Father: I am the Lord, there is no God
besides me. And when Wisdom proclaimed, in Proverbs 8:22f.,
that “The Lord possessed me in the
beginning…” and also “I was set from
everlasting, from the beginning…”, this actually referred to when the Savior
descended from the Pleroma to rectify Sophia’s miscarriage. The Gnostics could
draw this conclusion because there was no mention of wisdom in the Genesis creation account. Hence Proverbs 8 revealed
the origin of Sophia!
And then in Proverbs 9:1, the Gnostics
discovered evidence of Wisdom’s superiority to the biblical Creator. In this
passage Wisdom is said to have built a house for herself, and to have set up “seven
pillars.” In Gnostic myth the seven pillars symbolize the work and domain of
the Demiurge, who at the direction of his mother constructed the material
cosmos which is dominated by the seven celestial planets or powers. These are
the seven heavens of Hellenistic mythology, and which the Gnostics call the Hebdomad. The Gnostics often identified
the Demiurge with the god of the 7th heaven viz. Saturn. Saturn was honored by
pagans on the same day that the Jews observed the Sabbath of the Creator.
Wisdom’s house was said to be in the ogdoad;
which is the number eight in Greek, and which signified the eighth heaven and
intermediate realm between the natural universe and the Pleroma.
For Gnostic readers, Wisdom’s preeminence
over the Creator can also be construed from language in the Wisdom of Solomon. And indeed, in Wisdom 10:1, we can find language which
can be construed to mean that Wisdom actually created the Creator! In this
passage we read: “She (Aute) preserved the first-formed father of the
world (kosmou), that was created
alone, and brought him out of his fall, and gave him the power to rule all
things.” For the orthodox reader this passage would have to refer to Adam,
whom Wisdom has saved from the consequences of his sin, and has enabled Adam’s
descendents to rule over the creation, etc. But for the Gnostic reader, this
passage means that Wisdom created the soul of the Demiurge from the formless
natural substance which was his primeval state. She then gave him the
power to create the cosmos (kosmou)
and “gave him the power to rule all
things.” Hence the Demiurge is the “first-formed
father of the cosmos.” [1]
Wisdom chapter 10 also contains other language
and themes which inspired the Gnostic theologians. In this passage Wisdom is
described as the hidden hand in the history of the Old Testament; and she is
depicted as the saviour who preserves the righteous ones from wickedness, and
from the wrath of the Lord. And indeed we may infer from this that if anything
good happens in the OT, it is because of Wisdom, not the Lord. As an example,
in Wisdom 10:4 we learn that Wisdom
was actually responsible for preserving the Human race (via Noah) from the
flood. Obviously this does not match the story in Genesis chapter 6, where the Lord God (Kurios ho Theos) is expressly described as interacting with Noah,
and arranging for his survival. And in Wisdom
10:6 we also learn that Wisdom was responsible for saving
The Wisdom of Solomon also
established the biblical precedent for a female figure who functions as the
hidden hand of mercy in the OT. Wisdom and the biblical God of Wrath are
actually separate entities and virtues. There is the Lord-God, and then there
is Wisdom. (In Catholic theology Wisdom and the Lord-God have been combined
into the preexistent Son; which represents their efforts to account for the
diverse theological elements and allegories. Hence, they’re all Jesus.)
Orthodox tradition has made every effort to
portray the Gnostic Sophia figure as a figment of pagan theology. But the
reality is that Sophia has her roots in the Old Testament. Indeed she is part
of the spiritual soil of the OT. Irenaeus affirms, in spite of himself, that
Sophia spoke through the prophets of the Savior who was to come. According to
Irenaeus both the Ophites and Valentinians affirm this. The spiritual economy
of the Savior is made clear in Irenaeus’s description of the Valentinian
doctrine of Christ.
“There
are also some who maintain that [the Demiurge] also produced Christ as his own
proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was made of him by the
prophets. This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube;
and there descended upon him in the form of a dove at the time of his baptism,
that Saviour who belonged to the Pleroma, and was formed by the combined
efforts of all its inhabitants. In him there existed also that spiritual seed
which proceeded from Achamoth…of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was
from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special
dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill;
and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also
continued free from all suffering…” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.7.2.
Please note that the word “animal” used above is a variation of the word
“natural” as denoting something that is of the Soul in substance.)
In this passage we can see clearly that the
Gnostics did not deny or reject the Old Testament; nor did they deny the Savior
who was prophesied in its pages. What the Gnostics did was project a different
theological paradigm into scripture. This allowed them to explain the biblical paradoxes,
and the presence of “wisdom” and also to explain those peculiar utterances of
Jesus where he referred to an unknown Father, as in Matthew
Moreover, it’s possible that some New
Testament writers had some form of this Sophia doctrine. Supposedly Jesus
himself was said to have mentioned Sophia by name. Thus we read in Luke
Were these writers alluding to a hidden
Sophia doctrine?
The last issue we must cover is the role of
the biblical creation account (or accounts) in Gnostic theology. The basic
Gnostic explanation for the origin of the cosmos and man depends on Genesis.
But again, the Gnostics read this account in a different light.
Before we get into why the Gnostics read
Genesis the way they did, we must first get into the basic problem in that the
Genesis account is an enigma. The simple reality is that Genesis actually
contains two accounts of creation and two accounts of the creation of man.
Moreover, these diverse accounts carry theological implications. (See also R.
Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, pg. 59f.).
First let me lay out the problems. Genesis
1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 contain irreconcilable accounts. In the first account, an
unnamed “God” (LXX: Theos) creates the cosmos in six days. He creates
man “male and female” (
In the second account, a god named
“Jehovah” or “Lord” (Kurios) made the “earth and the heavens” in one day
(2:4) and Adam was created alone from the dust of the ground (2:7). The Lord
decided that this was “not good” and the first woman was created from his rib (
Again, these accounts contain
irreconcilable elements. In the first account everything that is created is
good; whereas in the second account, that which is “not good” is implicit in
Adam’s solitude and in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. No evil is
mentioned or implicit in the first account; whereas in the second account the
existence of evil is revealed. The two accounts also describe what may be
reasonably understood to be two different Gods. In Genesis 1 an unnamed God
creates the cosmos which is wholly good; whereas in Genesis 2 the cosmos is
created by the “Lord” with the element of evil, and the capacity for division
and conflict. In Genesis
In ancient times the enigmas I describe
were noticed by Jewish theologians and later by the Gnostics. In the Jewish
community an outstanding example is Philo Judaeus, the Hellenistic Jewish
philosopher of
“For
God, because he is God, understood in advance that a beautiful copy would not
come into existence apart from a beautiful model. … Therefore…he marked out the
intelligible cosmos, so that he could use it as an incorporeal and most
god-like paradigm and so produce the corporeal cosmos, a younger likeness of an
older model…” (Philo, On the Creation.,
Philo also believed that there were two
Gods in the Bible; and that these two gods were manifestations of a higher
transcendent supreme Being. Philo describes this concept as a vision of a
theological trinity:
“There
are three different classes of human dispositions, each of which has received
as its portion one of the aforesaid visions. The best of them has received that
vision which is in the centre, the sight of the truly living God. The one which
is next best has received that which is on the right hand, the sight of the beneficent
power which has the name of God (Theos, Gn. 1:1f.). And the third has the
sight of that which is on the left hand, the governing power, which is called lord ” (Kurios, Gn. 2:4f.).
And also:
“…and
the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to
the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his
royal power. And the creative power is God [Theos],
for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power
is the Lord [Kurios], for it is
fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature.
Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers
as by body-guards, presents to the mind… a vision at one time of one being, and
at another time of three...” (On Abraham,
121f., 124)
Philo’s unnamed “God” and the “Lord”
obviously correspond to the two God’s in Genesis 1 and 2. The unnamed God is
the Creator, and the “Lord” is the governor and logos (see below).
Here now is Philo’s doctrine of the two
creations of man as found in his treatise Questions and Answers on Genesis,
1:4,
Q: “What is the man who was created? (Gen.
2:7) And how is that man distinguished who was made after the image of God?”
(Gen. 1:27)
A: “This man was created as perceptible to
the senses…but he who in respect of his form is intellectual and incorporeal,
is the similitude of the archetypal model as to appearance, he is the form of
the principle character…the logos of God, the first beginning of all things,
the original species or archetypal idea…”
Philo believed that the scriptures made a
distinction between the man who was created in the “image of God” and the man
who was created from dust.
To summarize: the theological implications
of Genesis, for Philo, are as follows: 1) The two creations in Genesis reflect
the Platonic idea of the invisible archetype and the material copy. 2) The
supreme Being is manifest in two forms in scripture, either as the Creative
power (“God”), or the governing power (“Lord”). 3) Philo believes that two
races of men were created, one incorporeal and the other corporeal. 4) Philo
believes that God appears in three forms to men according to their
dispositions. The most virtuous of men will have the vision of the supreme Being.
Others who are still of a relatively benign disposition will see the biblical
Creator (“God”). And the third class of men will see God as the heavy handed
ruler (cf. On Dreams, 1:230, 234–237; see my article On God and
Justice).
Here is Philo’s message to the third class
of men who can only know God according to his governing power:
“And
even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God,
nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born Logos (Word), the eldest of his angels,
as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority [Lord],
and the name of God, and the Logos, and man according to God’s image…” (On the Confusion of Tongues, 146.
Emphasis added.)
In Philo’s concepts we can see the origins
of the Gnostic trinity and the three-fold nature of Mankind. In Philo it is
obvious how these concepts were developed as ways to explain the paradoxes of
scripture, or what we would call contradictions today. Rather than
admit, for example, that Genesis contains to conflicting creation accounts, and
two conflicting theologies, Philo resorted to the dualism of Plato in order to
account for everything. In this way Philo rescued the Bible and preserved its
integrity. The Gnostics did the same thing.
Another Jewish theologian whose theology is
shaped by paradoxes is
The clue regarding the two creations of man
appears in 1 Corinthians 15:45–50. Here Paul makes a distinction between two
types of men. There is the “man of the earth” who bears the “image of the
earthy.” And then there is there is the heavenly man and “they who bear the
image of the heavenly” (1 Cor.
The astounding implications of Paul’s words
is that he did not believe that Adam was created in the “image of God” (Gen.
1:27). Instead, Paul believed that Adam’s creation was reported in the second
account in Gen. 2:7. Hence Adam was created from the dust of the ground, and
was “earthy” in nature. This evidence shows that Paul believed that Adam was
sinful because of his “earthy” nature, and that this earthy nature was the
reason that “by one man, sin entered the world.” (Rom.
The theological implication of this is that
Paul did not believe that Adam was created by the supreme Being, and that Paul
made a distinction between the God of Genesis 1, and the Lord Jehovah of
Genesis 2, who created Adam from the dust. This leaves the door open to the
prospect that Paul actually believed that Adam was created from the dust by a
lesser god, and that this lesser god was also identical with the Lawgiver (see
below).
That Paul made a distinction between two
gods, God and the Lord (Theos and ho Kurios), may in turn explain
Paul’s theology in 2 Corinthians
“If
our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing: In whom the god
of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light
of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto
them. … For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined
in our hearts, to give the light of the gnosis of God in the face of
Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:3–4, 6)
Most Christians ignore the deeper meaning
of 2 Corinthians 3:12–4:6 because they assume that Paul sees only one God in
scripture. But in reality that simple theory cannot explain what Paul says, or
the dichotomy that Paul establishes between Exodus 34 and Genesis 1. I propose
that this dichotomy is based on a distinction that Paul made between “God” in
Genesis 1 and the accounts of the “Lord” in Genesis 2 and Exodus 34. Today
scholars divide these passages under the theory of the Documentary Hypothesis,
which divides these passages into separate categories designated as J, E, P
& D. J identifies those elements that refer to Jehovah or Lord (Adonai
or Kurios) and E refers to Elohim, which both the Septuagint and modern
English translaters render as “God” (Theos). Both Paul and Philo made
these distinctions in their own ways.
In Paul’s words it is obvious that he
acknowledges the God of Genesis 1:1 as the God who “commanded the light to
shine out of darkness” (2 Cor. 4:6). Whereas Paul refuses to admit the divinity
of the Lawgiver (the “Lord”) in Exodus 34. This in turn is consistent with
Paul’s denial in Galatians 3:19 that the Law was given by God. Paul declares
instead that the Law was “ordained by angels.”
The astounding implications of all these
passages is that Paul did not subscribe to any traditional notion of the
monarchy of God in scripture. If I am correct, and I believe I am, then Paul’s
rejection of the monarchy of God represents a major historical precedent which
helped to lay the foundation of Gnostic thought.
Moving on to the later Gnostics; their
concepts of Creation were based on Genesis. This can be clearly seen in the Apocryphon
of John, the Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World.
What these texts do is tell the story that is concealed in Genesis. For
example, in the Apocryphon of John Adam is described as being created as
an Hermaphrodite (NHC: 15:1–5); which represents the first creation of man in
Genesis
In the Apocryphon of John it is
evident that this creation story is patterned after the two Genesis accounts,
and explains their (supposed) relationship. Moreover the Apocryphon affirms the
testimony of Irenaeus that the Old Testament in general is a concealed record
of the struggle between Yaldabaoth-Jehovah and Sophia. This was how the writer
of the Apocryphon accounted for both the good (Sophia) and bad (Yaldabaoth)
elements in the Old Testament, and the hidden struggle between these principles.
Whether or not Paul would have agreed with
the Apocryphon on every detail is an open question. But Paul and the writer of
the Apocryphon both share the common view that there is no simple monarchy of
god in the Bible. (See my article Was Jesus sent by the Lawgiver? for
more details regarding Paul’s rejection of monarchy.)
The lesson here overall is that the Old
Testament has many important lessons to teach, if it is read in the right way.
Orthodox Christians insist on believing that there is only “one God” in
scripture. Sometimes this God is good, or just, and at other times this god
says and does the most terrible things. When read in the right way, the Old
Testament is an image of what God is, and what God is not. This dichotomy
appears right away in Genesis 1 and 2. Not everything in the Old Testament is
from a Godly source. Paul understood this in his own way, and this was why he
declared that the Law was “ordained by angels” and not God (Gal.
For the Gnostics these conflicting elements
in the Old Testament are a green light to find the truth, to find
Sophia, and the plan for redemption, and the occult economy, that are concealed
in scripture. If you have noticed the dichotomy between Genesis 1 and 2 then
you are well on your way, if you have not found Sophia already. –jw
Note
1] My quotes from the Wisdom of Solomon
are from the Greek/English translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton; Septuagint
with Apocrypha, Hendrickson Publishers.
2] All quotes from Philo are from the
English translation by Charles D. Yonge (1812–1891). http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html
E-mail Jim West:
ogdood@yahoo.com