A Review of the History
of Very Early Christianity
COMPLIMENTARY COMMENTARY ON "JESUS AND THE LOST GODDESS"
BY TIMOTHY FREKE AND PETER GANDY
If you have had enough of my positive
Freke and Gandy observations for the day, and are done here:
1. CLICK HERE to go back to the First Early Christianity page.
2. CLICK HERE to go back to the 2nd Early Christianity page.
3. CLICK HERE to go to the Last (4th) Early Christianity page.
If not, read on . . .
SO, WHAT'S THERE TO LIKE IN THIS BOOK BY FREKE AND GANDY?
What could I possibly have liked about Freke and Gandy's writings since I spent 5 months reading materials to,
frankly, contradict and undermine its historical claims?
The answer to that question is easy:
I really like their vision of Gnosticism.
I would agree with their claim that their vision of Gnosticism is a system of belief and knowing that can revolutionize
the world.
I say ‘their vision of Gnosticism' because not all Gnostic teachings are equally appealing to me. Some downright
appall me. But, Freke and Gandy selected materials that allowed them to paste together a coherent system of belief
that really appeals to me. Their vision of Gnosticism is what Gnosticism ought to be.
And that is why they wrote the book in the first place: to promulgate their Gnostic vision to help save the world.
In their own words (p. 185):
From our exploration of the secret teachings of the original Christians it is clear that Christianity was not always the safe, pre-packaged, off-the-shelf religion it has become. The Christian Way was once travelled by philosophical adventurers who proclaimed life to be an opportunity for self-discovery, for spiritual creativity, for living our own myths. Christianity may have ended up a power-crazed Literalist religion spreading guilt and fear, but it began as a movement of mystical enthusiasts with a beautiful vision of the meaning and mystery of life. Does it serve any purpose to resurrect their vision?
The original Christians taught that although we have our eternal being outside the dramas of history, we are also a temporary part of the evolving cosmos. Can rearticulating their secret teachings, after all this time, play some positive role in this evolution? This book has involved us in studying the distant past and intuiting the eternal now which lies beyond time altogether. Let's finally turn our attention to the future that we are presently creating, and explore the current state of play in the ongoing struggle to unite Heaven and Earth.
Obviously I think these paragraphs have a bogus historicity underlying them. But, laying that aside I do believe
that their evangelizing on behalf of the Gnostic belief system is very well done and could indeed make a contribution
to the uniting of Heaven and Earth, in us individually first, then globally, then cosmically.
But . . . does not the lack of historicity for their fundamental claim, the claim that they are describing original
Christianity, call into question the rest of their book? Only in a couple of places, once I got over the historical
claims, did I raise a mental eyebrow and simply say, "Nah."
But the beauty of the essence of Gnosis as described in this book, is that it is timeless and ahistorical by its
very nature! Hence this sensational historical pedigree that Freke and Gandy wrested from the documents they perused
was unnecessary to their case for the Gnostic vision.
But without that outrageous historical claim regarding a very different original Christianity, already embedded
in the book's title, would I have bought the book? Probably, since I have read a few books on Gnosticism and continue
my interest. But would anyone else? Not near as many, I would suppose.
SORRY, BUT I ENJOYED SOME OF THEIR DEBUNKING OF STAPLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF (WELL, STAPLES OF BELIEF FOR SOME CHRISTIANS
AT SOME TIMES AT LEAST)
Some of their observations debunking normative Christianity are a good laugh, a fun read, and I agree with all
of them though they are caricatures. I bet even my good Mormon friends would wholeheartedly agree with all but
one, maybe two, of these thoughts. But then again Mormons are not normative Christians.
This list is from pp. 193-194, and is called by Freke and Gandy the "rogues' gallery of bad ideas concocted
by Christian Literalists":
Original sin. That's such a bad idea. Let's never again tell our children they've been born bad and reassure them instead that they are naturally good.
The Bible is the word of God. Ridiculous idea.
There is only one way to God. Obvious nonsense.
The Day of Judgement and the resurrection of the flesh. Spooky ideas.
The world is a bad place and we should hate it. In the face of the wonders all around us that's just ungrateful.
Eternal damnation. Horrible, grotesque, really, really bad idea.
God likes some people more than others. Please! What sort of God is that?
Sex is evil. If you believe this you must be doing it wrong.
God is male. What could that possibly mean? Does God have a penis?
Men are more spiritual than women. This idea must have been thought up by a man who never had a mother.
God has opinions – and only some people know what they are. That's got to be one of the worst ideas ever, because it is regularly used to justify a whole edifice of bad ideas.
I was going to just let this stand as is, and simply say I like these debunkings. But if I just left it at that
I would not be honest with myself. There is one item in the above list I agree with BUT in order to do so I have
to say that Paul was wrong, the same Paul that Freke and Gandy say was a leading Christian Gnostic. The subject
is the judgement and the resurrection.
THE JUDGEMENT AND THE RESURRECTION
Some of Paul's words are clear interpolations (to me, judging subjectively based on my own prejudices, as well
as to Freke and Gandy who claim scholars believe only six letters are genuine on page 211). But I can't say that
this is clearly the case for 2 Cor. 5:10 which seems true to overall Pauline theology when it mentions that .
. . "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ," . . . . Then there are the first 4 verses
of the same chapter that talk about what happens after this "earthly house" or "tent," our
body, is destroyed. Will we be naked? No, we will be . . . "further clothed, that immortality may be swallowed
up by life." In the same vein, Romans 8:23 says that the faithful are . . . "eagerly waiting for the
adoption, the redemption of our body."
My point? I find a physical resurrection highly implausible and the same goes for a real, physical single point
in time that is a Judgment Day when, as Paul says (2 Cor. 5:10) . . . "each one may receive the things done
in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." In other words I agree in a general sense
with the judgements of Freke and Gandy as listed in the section above.
But I disagree that every item in their list is undeniably part of the "rogues' gallery of bad ideas concocted
by Christian Literalists." Unless, of course, Freke and Gandy are ready to admit that Paul was a Christian
Literalist with an eclectic mind that appreciated and used insights from the Jewish-Hellenist, Platonist, Gnostic
and other cosmological views. That is, frankly, how I paint Paul in my mind.
What about the resurrection? If it is not physical, what is it? I recall from the books in my reading list (linked
on the next page in this series) that a big fight between Gnostics and normative Christians was over the resurrection,
was it physical or spiritual? Freke and Gandy, of course, also discuss this, that's why this section is here.
Even among experts today there is no consensus as to which is supported by what we know from the earliest Christian
writings. For example, see Copan's book, # 8 in my list, who reports the scholar Crossan's doubts about the physical
resurrection citing Paul's mention of a spiritual body and the scholar Craig's resounding affirmation of a physical
resurrection having been Paul's understanding and teaching. Both are believers. But who is right?
Maybe Craig is right on this point and the earliest Christians believed in the physical resurrection. I think
they did. However, what if these earliest Christians, the ones who wrote what later became scripture, were wrong
even though what they wrote became scripture? In other words is it possible that the Bible tells us a good story
about the afterlife that just isn't so.
I'll have to die, physically, to sort that one out. Obviously the answer can wait. I'm in no hurry.
Freke and Gandy go to some length to make a case for the resurrection being the achievement of Gnosis. This is
explained on pages 127 and 128, and on that latter page the subject is wrapped up thusly:
The resurrection is not a future event. It is the awareness of our true identity as Consciousness. This can only happen right here and now. . . .
. . . The Treatise on the Resurrection urges us:
‘Realize that you are resurrected already. Are you – the real you – something that can decay? Why don't you examine yourself and see that you have risen?'
PARTS OF THE GNOSTIC VISION I FOUND MOST APPEALING OR INTRIGUING
The Ideal Society: Freke and Gandy
piece together from various sources what the Gnostic vision of the ideal society would be, and it is very different
from the society defined by the Pentateuch. The fact they were irreverent free spirits is suggested on page 31.
That they were eclectic, seeking truth wherever it might be found and not getting hung up over names and labels
is suggested on pages 32 and 33. They were egalitarian, rejecting divisions based on economics (p. 33) and even
sex (p.34). Freke and Gandy suggest there were both ascetics and libertines among the Gnostics, but that the libertines
were probably not so to the degree their detractors suggest (pp. 35-36).
God Consciousness: Pages 60 through
68 discuss the self as a consciousness that is part of the One Consciousness of God. Their explanation is simple
yet quite comprehensive, starting with the rather startling observation that Gnostics taught that the body exists
within the larger soul rather than the other way around. What most caught my eye was the resemblance of the idea
of humans as the "many" flowing from the "One." It seems quite similar in some ways as the
B.H. Roberts [Mormon leader of early 20th century] idea that God is One, but Made of Many. [Reference: "God."
Chapter V of Discourses of B. H. Roberts of the First Council of Seventy, also known as The Last Seven Discourses of B.
H. Roberts. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1948).]
Roberts, of course, is talking about all those who achieve Godhood becoming part of the One God. But the difference
is in the timing. Freke and Gandy suggest what is essentially the same thing, that all that achieve Gnosis, who
know they are consciousness within Consciousness, are resurrected. Those who die without achieving Gnosis go to
hell, which is simply to fall back into this life, back into a body (page 109, pages 76-77).
This is made very clear on page 109:
As we have explored previously, the original Christians do not understand Hell in the same way as the later Literalist Christians. Literalists teach the horrendous idea that after one life some of us will be doomed to burn in the underworld forever. Christian Gnostics, like Pagan Gnostics before them, teach that this world is the underworld. We come here many times, progressing through many lives in an ongoing process of spiritual maturation which reaches fruition in the realization of Gnosis. Those who do not realize Gnosis in this life are reincarnated here to continue their spiritual schooling. This is symbolized by the left-hand path to Hell. . .
The "right-hand path," of course, leads to Heaven and involves knowing our . . . "essential nature
to be the Mystery of God."
OK, I can't let this stand without a smart-alecky remark. If being born into this life is hell, doesn't that suggest
that this world and this body are not good, that returning to the world of the spirit is good?
Isn't this what the Literalist Christians also taught? Isn't this why the
Cathars believed sex for procreation was playing into the hands of the devil/Demiurge? Of course the Cathars
had a very different opinion on sex from that of the Christian Literalists. Sex for recreation was OK among the
Cathars, because you were showing the devil you were on to him.
The Gnostics' generally negative view of earth-life is one aspect of Gnosticism I cannot identify with or positively
appreciate. It is what turns me off about the Cathars, for example, but to make up for it Cathars were in a state
of rebellion against feudal and church institutions. Cathars ran a cooperative society, with some improvement
in the role of women, and thought sex was OK for the non-perfect, normal believer. But it was best to use sex
for recreation rather than procreation.
One of the reasons I like the Freke and Gandy version of Gnosticism is that they have positive things to say about
Earth and earth-life, as we will explore next.
Earth-Life is Hell? For some,
at some time, undoubtedly. But generally and in the context of the Freke and Gandy treatise? No.
Earth-life serves a purpose within and convoluted with the grander purpose of the cosmos. What is that grander
purpose? You need to read several chapters in Freke and Gandy to get the big picture and get it right. To make
a caricature of their explanation I have gone to page 131 where words make clear that although Consciousness is
the source of all we know, it is still not the "ultimate source," the "Absolute Mystery" which
is "utterly unknowable," "ineffable."
The point, of course is that once Consciousness existed, through some unknowable process, it (p. 135)
. . . imagines itself as an infinitely complex conceptual matrix . . . which shapes the ineffable potential of the ‘undifferentiated One' . . . into the appearance of a ‘cosmos', which means ‘beautiful order'.
The ellipses inside the quote above is where I deleted the male and female
names and attributes assigned to the Consciousness and the conceptual matrix it separates from itself, in which
the cosmos evolved. That male and female characterization allows the use of a symbolic Sacred Marriage to symbolize
the final reunion of the all into the One, an idea we will briefly mention later.
The next few pages make clear that we are manifestations of Consciousness, we are emanations of the One that became
the many. And what is the purpose of it all? For us as well as for the One it is to (p. 139):
. . . become aware of our deeper nature, as the mysterious source of all. This fulfills the primal aspiration which inspired Consciousness to create the cosmos. When we know we are the Mystery, the Mystery knows itself.
Pages 139 and 140 cite Gnostics who proclaim that given this purpose of again becoming the One, which we once were
and still are, our beginning in Consciousness is also our end.
On page 147 Freke and Gandy make an important summary statement under the title of this being "All God's Idea."
Even the foolish Demiurge (the creator, in some versions of Gnosticism this is the devil) is playing a vital role
in creating this cosmos:
What seems to be an error is actually the will of God – a necessary part of the divine plan which will eventually turn out for the best.
This means, hint Freke and Gandy, that we should not see the Christian myth cycle (Gnostic-Christian that is) as
painting a "very negative view of the cosmos we inhabit."
In the process of explaining these ideas, Freke and Gandy mention on page 148 that they involve esoteric topics
such as the need for the one essence to become two repeatedly in a cascade of emantion to create the cosmos and
allow our existence. The idea of a mystical marriage of Christ and the Goddess is a symbol for the final reunion
of the opposites that will fulfill the Father's secret plan of Eph. 1:9-10 according to Freke and Gandy. In a
preceding chapter, they addressed time and evolution in this same way, pointing to their being the tools or methods
of creation, tools needed in the scheme for our achieving Gnosis. We will turn to these ideas next.
Evolution, Time and Heaven: I
really liked this paragraph from page 137, and much of its contextual discussion. It projects the idea that the
entire cosmos is reaching toward some ideal state, and this brings into some harmony the concept of time, the idea
of evolution in the biological sense, and human yearning:
Time is the evolving cosmos, which is ‘ever labouring to bring about the ideal, planning to lead all to an unending state of excellence', as Plotinus puts it. In nature this manifests as the evolution of ever more sophisticated physical bodies to express the potentiality of consciousness. In human society this is expressed in the utopian dream of creating Heaven on Earth. In each individual it is expressed by the impulse towards the Good which manifests as the desire to become a kinder, wiser person. . . .
Mystical Marriage, Necessity of Opposites, Free Agency, Role of Evil: I wanted to just mention that if I were still a believing Mormon I would look twice at
several claims made by Freke and Gandy. In the course of explaining their view of Gnosis as the ultimate goal,
both for individuals and for the cosmos, all of the topics in the heading above are addressed in ways that reminded
me of what I believed at one time as a mormon.
To me, the Book of Mormon closely reflects the Freke and Gandy discussion of the necessity of opposites, of free
agency in sentient beings, and the origin of evil . Note that the correspondences are not exact, we are only comparing
the intersection of seemingly related ideas between two traditions of belief widely separated in time and space.
On page 163 Freke and Gandy say the creator, the Demiurge, is God's creation. On page 169 they cite an Ebionite
source saying that Christ and the Devil are brothers, opposites who emanated from the same Oneness. On pages 164
and 165 they discuss the role of free will in us as being necessary for progression into self-knowledge, which
is Gnosis, which is salvation.
In addition, the idea of a Mystical Marriage (pp. 86, 98, 148 and many others) between a God and Goddess is generally
taken very literally in the large tent that is Mormon doctrine. But whether literally or figuratively believed,
it is obviously the case that in Mormonism it is this ‘Sacred Marriage' that is believed to produce, from the Gods
who are the Parents, the many in whom God dwells, us. The Gods are perfected humans. This is of course a caricature
of a more complex thought, but the Gnostics and Mormons do have many ideas in common. Both claim humans are Gods
in embryo, emanations form the One into the many.
Since these ideas were attractive to me in Mormonism, they are also attractive to me in Freke and Gandy's version
of Gnosticism. If you would like to read a great treatise on the need for evil, free will, and opposition to allow
the creation to exist and salvation to become possible, read 2 Nephi 2:11-25 in the Book of Mormon. The devil
is characterized as an angel fallen from heaven. And the fall is an act in concert with the will of God. Verse
25 is famous in Mormondom and for good reason:
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
[Staying at a Marriott has this benefit: a Book of Mormon sits in a drawer in every room. Perfect, in case you
need to cite from one in writing a book review!]
"The Love Affair of Life:"
This title was a real breath of fresh air to me because under it Freke and Gandy propose their positive view on
life, a view I heartily endorse. Freke and Gandy proclaim the following to be Gnostic doctrine. All I, as a non-specialist,
can say is this: "If it ain't, it ought to be!" An example of the language that was very reassuring
to me is taken from page 178:
Gnosis is not a retreating from life, it is valuing human incarnation as a precious opportunity to commune with the Oneness through the multiplicity, to discover the Good through the good and bad, to find Love through separation. Gnosis is not being the One instead of a separate individual, but as well. It is living as God and man, after the mythical example of Jesus.
[It is] Far from rejecting the world as a worthless illusion . . . .
On page 179 Freke and Gandy say that the mystical marriage of Jesus and the Goddess in Gnostic Christianity symbolizes
that . . . "Gnosis is living life as a love affair of complementary opposites."
I really liked the explanation Freke and Gandy gave of what it means, in the Gnostic perspective, to be "In
the Cosmos But Not of It" (p. 180). They turn it from a potentially negative view on the world to a positive
one. Their discussion includes the suggestion that "withdrawal into detachment defeats the whole point of
life." Their discussion of "Love" on pages 181 and 182, and of "Faith" on pages 182 through
184, are also nice but did not really add to my appreciation of Gnostic ideas and ideals.
All in all, it was the discussion on pages 178 through 181 that made the whole book worthwhile for me. It was
the content of these pages that kept me from foregoing this little self-assigned job of writing this page on my
positive impressions on this book by Freke and Gandy.
The Bottom Line: At the end of
Appendix A (p. 204) is the last and best line on what it means when we have achieved Gnosis (my capital letters):
WE ARE IN LOVE WITH ALL BEINGS.
If I were writing that line I would leave off the final ‘s.' But either way:
May that time come to pass, in each of us, sooner rather than later, and the world will indeed have entered a new
and better age!
______________________________________________________
MISCELLANEOUS (SEMI)POSITIVE THOUGHTS ON ITEMS OF INTEREST TO ME, BUT PERIPHERAL
Finally there were parts of the book that I found historically and otherwise interesting.
1.
One is in a discussion of Muslim Gnosticism where it is observed that some sources declare that the Prophet Mohammed profited from his exposure to Ebionite and Manichaic teachings. I didn't know that. Interesting.
Anyone that cites my friend Rumi can't be all bad, and his verse literally closes the Freke and Gandy book. At
the end of the second appendix (page 209) Rumi has the last word!
2.
Another interesting part was regarding the history of the Cathars. They were correctly named as Gnostics, at least
at the height of their popularity, but under persecution they turned literalist. And it was their social vision
and program that attracted people to their belief system, not the beliefs themselves. I write about that in several
places in this website, it is just an aside here. Freke and Gandy discuss them on their pages 48 and 49.
3.
Finally, I groaned inside as I saw the section looming on "Objective Science and Subjective Gnosis" on
pages 191 through 193. I thought sure there would be a real flight of fancy here that would irritate me no end.
The last book that irritated me no end on this topic was The Dancing Wu-Li Masters and it took me over a hundred
pages to tell you what I thought of it: most all of it negative.
But I was pleasantly surprised, Freke and Gandy's only reference to quantum physics was in an endnote I could
not find real fault with, and their main thrust was to recognize what the section-title implied, although "scientist"
and Gnostic" both are words meaning "knower" (p. 192-193):
Science and Gnosticism are complementary ways of exploring the mysteries of existence. Science is concerned with objective knowledge about the cosmos. Gnosticism is concerned with subjective self-knowledge.
They carry these comparisons on a little longer and then ask the question:
Could the future see a return to the ancient understanding of subjective spirituality and objective Science as complementary sides of humanity's exploration of existence?
Their answer is positive. It could happen. It requires a "rejuvenation of Gnosticism" and a "rejection
of Literalism." Good, I'll buy that.
But, and there is always a but, this idea of there once having been an "ancient understanding of subjective
spirituality and objective Science" needs a reality check.
What comes to mind is Aristotle, spiritualist-philosopher-scientist writ very large, stopped progress in science
because he got the Gnosis and the science mixed up and pronounced truth for both, truths not to be questioned.
This was the science adopted by the Christian Literalists as being in harmony with their gnosis-so-called, and
any questions led to an unwelcome response. Read the last item (# 26) in my long reading list on the next page
in this series.
Socrates, Pythagoras, Plato, and Plotinus may fall into the category of individuals who were both spiritually aware
and philosopher- scientists, I agree. That is why they are all discussed in Freke and Gandy's book (see page 304
for example). This uncommon combination of spiritual and intellectual prowess is what made them outstandingly
different in their own times. That is why we know of them today. Socrates was a martyr, he was so different from
the standard human defined in his own times that they killed him. So outside of these individuals, was there ever
a real "ancient understanding" of these things? It is a nice thought.
1. CLICK HERE to go back to the First Early Christianity page.
2. CLICK HERE to go back to the 2nd Early Christianity page.
3. CLICK HERE to go to the Last (4th) Early Christianity page.