1st as a field anthropologist I have traveled to the Mediterranean region and have lived with remote peoples still immersed in ancient cultures. Many of these people still practice Christianity as it was before the rise to power of the Roman Church. Often these ancient Christian values and beliefs are hidden within approved Roman Church dogma and ritual, but they are in fact a belief that would be labeled heretical. The people we in the 20th century did not see themselves as Gnostics in the sense that we portray them. They were believers in the lord and messiah. They were closer to the roots of our Christianity then we probably ever will be. They were the losers in a political struggle that was using the budding religion of Christianity as a weapon of mass destruction. What we have about these early days of the church is legend and history as written by the conqueror, the Roman Church, which by the way was and is a department of the Roman Empire. Had the “Christians” in power at the time practiced a little Christianity we would today have a much better understanding of the ideas and knowledge that these people had collected from the time of the Messiah and the eons from before his birth. I think we need to withhold our labeling of these early Christians as Gnostics as if they believed in a entirely different god.
2nd I would like to comment on the concept that writings such as the Sophia of Christ are rejecting the God of the Bible as being the “Almighty”. We in English speaking cultures are at a significant disadvantage when we read the Bible, as we must depend on a translator who we do not personally know to interpret what he reads in Greek or Hebrew then accurately relay that thought to us, without bias. This has rarely been done in the past. For example when we read Genesis 1:1 we read in English “In the beginning God created…”, however the Hebrew word Elohim, which is translated as the word God is the plural form of the word and literally means “Gods”, as in a group of entities not a singular one. Don’t confuse this with a monarch saying “we” and speaking in the plural about himself. Because the other problem with English translations is the use of the English word God to represent the thought of Elohim. Actually a more accurate translation of Elohim in twentieth century English would be “eternals”. Thus Yahweh of the Bible becomes Yahweh of the Eternals or the almighty. With this concept in mind we see in our own holy scripture is the story of the eternals (created by Yahweh) making the heaven and the earth. This is the same message as relayed by the Sophia of Christ. One more instance of mistranslating into English that can really contribute to the many apparent paradoxes of the Bible, is found in 2Peter 1:18 “And2532 this5026 voice5456 which came5342 from1537 heaven…” Notice the number 5026 next to the word “this”. This a Strong’s number which allows a reader to look up the original Greek or Hebrew word and its meaning. In this case the word that is translated as “this” is taute’ which as a feminine pronoun and should be translated into English as “her”. Meaning the verse should read in English “And Her voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”
A entirely different light would be cast on many early Christian writings and other alternative scriptures, if more people in the English speaking Christian world took the time to not only read their English bible but to question the translation by looking up the underlying Greek and Hebrew words. I think that those who were truly secure in their faith would welcome a clearer vision of the scripture content that would unravel many of the most obvious challenges we face with the Bible.

Angela said…

Though I feel that my understanding of these documents will not occur anytime in the near future, I do find that the use of Eugnostos by the Sohia document demonstrates how authors and early Christian groups were influenced by their surrounding communities (regardless if the influence was Judeo-Christian or not). Furthermore, it seems possible that “Eugnostos communities” that were “pre-Christian” would have been more willing to accept this document because they were familiar with the Eugnostos teachings. The example of these texts really reminds us to study each text within its social and historical background to find all possible influences.

9:20 AM
Sacha M. said…

I agree with Angela with regard to the ‘Christianizing’ of documents. However, what I find most striking about the ‘Fall of Sophia’ is its similarity with Marcion. Both Marcion and the author of ‘Sophia’ reject the God of the Hebrew Bible. Also notice that ‘the fall’ is again attributed to the feminine (rather than being Eve’s fault it is Sophia’s).

11:46 AM
Phil Harland
Phil Harland said…

Your comments here underline just how important it is to understand early Christian literature within the broader literary and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world.

Also, on Marcion, one of the interesting things about him is that his good God (who sends Christ) previously had nothing to do with this here material realm. This contrasts somewhat with Sophia in the document discussed here, who is a consort among the beings that constitute the spiritual realm along with the perfect “Forefather”. For Marcion, the perfect, loving stranger God had no such (indirect) connection to this material world (which was indeed created by an “inferior” creator–identified with the God of the Hebrew Bible). So with both The Sophia of Jesus Christ and Marcion, there are two gods, with an inferior creator god (identified with the God of the Hebrew Bible / OT) and a perfect God who sends a saviour. But they differ on the (previous) relation of the perfect God to the material world and humans within that world. Phil

2:08 PM