Books of the Savior & crucifixion
Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 3:55 pm
So I find Pistis Sophia to be a really weird text, but for a special reason.
For those unfamilar with the askew codex, books 1-3 are one entity and books 4-5 another, and they are thematically (not stylistically) quite a ways off. 1-3 are a massive compendium of every gnostic tidbit the author could find, and they are congested into a singular teaching. (The Authades, for instance? The word appears once, and only once, in the Apocryphon of John describing Ialdabaoth - but here it's used for a different guy, and much more frequently. As usual, I don't have quotes on me, but basically, if a gnostic text describes something unique, chances are high you'll find it in here somewhere, in some form.) 4-5 are just sort of there, are inappropriately more self-standing and probably more ancient. Both are unique in the compendium of Gnosis in that they describe or even discuss sin and punishment, and they are written in a similar style.
It looks evident to me that the author of 1-3 took a lot of inspiration from 4-5... so what I find weird is that while the latter mentions the crucifixion (once and only once, at the very beginning, using the tau-rho glyph as expected) books 1-3 don't, and in fact completely gloss it over. According to book 1, Jesus sat upon a hill meditating, then vanished into a beam of light, then there were darkness and earthquakes and noise, and after that he returned, bringing the ultimate knowledge. Even when taking into account all the Christian miscellanea that contributed to the text... Jesus' death, for Catholics the main course, has been deliberately left out. On one hand it makes sense (he is Jesus the Living after all, I suppose), but on the other, what harm would death & resurrection do to the text's structure? Zero. He could have very well died and came back from heavens, in accordance with Catholic tradition, like he does in book 4. Yet instead we get a mouthful of ouoeins describing his departure and return, and boy is there a lot of light in those paragraphs. I guess it shows how much of an opposition to the Catholics they were building here; no Jesus on the cross. Never happened.
Another tidbit. What's the point of saying: "From this day on, I shall speak to you directly, face-to-face, no allegories," before starting an obviously allegorical tale that requires his students to present an explanation for each of the repentances? My take is that, again, it's a deliberate stab at the "truth" advertised by Catholics, since the gospels were to be understood literally and the OT allegorically. The repentances are interpretations of OT texts (which are to be interpreted), but since they are interpretations, they are to be understood literally. But this is backwards, as here, un-interpretable texts are interpreted with stuff that's supposed to be an allegory. Confusing!
I am seriously ambivalent about these texts, they are either impossibly boring (translating those 13 repentances sure felt like an actual repentance!) or really interesting (there's so much stuff in there and it's all tied together against all expectations). They should be discussed more, though.
PS I dislike the name Pistis Sophia, it is such an impossible new-ager magnet it's ridiculus. The actual name is "Portions of the Scrolls of the Savior" and I strive for its wider recognition. =|
For those unfamilar with the askew codex, books 1-3 are one entity and books 4-5 another, and they are thematically (not stylistically) quite a ways off. 1-3 are a massive compendium of every gnostic tidbit the author could find, and they are congested into a singular teaching. (The Authades, for instance? The word appears once, and only once, in the Apocryphon of John describing Ialdabaoth - but here it's used for a different guy, and much more frequently. As usual, I don't have quotes on me, but basically, if a gnostic text describes something unique, chances are high you'll find it in here somewhere, in some form.) 4-5 are just sort of there, are inappropriately more self-standing and probably more ancient. Both are unique in the compendium of Gnosis in that they describe or even discuss sin and punishment, and they are written in a similar style.
It looks evident to me that the author of 1-3 took a lot of inspiration from 4-5... so what I find weird is that while the latter mentions the crucifixion (once and only once, at the very beginning, using the tau-rho glyph as expected) books 1-3 don't, and in fact completely gloss it over. According to book 1, Jesus sat upon a hill meditating, then vanished into a beam of light, then there were darkness and earthquakes and noise, and after that he returned, bringing the ultimate knowledge. Even when taking into account all the Christian miscellanea that contributed to the text... Jesus' death, for Catholics the main course, has been deliberately left out. On one hand it makes sense (he is Jesus the Living after all, I suppose), but on the other, what harm would death & resurrection do to the text's structure? Zero. He could have very well died and came back from heavens, in accordance with Catholic tradition, like he does in book 4. Yet instead we get a mouthful of ouoeins describing his departure and return, and boy is there a lot of light in those paragraphs. I guess it shows how much of an opposition to the Catholics they were building here; no Jesus on the cross. Never happened.
Another tidbit. What's the point of saying: "From this day on, I shall speak to you directly, face-to-face, no allegories," before starting an obviously allegorical tale that requires his students to present an explanation for each of the repentances? My take is that, again, it's a deliberate stab at the "truth" advertised by Catholics, since the gospels were to be understood literally and the OT allegorically. The repentances are interpretations of OT texts (which are to be interpreted), but since they are interpretations, they are to be understood literally. But this is backwards, as here, un-interpretable texts are interpreted with stuff that's supposed to be an allegory. Confusing!
I am seriously ambivalent about these texts, they are either impossibly boring (translating those 13 repentances sure felt like an actual repentance!) or really interesting (there's so much stuff in there and it's all tied together against all expectations). They should be discussed more, though.
PS I dislike the name Pistis Sophia, it is such an impossible new-ager magnet it's ridiculus. The actual name is "Portions of the Scrolls of the Savior" and I strive for its wider recognition. =|