The discovery of the Nag Hammadhi texts in 1945 seems single handedly to have recreated the modern interest in Gnosticism. It provided other or more complete versions of texts, as well as ones unknown or known about but no text previously existed. Since then a series of translations have surfaced, including this one by Alan Jacobs. His stated aim was to make the texts more readily accessible and understandable. In order to do this he has consciously removed their more esoteric impenetrable aspects. It is probably safe to say this translation should more accurately be called a rendering. Perhaps I held an expectation of what these texts should be like. But I couldn't escape a neutered feeling about this translation I could not quite shake off. Something of their essential character having been stripped from them. Robbed of their full range of linguistic richness, the metaphors impoverished, the imagery dulled.
Apart from this sense of being too far removed from its original source, what else did I find? Well, the texts are mostly very different in character to the accepted Gospels of the Bible. Some phrases by Christ re-emerge in slightly different form or contexts. Most of these 'gospels' are not gospels in the traditional sense, but collections of reputed sayings or dialogues by Jesus or a disciple. Some resemble later commentaries or poetic evocations. There are no stories or parables. When I read them it seemed quite obvious why these would be left out of the official gospel selections. The metaphysical theology beneath them diverges significantly from the considered norm. The central idea being that we learn to become one with the Godhead, reborn as the Son or Daughter of the divine. Which gives a whole new slant to what the epithet Son of God is meant to infer. It may not be a literal, but a spiritual state.
Their outsider status, is as much to do with the Gnostic in Gospel's use of language tone, metaphorical language, symbolism and imagery of the spiritual path, which sets them apart from the New Testament texts. Without commentary or explications these would be basically indecipherable to the casual layman. These are not parables or teaching stories. They require quite a bit of unpacking. If these really are a whole other set of teachings by Jesus ( and I do say If ) then they were probably for his close and more experienced disciples only. One of whom, Mary Magdalene, has the honour of being the only female disciple of Jesus to have her own gospel, via this 'Gnostic' tradition.
Similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadhi texts are texts written for a particular sect of early Christianity which no longer exists. These sects are randomly grouped together under the Gnostic banner. Though it appears there was no one singular identifiable stream of Gnostic Christianity. There were just a bunch of unorthodox traditions, one offs so to speak, that gradually declined before history could capture their essence, or establish what teachings they may have held in common. Leaving a cache of apparently disconnected texts in pots in caves etc. The nearest living relative to these early sects is the Coptic Church in Egypt.
Gnosticism as we currently know it, is a modern reconstruction of a tradition that most likely never existed in the form it has now been given. Which is why modern Gnosticism can appear to be such a hotch potch of Christian Esotericism, Spiritualism, the Alchemical, Occultism with a fringe of New Age mysticism, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all and all. Perhaps they never did hang together as a coherent religious philosophy. But they do show how the early sects of Christianity absorbed a broad range of influences and were wildly eclectic with non conformist tendencies.
CARROT REVIEW - 4/8
No comments:
Post a Comment