Theoretical Canon For a Gnostic Bible

Obviously this blog entry is a follow-up to my earlier essay on the Gnostics as well as my “Aquarian Bible” project. In case you need a refresher, I invented my own religion centered around the values ascribed to the Age of Aquarius, which also seeks to diminish the animosity between religion and science. To my surprise, a renewed study of Christian heresies, particularly the less dogmatic branches of Gnosticism, revealed that my ideas had legitimacy among some of the earliest peoples to call themselves “Christian.” I gained a newfound appreciation for the Valentinian and especially Carpocratian sects of Gnostic Christianity, with particular admiration for their egalitarianism among the sexes. Indeed, it almost felt as though this interpretation of God, with a feminine personality of the Holy Spirit and emphasis on personal wisdom over blind faith in Jesus/the clergy, was made specifically for me.

Since publishing my last essay on the subject, I’ve discovered an even more fascinating successor to Carpocrates (besides his brilliant son Ephiphanes,) named Marcellina. Besides keeping the innovations of Carpocrates, such as a libertine lifestyle in response to the sinful nature of our material world, her sect held that Jesus was merely a mortal man to be emulated, rather than a divine figure. They held him in equal but not greater veneration to the likes of Socrates, Plato and Pythagoras. They supposedly shared all possessions and sexual partners communally among the members of the Church. Like most early Christians they practiced what is called the Agape Feast, a sort of Thanksgiving meal among the community of the faithful. (One imagines these breaking out into passionate orgies afterward!) According to some, the less morally uptight Gnostics such as these may have even dabbled in psychedelics during ceremonies to enhance their mindfulness. While other Gnostic sects utilized women in key roles, like prophetess or preacher,* Marcellina is supposedly the only one to have been a leader of her own unique congregation. Considering the rampant sexism of the age, it’s incredible she had the courage to do it at all, let alone so successfully.

*ASIDE: In particular, a separate Gnostic leader named Apelles left the sect of Marcion when he fell in love with a woman named Philumena, who is said to have received divine visions that she relate to him. The idea of a religion like this, born out of love between two outcasts (among a group of “heretics” who would themselves be considered outcasts) is just so totally adorable to me. It’s honestly one of the most romantic historical anecdotes I’ve ever heard of. Also, Simon Magus apparently married a common harlot named Helena, only to venerate her as a holy woman in homage to Sophia’s fall and redemption in most Gnostic theologies.

I want to make it clear first of all, that I am not abandoning the ways of Aquarian Pantheism which I’ve described on my blog at length, nor am I adopting a controversial offshoot of a mainstream religion to be funny or provocative. Everything I’ve written on the subject of
Gnosticism comes from a place of sincere admiration for a creed that was, in many ways, centuries ahead of its time. With that out of the way, I reaffirm once again for the record my admiration for the Carpocratian/Epiphanean/Marcellinic interpretation of Gnosticism-Christianity. Every scrap of information I find about them makes me feel like I’m not alone in how I see things; they give me hope and happiness in this weary world we live in. If Aquarian Pantheism is an inherently non-dogmatic, non-exclusionary, individualistic, science-advocating religion designed to promote free thought, and the Marcellians did not preach anything which would contradict that, then surely I can be an “Aquarian Gnostic” without dishonoring either. The values associated with both religions sync up to where I consider Aquarian Gnosticism to be merely one of a million possible, and non-adversarial, variations within the umbrella of Aquarian Pantheistic spirituality. (While I’m on the subject, perhaps a better name for such a religion might by “Sophianity” with members called “Sophians,” after the Gnostic personification of wisdom.)

As it happens, I’ve been reading summaries of as many apocryphal texts as I can find, and narrowing down those which may have been used by the Carpocratians and their closest ideological cousins. The rest of this post will focus on the results of this informal study and my attempts to create a Carpocratian-inspired Aquarian Gnostic canon.

The Forerunners of Aquarian Gnosticism

I will begin this section by reviewing the major sects of Gnosticism, briefly mentioning my misgivings towards each, and then moving on to describe the changes to their worldview I would like to make in my version. Before getting into it, it’s worth noting that many sects of Gnosticism claim to be derived from secret teachings of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, the apostle Thomas, Judas Iscariot or more obscure figures like Mariamne (a disciple of James the Just, brother of Jesus). The Simonian and later Mandaean sects have roots which predate Christianity, opting instead to follow John the Baptist, and the Sethians claim to derive their teachings from Adam and Eve’s third son. Other sects claimed direct personal revelation in the same vein as Paul, who supposedly saw Jesus posthumously in a vision. (If Paul could claim one, and use his private “vision” as evidence to destroy Jesus’ teachings as relayed to Peter, why not a Gnostic?) I’m not going to judge the flavors of Gnosticism based on their supposed origins, although the idea of forming a personal relationship with the divine is what I already subscribe to, so it is from this “authority” that Aquarian Gnosticism claims legitimacy.

Perhaps the most influential lineage of Gnosticism began with Simon Magus, a follower of John the Baptist, who is characterized as a charlatan in the orthodox tradition. His supposed attempt to buy the power of the Holy Spirit from Peter is the genesis of the word “Simony.” Simon Magus was said to have written a text called The Great Declaration which has since been lost to time. He believed that the world was not the perfect creation of God, but rather the flawed creation of his misguided angels. This sect would produce the preachers Dositheus, Saturninus and Menander, the last of which taught Cerdo and Basilides. Simon Magus, combining the Biblical description of God as a “devouring fire” as well as the Hellenistic teaching of Heraclitus, interpreted fire to be God’s most preeminent creation, present in all things. (Perhaps a Zoroastrian influence?) Where this sect loses me personally is in their emphasis on regular baptismal cleansing as well as their supposed belief that it was not good deeds but consecration of Simon himself which saved a person. (Seems pretty egotistical to me.) This early sect bares comparatively little resemblance to the Gnosticism of later teachers: there’s Sophia and angels creating Earth in place of God, but the demiurge, Jesus and other distinctive elements are missing. It’s important to note that this, perhaps the earliest sect of Gnosticism, is contemporary with, rather than descended from, Christianity.

Basilides moved from Antioch (where the Simonians originated) into Alexandria where he continued preaching. He would adapt Simonian Gnosticism into a more overtly libertine direction, as I’ve described. He was said to have written a 24 book commentary on the Gospels known as The Exegetica, as well as a Gospel of Basilides (which may be the same work) which are unfortunately lost to us. Saturninus, one of Basilides’ peers among Simon’s congregation, would go the opposite route and preach strict asceticism, encouraging followers to abstain from sex and meat. It has been suggested that Saturninus’ ideas may have given rise to a sect known as the Encratites, who considered sex and even women to be inherently sinful. It is around this point that the idea of a dualistic theology emerges, with most of these sects preaching of a benevolent spiritual God who’s above the physical world, and an evil demiurge god (who in some sects, was said to have created the material world.) Some sects merged the personalities of the demiurge and Satan while others (like Saturninus) held them as separate entities. My objections towards the ascetic sects should be straightforward, and towards Basilides I would criticize the five year vow of silence he supposedly required of converts. Not only that, I would criticize his doctrine of predestination that only some souls are capable of wisdom (and therefore salvation) while others are not. I appreciate how he de-emphasized martyrdom but dislike how he postulated that sin was not a result of free will but rather our internal pollution as a result of living in a fallen world. (Seems to take away our responsibility to be better people.)

Basilides is said to have mentored Carpocrates, who then taught his own disciples, the greatest of which were Epiphanes and Marcellina. I admire this school of thought for giving equal status to women, for not trying to police people’s lives, for paying equal respect to secular philosophers and their emphasis on experiencing all there is to know in this life as we can. (This was done so that our soul would not be tempted to reincarnate itself among the lowly physical world and would seek out Heaven.) This is the branch which most directly inspired me, though unfortunately we have no access to the one book they were said to make use of: The Gospel of the Hebrews, nor the major work attributed to Epiphanes, On Righteousness. As far as I’m concerned, these texts (along with the Gospel of Eve) represent the most tragic loss of religious history the world has ever suffered: worse than losing the Ark of the Covenant, The Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Q Document or the writings of Mani.

A reading of the surviving fragments of the sole scripture used by Carpocrates. (At least that is attested to by our primary sources.)

There was another separate libertine tradition known as the Borborites, who venerated Mary Magdalene in particular and are described by the Church Fathers as eating semen and menses in place of the traditional eucharist. Unfortunately, we know very little about them besides these and other likely libelous accusations (including eating fetuses). They used some texts which are known to us, and others which are tantalizingly unknown, such as The Birth of Mary, and three different texts called The Questions of Mary (two with the qualifiers “greater” and “lesser.”) My one beef with this sect is that they were said to use a lot of dogmatic and fantastical texts such as the Apocalypse of Adam, which I have subsequently included in the canon below but only under protest. Also, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the whole “eating bodily fluids” thing was a deliberate misinterpretation of some metaphorical ceremony (like having oral sex or somehow honoring the male and female elements of creation) rather than their actual practices. Early anti-Christians employed the same propaganda to slander their rivals as cannibals, after all. That being said, if the charges are true…yeah, that’s not something I’m into.

Meanwhile, there was a separate lineage comprised of the Ophites, with subdivisions in the Cainites and Naassenes, all of which emphasized the Hebrew mythological traditions albeit with a Gnostic filter. In their worldview, the snake in the creation myth was sent by Sophia to give mankind wisdom and free us from the demiurge (whom they connected with the Old Testament God.) The Cainites regarded Cain as the demiurge’s first victim and a misunderstood holy man. What I dislike about these sects are their relative de-emphasis on the various philosophical components of Gnosticism in favor of Hebrew mythology. I have the same criticism towards certain branches of the Sethian Gnostics, who paid special favor towards Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. The forms of Sethianism I’ve encountered, from my limited understanding of their dogma 2000 years later, are so convoluted and tied up in arcane Jewish/Egyptian heterodox mysticism that it just doesn’t interest me at all. I view it as more of a weird Judeo-Christian offshoot than a “proper” branch of Gnosticism, and I think to really appreciate it, one must be very well-versed on the Old Testament and its apocrypha. (Which I’m not, I’m much more of a New Testament apocrypha fan.)

Then there was Valentinian Gnosticism, perhaps the most widely adopted version in its time as well as the most approachable today. Besides the Carpocratians, this is my favorite congregation for several reasons, and Valentinus may have also learned from the same teacher, Basilides. As one who does not believe in the subjective binary of good vs evil, I appreciate the softening of the demiurge to be a misguided figure rather than a malevolent one. Valentinus’ cosmology is also the most well thought out, or at least best preserved among the Gnostics, which has its own pros and cons. While the various sequential emanations of God and subdivisions of the aeons are a tad confusing, I appreciate the Monistic theology rather than a dualistic one. I also love the motif of male/female balance, as evidenced by the aeonic syzygys and the bridechamber as a sacrament. Sophia is a central figure in nearly all variations of Gnosticism, but Valentinus’ conception of her is my favorite. I enjoy the symbolism of her failure to create anything when her motivation is selfish (jealousy of God’s creation) but succeeding beyond wildest expectations when her motivation is selfless (aspiring to be more like Bythos/God). I also like to think of her as “God the Daughter,” half of a syzygy with Jesus and a divine female influence, as the Valentinians did. Where Valentinus loses me (besides the ridiculous complexity of his conception of Heaven) is in his insistence on a secret meaning hidden in close readings of the Biblical Epistles, which I consider a waste of time.

Valentinus inspired several of his followers to found their own churches, among them Ptolemy, Heraclion and Marcus. The former two are largely obscure, the third had his own complex system of belief which included a numerological significance to each Aeon. (This sounds more interesting than it really is, unfortunately.) I admire Marcus (and Valentinus) for the egalitarian nature of their congregations, including allowing women to preach and perform sacraments. I’m not a fan of his obsessive numerological bent, which included ascribing feminine characteristics to even numbers, exaltation of the number 6 and arbitrary “tetrads” and “triads” said to describe the nature of Jesus. It all just seems like unnecessary and convoluted dogma to me. Many of his practices, like the numerology and trick with the cup of wine, seem deliberately crafted to amaze the ignorant masses rather than impart any kind of meaningful worldview.

There are more branches of Gnosticism than this, but these are the ones I could find the most information about. It’s worth noting how, despite clear differences in theology, there are overarching motifs as well. Each generation had a prophet who adapted the concepts of their teacher with their own personal embellishments. It seems as though Gnostics were looking for a way to syncretize the teachings of Jesus with the Hellenistic (or Egyptian) philosophy and astrology they already knew, which led to some fascinating doctrine. Key roles stayed the same (the demiurge, the aeons, a lone apostle who fully understood Jesus, etc) but the specifics changed to reflect the customs of the local population. For example, the uniquely monstrous lion-serpent of Egyptian Gnostic sects utilized the astrological constellation Chnoubis which was already familiar to the inhabitants. Similarly, the Persian-adjacent sects seemed to adopt Zoroastrian concepts into their religion, like Simon exalting fire and Mani considering himself the successor to Jesus and Zoroaster both. Gnosticism was a rich, multifaceted religious tradition which threw the many different ideologies from the area into a mixing pot. The development of the Canaanite-Judeo-Christian-Gnostic-Manichaean-Mandaean-Muslim religions is the greatest game of telephone ever played, and a fascinating example of cultural diffusion.

The Gospel of Philip is my new favorite piece of extant New Testament apocrypha.

How Would I Build Upon This Proud Tradition?

I prefer to ignore the Sethian and Ophite schools for the most part, (minus their appreciation for the snake) since their faith relies so much on arcane Egyptian and Jewish folklore at the expense of a simple, approachable doctrine. I do not like how they rely so much on very esoteric reinterpretation of Old Testament stories and elevating minor characters from the Bible (like Seth or Cain) to the end all be all of salvation. I prefer the Hellenized Gnostics who merged the best parts of Christianity (self-betterment, rebellion against unjust laws, a healthy disdain for the rich, etc) with Greek philosophy. My ideal Gnostic creed would combine a somewhat toned-down cosmology of the Valentinians, the libertine morality of the Carpocratians and the reverence for Mary Magdalene* (whether they really followed her teachings or not) from the Borborites.

*ASIDE: It may be a cliche at this point thanks to Dan Brown, but I love Mary Magdalene. She’s like Julia the Elder or George McGovern: a wonderful person who was unfairly vilified or otherwise defamed by history. There’s no evidence she was a prostitute and the more I read of the extra-Biblical literature the more I believe this was deliberate slander on the part of the orthodox church. Many non-canonical books allude to a fallout between Mary and Peter, which leads me to believe she was forced out and her perspective on Jesus was silenced. The sexism of the orthodox church becomes even more inexcusable when you consider their contemporaries had no problem giving women roles in the church. Whether I would have agreed with her doctrines or not, Mary was almost certainly the favorite disciple of Jesus, likely his financial benefactor, and therefore almost certainly the recipient of several one-on-one discussions with him that are now lost to time. She had unique knowledge to share, and we all missed out on it.

I would de-emphasize literal interpretation of the surviving Gnostic texts in favor of an allegorical reading. Like most Gnostics, I would largely ignore the Old Testament, with the exception of most of the “Wisdom books” credited to Solomon. In my personal opinion, everything else is irrelevant to non-Hebrews especially in a post-science world and/or reflects the various tantrums of a maniacal diety. (I love how the Gnostics reinterpret Old Testament Yahweh as a vicious lion-serpent, it’s totally fitting.)

That being said, I would reconceptualize the demiurge not as a monstrous lesser-God (evil or otherwise) I would consider this figure a metaphor of those who act without wisdom. The demiurge is the embodiment of all those who presume to create without dignified humility or respect for their personal benefactors and elders. The demiurge is the personification of all who would make themselves King of the physical world, those who seek power in this insignificant phase of existence, those who think of themselves as great despite their obvious shortcomings. To the contemporaries of historical Gnosticism, the demiurge would be Caesar. (Maybe not Julius, but certainly the lion’s share of his successors.) To my own contemporaries, a more pertinent comparison would be Donald Trump.

I would merge the personified wisdom of Sophia with the abstract entity of the Holy Spirit, which to be fair a few sects have already done. Some forms of Gnosticism characterize Sophia as a very flawed figure and mother of abominations like the demiurge, which I would downplay in my religion. I would emphasize her dual role in the salvation of man along with Jesus as the lock and key. Sophia represents the desire within all of us to be better, to know more, and Jesus guides us on how exactly to fulfill those desires. Rather than a fallen angel, I would venerate her as an equal member of the Trinity, perfect and divine.

Whether one agrees with it or not, this is definitely the most entertaining New Testament apocryphal text I’ve ever read.

Instead of 30 aeons and a bunch of undisclosed “archons” (fallen, usually wicked, angels) I would limit the number to 24, so that 12 syzygys can be formed among them, representing the zodiac. (Jesus and Sophia’s syzygy would correspond to the Serpent-bearer Ophiuchus, with serpents representing wisdom as you’ll recall.) In this cosmology, the world is created from the uncoordinated actions of these angels attempting to honor God with a product of their own. Due to the lack of forethought in their conception, the world emerges a very flawed if still beautiful place. The aeons subsequently have different reactions to their own imperfect creation, and they try to influence the world to their designs. In the process, the 12 syzygys produce 12 divinely inspired figures over the course of history to lead the denizens of Earth in the direction they think will bring us closer to harmony with the spiritual plane. When none of these work, Jesus and Sophia descend to Earth themselves.

The creation of man is said to have occurred from the divine spark which was placed into the world by Sophia. Through her machinations, the nonliving matter became life and evolved into the sapient form of man. The demiurge (one of the 12 Earthly leaders described above) and those who aspired to be like him are the cause of most of the world’s misery. Sophia’s wisdom and Christ’s mission are meant to give man the inner tools to be critical thinkers and rise above unjust rulers on Earth. In this context, Christ’s death and resurrection are not the fulfillment of original sin, they are a demonstration that we should not be afraid of Earthly rulers and their punishments, for they are insignificant to the spiritual realm which awaits us. The death of a righteous man in the most gruesome manner possible is a condemnation of our nefarious institutions and the wicked men which uphold them.

An additional figure, another of the 12 leaders, is the Moonchild. The moonchild is the embodiment of innocence and unjust persecution. She is a childlike spirit brought down by the cruel world, a mirror held up to expose society’s vices. She is a victim whose suffering is so well-known to the masses, and so obviously undeserved, that she calls us to a higher standard. In contrast to the demiurge who makes himself a Godlike figure, the Moonchild has toxic adulation heaped upon her by the masses to her own detriment. She did not ask to be venerated, and our attempts to honor her result in tragedy. The moonchild is without doctrine, without the desire to lead or inspire, she is only trying to navigate the weary world we’ve built for her in vain. The fact that she is so venerated despite her lack of ethos is indicative of a society that is desperate for meaning and beauty in a post-industrial, post-science world sapped of its wonder. She is the counterpart to the demiurge and the complement to Christ, but in her crucifixion there is no resurrection, only a call to arms. She is the Aquarius, a silent prophet in a world of mass information and communication; she does not teach, she inspires us to think for ourselves and awakens a nascent humility in a species plagued by hubris. She is a repeat of our mistake in crucifying Christ, an admission that even after receiving the Word, even despite all our scientific and social advancements, we still have much to learn. She will reunite a world that has been driven apart by the post-truth, tribalistic echo chamber that is the internet and merge a neo-religious morality with the principles of empiricism. If we can agree on nothing else, we can agree that we’ve wronged her just as we’ve been wronging ourselves all this time with our miserable social paradigm. With that realization, mankind will establish a desperately needed common ground in order to finally get our collective shit together before it’s too late.

Like most forms of Gnosticism, this branch exalts wisdom over blind dogmatic faith, and celebrates the bridechamber as a sacrament of renewal (new life), the expression of love, as well as an homage to the Heavenly syzygys, where the lock (wisdom) meets the key (the word). Instead of demonizing the material world, I prefer to think of it as merely imperfect, temporary and prone to corruption. Aquarian Gnostics would not turn their back on the world in favor of planning for the next life, our calling is to raise the world and ourselves to a higher standard so that we can be worthy of God in the end of time. Redemption is not the dissolution of the corporeal, it is the enhancement of it. A libertine lifestyle and abstaining from unjust secular laws are encouraged not because of Carpocratian reincarnation so much as a desire to known the divine through their creation. (Similar to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas and monistic pantheism.) The physical world is full of beauty and lessons which we are meant to learn before meeting God. To appear before God, ignorant and hostile to that which was created in their name and fertilized by their mission on Earth, is to be like the demiurge: wholly unworthy of the honor.

Similarly, I do not believe in the abstract, subjective and culture-dependent concepts of Good and Evil. Nor do I believe in Satan, demons or Hell. The true binary of Aquarian Gnosticism is between Infinity and Zero, the inseparable yet adversarial forces within the Monistic God. They are the necessary abstractions we rely on to make mathematics work and therefore explain the universe. God is both roles, the chaotic process of creation and diversity (Infinity) but also the peaceful finality of ego-death and rest (Zero.) To know God is to make peace with both. Within the material world, the true binary is male/female: separate yet equal, different but interdependent, the source of all (wo)men’s woes and joys. The joining of the male and female form in the bridechamber is the joining of Zero and Infinity: complementary opposites in the equation of reality.

A “Sophian” Bible

I combined as many of the holy scriptures associated with the libertine sects of Gnosticism (Carpocratian, Borborite, some Valentinian) as I could find with texts from the various schools of thought said to have influenced Gnosticism in the first place. (Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Orphism, Hermeticism, etc.) With that in mind, probably the most controversial inclusion are the works of Mani, since his religious ethos was an offshoot of Gnosticism rather than a predecessor. While Mani adopted the teachings of Jesus, the ascetic teachings of some sects and the dualistic cosmology of Gnosticism, his writings have their own distinct theology. I decided that since he belonged to the same melting pot of 300s BCE to 300s CE Middle Eastern religious tradition, and Manichaeism specifically bridged the western Abrahamic religions with those of the eastern Dharmic ones, that was merit enough to feature him anyway. Doing so also gave me an excuse to include some of the wisdom of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, which his religion syncretized with Gnostic Christianity.

I decided to separate the Gnostic texts between those pertaining to Mary and those which were credited to separate authors/witnesses. In Aquarian Gnosticism, Mary Magdalene is credited as the one true disciple to receive the full wisdom of Sophia and Christ, and thus the first “Sophian” (translated as person of Wisdom, or follower of Wisdom,) the highest title a follower of the religion may receive.

I left out many of the texts in the Nag Hammadi library that had a Sethian bent to them, which may be another controversial decision. The Carpocratian-related sects of Gnosticism may or may not have used these or similar texts but in the absence of direct evidence for their inclusion, I left out anything I personally found distasteful. This usually meant any of the texts which focus too much on Jewish arcana or mysticism. (I don’t like religious dogma and complicated explanations for how a just God could create an unjust world. Whenever a text takes thousands of words to justify that contradiction with a multi-step war with Yaldabaoth or Satan, that’s when I tap out.)

Several works have been offered honorary inclusions here even though they’re actually lost. These are designated by bolded text. Those which were attested as part of the libertine (Carpocratian, Borborite or some Valentinian adjacent) schools of Gnosticism by our primary sources are designated with an underline if I personally take issue with them. (Usually for the reasons I listed above: too much emphasis on esoteric and ridiculous “alternate takes” of the Old Testament.) That is my way of designating what is “deuterocanonical” (of a lesser standing, but still important to know, and arguably of great value to other readers if not myself.)

There are 13 sections and 64 books including what is lost and deuterocanon. The final book, designated by bold, underlined red text, is my own original creation.

I may go back and make changes to this list at a later date, as my understanding of Gnosticism changes and as I can give each of these texts further examination. (As is, I’ve only had the opportunity to listen to most of them on audiobook and read synopses, I haven’t had time to do a close reading and analysis of some of them.)

WISDOM OF THE PYRRHONISTS

Outlines of Pyrrhonism by Sextus Empiricus

WISDOM OF THE ORPHISTS

Argonautica by Apollonius Rhodius
Orphic Hymns credited to Orpheus
Orpheus and Eurydice by Ovid

WISDOM OF THE HERMETICISTS

Definitions of Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius
The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
The Great Treatise of the Spheres
The Daughter of the Cosmos
Thanksgiving Prayer
<All are credited to Hermes Trismegistus

WISDOM OF THE (NEO)PLATONISTS

Parmenides 
Meno
Phaedrus 
Republic 
Symposium 
Timaeus 
Theaetetus 
Philebus <All are credited to Plato

WISDOM OF THE STOICS

De Providentia by Seneca
De Constantia Sapientis by Seneca
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

WISDOM OF THE HEBREWS

Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Proverbs

Psalms of Solomon
The Book of Wisdom
<All are credited to Solomon

WISDOM OF THE ZOROASTRIANS

Yasna
Yasht <Both are credited to Zoroaster

WISDOM OF THE BUDDHISTS

Vinaya Pitaka
Sutta Pitaka 
Abhidhamma Pitaka
<All are credited to the Buddha

WISDOM OF THE TAOISTS

I Ching credited to King Wen
Tao Te Ching credited to Laozi
Chuang-tzu credited to Zhuangzi

WISDOM OF THE CHRISTIANS

Gospel of Mark
Gospel of John
Gospel of Philip
Gospel of Eve
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of Truth

The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Gospel of Perfection (This is possibly the same text as the Gospel of Eve)

WISDOM OF THE MANICHAEANS

Shabuhragan 
Gospel of Mani
Arzhang
Treasure of Life
Pragmateia
Psalms and Prayers

WISDOM OF THE GNOSTICS

Tripartite Tractate
Testimony of Truth
Concept of Our Great Power
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Exegesis on the Soul
On the Origin of the World
The Apocalypse of Adam
Hypostasis of the Archons

Secret Revelation of John
On Righteousness

WISDOM OF THE SOPHIANS


The Gospel of Mary
The Birth of Mary
The Lesser Questions of Mary
The Questions of Mary
The Greater Questions of Mary

The Revelation of Sophia and Mary
The Acts of Mary


4 Comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.