The Gospel Of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, And The Gnosis Of Sacred Union

Rating:
Summary: "Steamy Sex with Jesus and Mary"? Hardly, But a Fine Book.
Review: Kudos to Mr. Leloup for a valuable contribution (if a somewhat free "translation") to our knowledge of this gem from the Nag Hammadi library, where it lay in jar in the same "volume" as the profoundly important "Gospel of Thomas" for nearly 2000 years. As to the publisher's misleading (and inadvertently hilarious) back-cover enticements, well, that's another story. "The Gospel of Philip," we are assured in the breathless copy, "is best known for its portrayal of the physical relationship shared by Jesus and his most beloved disciple, Mary Magdalene." Ahem - not quite. There is a line, in this translation anyway, in which Jesus kisses Mary "on the lips," eliciting what is apparently jealousy on the part of the other disciples (though this is not quite clear). And that's about it for the Jesus - Mary connection. It is true that, in this translation at least, the reunification of mankind required for the return to God is described twice in terms of an analogy to sexual union in the "bridal chamber," but there is nothing at all depicting Mary and Jesus in any such bridal chamber or union (the aforementioned lip-kissing excepted). Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.

As to the translation itself (following a scholarly Introduction, dating the Gospel of Philip to roughly 150 C.E.), Leloup concedes that his rendering of the opaque original text (largely incomprehensible gibberish in the earlier Nag Hammadi Library translation) is creative and speculative, and it is fairly obvious that he has been influenced by A Course in Miracles, for which he finds ample support in the Gospel. Indeed, the most moving (because most comprehensible) parts of the text are those which depict the re-gathering of mankind (all life, actually) into what the Course describes as the Sonship, as the last triumphant step before the return to God. If Leloup is correct, and these elements are in fact a key part of this ancient forgotten Gospel, then the Course itself also deserves a second (and third) reading. Or is Leloup only "finding" these themes in the strange Coptic text, the way one "finds" shapes in Rorshach inkblots? Without a working knowledge of Coptic, it's difficult to tell, of course. But Leloup certainly makes a strong case that the Gospel of Philip was shockingly different from any of the canonical Gospels, and even from the (much earlier, Leloup believes) Gospel of Thomas. What is really needed, but what we will likely never have, is a Gnostic Skeleton Key text, a Gnostic Rosetta, to provide the background theoretical framework (possibly Jesus' own, or a derivation of His teachings, it is true), without which the text is almost hopelessly strange and seemingly garbled. (Ancient Gnostics, no doubt, would be proud of the opacity of the Gospel, which only the Enlightened Ones would be able to make sense of).

This is not to say that, in Leloup's hands, the Gospel of Phiip does not have moments of numinous beauty and clarity as breathtaking as anything in the Gospel of Thomas. "God is a dyer;/ The good dyes, known as genuine,/ become one with the materials they permeate./ This is how God acts." (p. 73, ll. 43-46) (And even here, what is the gratitous "known as genuine" tag doing there?) And, "Humanity is the food of God" (p. 79, l. 50). What a strange notion. Again, "In the beginning, God created humans;/ then humans created god." (p. 115, ll. 94-95). And a masterful sermonette on the need for God's teachers to accord their message to their listeners: "There are many animals in the world who appear in human form;/ the wise one gives acorns to pigs, barley, hay, and grass to livestock, bones to dogs,/ to servants he gives basic lessons;/ and to his children, the teaching in its entirety." Where do the canonical Gospels fit in this hierarchy, one wonders.

Did Jesus really say these things? Hard to imagine this, but possible - though the Gospel text does not attribute these to Jesus (only once or twice is Jesus directly quoted). Presumably these are meant rather to be Philip's reflections on what he learned from Jesus. Whichever it is, this is essential reading!