Paul and the veiling of Achamoth, The Book of Mary

---

The Gospel of Phillip talks about the mystery of the bridal chamber.

No one can know when the husband and the wife have intercourse with one another, except the two of them. Indeed, marriage in the world is a mystery for those who have taken a wife. If there is a hidden quality to the marriage of defilement, how much more is the undefiled marriage a true mystery! It is not fleshly, but pure. It belongs not to desire, but to the will. It belongs not to the darkness or the night, but to the day and the light. If a marriage is open to the public, it has become prostitution, and the bride plays the harlot not only when she is impregnated by another man, but even if she slips out of her bedroom and is seen. Let her show herself only to her father and her mother, and to the friend of the bridegroom and the sons of the bridegroom. These are permitted to enter every day into the bridal chamber. But let the others yearn just to listen to her voice and to enjoy her ointment, and let them feed from the crumbs that fall from the table, like the dogs. Bridegrooms and brides belong to the bridal chamber. No one shall be able to see the bridegroom with the bride unless he become such a one.

The bridal chamber is where the person, in the form of their ‘perfect self’ and their spirit are combined in the mystic marriage. The female component, the pure and virgin bride, must be kept secret.  She is for the eyes of her husband only and for the children of the bridal chamber. Others must not see her or she will be turned into a whore.

Paul talks about the same concept, when he appears to be sermonising about women being veiled in church.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the husband [or man]; and the head of Christ is God.  (1 Corinthians 11)

Paul believes that in the mystic marriage what is male has authority over what is female, and what is female is the glory of what is male.  A head of the female part of the hermaphrodite person/spirit couple is her husband the male component.  So a woman’s head is her spiritual husband. But the man’s head is not his spirit but the perfect man in the image of the Christ. This relationship between a person and their spirit echoes the relationship between Jesus and Achamoth whereby Jesus has authority over Achamoth. Paul continues: 

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head uncovered, honours his head. But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.  For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Corinthians 11)

The phrase ‘have her head covered’ does not refer to wearing a hat but to wearing a veil.  Superficially Paul is giving instructions as to how women should worship.  There is nothing in the passage to say that such worship should be in ‘church’ or a community situation – Paul’s instructions would seem to apply equally to a woman in private.  Neither does Paul make any suggestion that a woman should be veiled in the Christian community when she is not praying or prophesising.  Of course many have interpreted this passage as applying to church but that is because they have a preconception that Paul is addressing the question of decency in communal worship.

In other places Paul makes it clear that his vision of prayer is two fold. A person prays with both his understanding and his spirit.  In Romans 8 Paul says ‘for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered’.  Later in 1 Corinthians he says ‘I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also’.  As to prophesising it is clearly the spirit that is involved. So both prayer and prophesying are times when the person is in a state of union with their spirit.  But the union with the spirit is the same as entering the ‘bridal chamber’ and Paul’s instructions do not refer to church but to the bridal chamber.     

What does Paul mean when he talks about a woman being shorn? Having the head shorn was a punishment for the adulteress. So when Paul says that a woman who ‘prays or prophesises’ unveiled should be shorn, he means that she is being an adulteress to her husband. The concept is the same as expressed in the Gospel of Phillip.  Even by showing her self to other men (who are not themselves children of the bridal chamber) the bride is playing the whore.

So the provision for veiling of the woman is directed at the bride in the bridal chamber.  It can be understood at two levels.  First a woman who enters the bridal chamber by entering a state of union with her male spirit in a sense becomes Achamoth herself.  The veiling of the woman physically is therefore symbolic of the veiling of Achamoth, the bride, as she meets Jesus the bridegroom.  So Paul is saying that a woman should be veiled whenever she enters a state of spiritual union whether or not this is in public because at such times she represents Achamoth.  But there is second deeper meaning.  The bride is also the man’s female spirit.  Paul is saying that men should keep this spirit veiled and not expose it to the gaze of others who are not children of the bridal chamber.  A woman, on the other hand, whose male spirit is in the image of the Christ, can talk about her spirit freely and openly.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.  For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11)

Here Paul is expressing traditional Jewish concepts by regarding the bride of the mystic union as being created for the benefit of the bridegroom. The phrase ‘the woman of the man’ recalls the separation of the male and female in the Garden of Eden. It was this separation which introduced death into the world and which the mystic union of the bridal chamber corrects.  The bridegroom, in the image of god himself, shines with the light or glory of the father, while the bride, like the moon reflecting the light of the sun, shines with the reflected light of the bridegroom.

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.  (1 Corinthians 11)     

This little phrase causes great problems for the conventional interpreters of Paul.  He appears to belief, naively, that an unveiled woman in church would arouse the lust of the angels! But the Gnostics would have understood this differently. The angels are the agents and messengers of Yahweh whom the Gnostics believed was the demiurge.  Yahweh thinks he is the ultimate god. But this is not true for he is really the lower god, or demiurge, being the son of Achamoth. Men and women have within them part of Achamoth so that they also, although appearing lowly, are in reality above Yahweh.  If the angels of Yahweh were to discover this image of Achamoth within the heart of men then Yahweh, the jealous god, would be enraged. The same does not apply to the Christ, as Yahweh believes, wrongly, that Jesus is his son.  It follows that Christians can speak openly about the Christ but must keep the bride, Achamoth, veiled and in secret.

This phrase is one of the indications Paul subscribed to this view that Yahweh was the demiurge. In general Paul regards angels as being malevolent forces. In Romans 8 he lists angels among the things that shall not ‘separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord’.  In 1 Corinthians 4 he talks about the apostles being ‘made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men’.    In 2 Corinthians 11 he says ‘Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light’.  In Galatians 1 he warns about false teachings from angels – ‘But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed’.  Particularly telling is a phrase in 1 Corinthians 6:

Know you not that we shall judge angels?

Paul clearly believes that man is above the angels, and shall have the right to judge them.  In Galatians he talks about the role of angels in bringing the law. In Paul’s view the law was not part of the original promise made to Abraham but was a temporary addition made in response to the transgressions of the Israelites.  He says about the law that -

… it was arranged by angels in the hand of a mediator.   Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.  (Galatians 3)

The law was given to Moses by Yahweh and so the mediator is Yahweh.  He comes between man and the ultimate god, the father.  But god is one, and when a person is united to god through the spirit they are no longer under the rule of the mediator, Yahweh, and his angels.

Paul’s passage on veiling continues;

But neither is a man apart from a woman, nor a woman apart from a man, in the Lord.  (1 Corinthians 11)

This is an explicit and clear reference to the spiritual union of male and female in the bridal chamber. The phrase ‘in the Lord’ indicates that Paul is speaking spiritually and not about worldly marriage.  A person is not apart from their spiritual husband or wife ‘in the Lord’. As Paul advises both men and women not to marry, his expression here is contradictory unless interpreted spiritually.

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Corinthians 11)

The psychic will read this as saying that although the woman came form the man in the Garden of Eden, man is born from the woman in the world. But the pneumatic will understand it as an allusion to the female spirit coming into existence though the man and the male spirit, including Jesus himself, coming into existence through the woman.  This meaning flows on naturally from the previous phrase.

After this Paul lowers his discourse to the psychic level. He uses an appeal to nature that long hair is comely on a woman but not on a man so a woman should have her head covered. He ends with a straightforward command – “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God”.

The Valentinians understood that this passage referred to the veiling of Achamoth. In Gnostic myth Achamoth initially appears veiled to the Christ, her redeemer, out of modesty.  Irenaeus reports that the Valentinians believed –

the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle [by Paul to the Corinthians], when he says, "A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels."

Another perspective on this passage in Paul is given by the wedding song sang by the apostle Thomas in the Gnostic work, the Acts of Thomas (not to be confused with the Gospel of Thomas). Although the Acts of Thomas is not early itself it includes a number of apparently earlier passages including the wedding song sang at a wedding feast. It relates to the mystery of the bridal chamber and gives a description of the mystic bride.

The damsel is the daughter of light, in whom consisteth and dwelleth the proud brightness of kings, and the sight of her is delightful, she shineth with beauty and cheer. Her garments are like the flowers of spring, and from them a waft of fragrance is borne; and in the crown of her head the king is established which with his immortal food (ambrosia) nourisheth them that are founded upon him; and in her head is set truth, and with her feet she showeth forth joy.

This gives a different meaning to the idea that the female participant of the bridal chamber ought to have ‘power on her head’ – meaning a sign of power or authority. In the wedding song the king himself is established on the crown of her head. The title by which Jesus and early Christians are apparently known, Nazarene, could have been derived from the word for crown or victors wreath.  The song seems to be suggesting that the king (Jesus?) is himself the crown.

The end of the song could apply to Mary herself although the twelve could have an astrological significance -

And twelve in number are they that serve before her and are subject unto her, which have their aim and their look toward the bridegroom, that by the sight of him they may be enlightened; and for ever shall they be with her in that eternal joy, and shall be at that marriage whereto the princes are gathered together and shall attend at that banquet whereof the eternal ones are accounted worthy, and shall put on royal raiment and be clad in bright robes; and in joy and exultation shall they both be and shall glorify the Father of all, whose proud light they have received, and are enlightened by the sight of their lord; whose immortal food they have received, that hath no failing, and have drunk of the wine that giveth them neither thirst nor desire. And they have glorified and praised with the living spirit, the Father of truth and the mother of wisdom.

The veiling of Achamoth explains a mystery in the epistles of Paul, in that the female aspect of the deity represented by Achamoth and the female spirit do not play an explicit role.  Paul talks about the spirit constantly but he always studiously leaves the sex of the spirit in doubt.  The Greek word, pneuma, which he uses is a neuter noun.  In none of his writings about the spirit does he imply that it is male. He often calls the spirit ‘the spirit of god’ but this does not mean that the spirit is itself male as the Jews referred to Wisdom in the same terms as ‘the Wisdom of god’.

Christianity emerged from the Jewish Wisdom tradition and Wisdom in the form of Achamoth was central to the early Christian Gnostic cults, not least the prominent Valentinians.  The Valentinians themselves traced their descent directly from Paul.  To many Gnostics Paul was ‘the apostle’.  Given the continuity of the Wisdom tradition from pre-Christian to Christian Gnostics, and the fact that the Gnostics themselves regarded Paul as the source of their school, it is clear that Paul must himself have been a follower of Wisdom.  But to Paul, Wisdom was part of the ‘hidden knowledge’ that must be protected both from the un-initiated and from Yahweh himself.  The veiling of Achamoth was symbolic of the need to protect the hidden female spirit to safeguard the purity of her beauty.  So Wisdom disappears explicitly from Paul’s writings, and so the mainstream church which followed Paul devalued the feminine.

As the church of Peter settled into an orthodoxy which excluded Achamoth, the epistles of Paul were edited to bring them in line with orthodox thinking.  Thus Paul is made to say that women should not speak in church in a passage which is almost certainly not genuinely written by Paul. Similarly new epistles were crafted and attributed to Paul, so that Paul could appear to attack the Gnostics who revered him as their apostle. As to what passages were so obviously contrary to orthodox teachings that they had to be edited out of Paul’s writings, that it is impossible to tell.

http://www.bridalchamber.com/html/mary_17.html

---

Simon Magus

Now early in the Jesus movement there was a follower of Mary called Simon, a man educated in the Greek manner.  Maybe this Simon is the same as mentioned in the gospels as one of the Twelve, the Simon who later became confused with Peter.  Maybe he was not. Either way this Simon became ripe for the harvest, and was taken down unto the resurrection by Mary. And from the resurrection he had a wife and sister whom he called Helena.  And Helena was glorious with the light.

So Mary seeing that Simon was full of the spirit sent him to Samaria to preach the good news.  And there Simon taught the people about Jesus and he taught them even more about Helena and through Helena about Achamoth. For to him it was Helena that was the divine one, the spring of beauty that quenches all thirst. And in doing this he was not disobeying Mary.  For Mary did not instruct her disciples to teach this and not that. Nor was any held as master above the rest, for all who had the spirit were held equal and the only truth recognised by any of them was the truth of god as revealed by their spirit.

And Simon was full of the spirit as he preached and the Samaritans held him as a great one.  And this is what Simon spoke to them.

“And the father came from the light that filled the all. And this one, the father was called the unbegotten, for he was born from none but came into being, motherless and fatherless from the light.”

Thus it says in the Gospel of the Twin:

Jesus said: When you see him who was not born of woman, throw yourselves down upon your face and worship him. He is your Father.

Simon continued. “The father was at the beginning before time, and is now, and will be at the end after time.  He is one who stood, the one who stands and the one who will stand and all three are one. For the beginning is the same as the end and they are the same as now and all times exist as a simultaneity.”

And some of the learned follows of Simon asked “But how can all times exist at the same time.  Is there not a future which is dark and unknown?”

“Time is an illusion of this world, an illusion of this age. In this world we are trapped by time – to our worldly self the future is a blank unknown.  But to the spirit that exists in the father there is no time.  The beginning and the end are one.  For this reason the spirit can bring to us things of the future which men call the gift of prophecy.  Yet the veil is never completely rendered until our bodies die and we are only spirit.”

“In this world we know that one thing does follow another. So we may change things that are in the future but not the past. But all such change is an illusion.  For all things, past and future do exist in the father. So if you are one who stands then you will have stood and you will stand.  And if you are not one who stands then you will never have stood and will never stand. For all potentially are standing ones yet few indeed are those who do actually stand.”

And they asked him “How do we become standing ones like you!”

And he said to them, “Through the resurrection and the life, through the gift of the spirit. Then you shall be standing ones!  You are all children of the father. And being children of the father you are the father.  You are gods.”

And Simon’s disciples murmured.  “How can this be – we are gods! How can we be the Father!  Surely he blasphemes!”

But Simon unperturbed went on. “You too are like the father for he made you in his image. The spirit is a single point yet it opens up into the infinity of the father.  The spirit is the father and you who have the spirit are the father!”

The Samaritans called Simon the standing one.  The Gospel of the Twin refers to how few will be the standing ones:

Jesus said: I shall choose you, one out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one.

In the Gospel of the Twin are references to ‘he who stood, stands and will stand’ in two sayings.

For there are many first who shall be last, and they shall become a single one.

The first is the ‘he who stood’, the last is ‘he who will stand’.  The first becomes the last if the person is united with their spirit to become a ‘standing one’. As a standing one the circle is complete and they become single  - ‘he who stood, stands and will stand’.  Also -

The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us how our end shall be. Jesus said: Have you then discovered the beginning, that you seek after the end? For where the beginning is, there shall the end be. Blessed is he who shall stand in the beginning, and he shall know the end and shall not taste of death.

Here again is the circle – the end is the same as the beginning. A person who stands in the beginning ‘he who stood’ knows the end – he is the same as ‘he who will stand’.     

Now the author of the gospel of Mathew had the saying in front of him from The Gospel of the Twin - For there are many first who shall be last, and they shall become a single one. ‘What does this mean?’ he asked himself. Lacking spiritual discernment he came to the conclusion that those who are the first to be converted will be the last in the kingdom of heaven but that all, first or last, shall eventually be united. So he made up a parable about a man hiring labourers for his vineyard.  Those who came in the third hour are paid the same as those who came in the eleventh hour. And at the end of the day the workers are paid in reverse with the latecomers being rewarded first. But the story is absurd for no vineyard owner would pay men the same for doing one hour of work as for doing several hours of work.  And the parable does not explain the conclusion:

So the last shall be first, and the first last, for many are called, and few are chosen. (Mathew 20) 

For even if all are paid the same there is no reason why the latecomers should be paid first.  The author of Mathew does not understand the saying he is reporting. The chosen are those of the spirit whereas the called are those who believe. The statement ‘the last shall be first and the first last’ applies to the chosen. They exist before time and they exist after time and the first existence is the same as the last existence. As it says in the Gospel of the Twin:

Blessed is he who was before he came into being.

Paul also is familiar with the concept of ‘he who stands’. In his epistles he is constantly using the word ‘stand’ to refer to the possession of grace of faith:

- this grace in which we have stood (Romans 5)
- to his own master he doth stand or fall; and he shall be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14)
- so that he who is thinking to stand -- let him observe, lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10)
- Watch you, stand in the faith; be men, be strong;  (1 Corinthians 16)
- for by the faith you stand. (2 Corinthians 1)
- stand, and be not held fast again by a yoke of servitude (Galatians 5)
- that you stand fast in one spirit (Philippians 1)
- so stand you in the Lord (Philippians 4)
- that you may stand perfect and made full in all the will of God (Colossians 4)
- because now we live, if you may stand fast in the Lord (Thessalonians 3)

One revealing use of these phases is immediately before his account of the resurrection appearances:    

 And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also you did receive, in which also you have stood, (1 Corinthians 15) …

And Simon continued to teach to his disciples. “I tell you a secret.  The father is not one fold but two fold, a hermaphrodite that contains both male and female.  And in the beginning the father was neither male nor female, But one part of the father, Achamoth , the female principle, splitting from the father perceived him as being male. Thus we the sons and daughters of Achamoth see the father as male.  Yet in his true nature Achamoth and he are one and they are the parents.”  

“And you too, who have been made in the image of the father, have been made hermaphrodite. For in truth none of you, neither man nor woman, is male or female.  But those of you being born men in this world, your male nature separating from your spiritual body, perceives that spiritual body as being female.  And those of you being born women, your female nature separating from your spiritual body, perceives that spiritual body as being male.”

“But when male and female, higher and lower, are united in the bridal chamber, man and woman become again whole and hermaphrodite.”

Hyppolitus also records how Simon believed that God formed man with a twofold male-female nature:

And He formed him not uncompounded, but twofold, according to (His own) image and likeness. Now the image is the Spirit that is wafted over the water; and whosoever is not fashioned into a figure of this, will perish with the world, inasmuch as he continues only potentially, and does [not] exist actually.

The spirit is in the image of God and must be recovered for a person to find eternal life – to exist actually rather than potentially.  God the father is himself twofold in nature being hermaphrodite:

But in this is a father who sustains all things, and nourishes things that have beginning and end. This is he who stood, stands, and will stand, being an hermaphrodite power according to the pre-existent indefinite power, which has neither beginning nor end.

The concept of entering the kingdom of god by returning to hermaphrodite wholeness is the meaning of a saying in the Gospel of the Twin:

 When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper as the lower; and when you make the male and the female into a single one, that the male be not male and the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter the kingdom.

The author of Mark when writing his gospel considered this saying of the Gospel of the Twin. He could not understand it and his version is highly confused and quite absurd.  He interpreted it as meaning that a person is better to sacrifice an eye, hand or foot in order to enter the kingdom:

And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter into the life maimed, than having two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter into the life lame, than having two feet to be cast into hell, to the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
And if your eye may cause you to stumble, cast it out; it is better to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of god, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.  (Mark 9)

Mark also has a miracle story in which a man with a withered hand has his hand cured and made whole. This is another example of a ‘hand in place of hand’.

Now Simon told the Samaritans many stories about Jesus, and about Mary, and Peter. Yet his followers always held himself, Simon as their leader.  And many of these stories, which Simon had told them, became confused with the person of Simon himself and with his spirit Helena.  And many said he was the same as the mysterious Peter who was revered by all but whom no one seemed to have met except those initiated into the inner mysteries and who would never talk about him. Maybe this idea that Simon was Peter spread from the Samaritans to the Jews and later, after both Simon and Mary were dead, gave rise among some of the Jewish followers of Jesus to the belief that Peter had been the name given to the disciple Simon, a belief that the author of Mark seized upon when writing his gospel. 

After Simon died the Samaritans began to confuse him with Jesus. And many remembered the words of Simon, how he had said that the standing one was the same as the father. As Simon was called “the standing one” they thought that the father had come down to Samaria in the form of Simon just as the son had descended to the Jews in the form of Jesus. For those of Samaria and Judea always despised each other and the Samaritans longed to outdo the Jews.  Because of these beliefs the Samaritan followers of Simon came into enmity with the other followers of Jesus. And no longer did the Samaritans say that Simon was the same as Peter, but they took the stories about Jesus and Mary and Peter and applied them to Simon and Helena.

Over time the other followers of Jesus completely forgot that Simon the Samaritan was a disciple of Mary and maybe the same as Simon Peter. Instead he became the evil magician Simon Magus. In the Acts of the Apostles Simon Magus is a magician who attempts to buy the power of giving the Holy Spirit from Peter.  He is introduced as doing magical deeds in Samaria:

And a certain man, by name Simon, was in the city before [Phillip] using magic, and amazing the nation of Samaria, saying himself to be a certain great one, to whom they all gave heed, from small unto great, saying, `This one is the great power of God;'  and they gave heed to him because of his having for a long time amazed them with deeds of magic.  (Acts 8)

He is converted by Phillip and baptised. When John and Peter visit Samaria he is amazed to see them give the spirit to others by the laying on of hands.  Simon brings money to Peter and asks him to give him the power of laying on of hands so that he can give the spirit to whomever he wills. But Peter spurns his offer and tells him to repent his evil ways.

The story as it stands is fiction but it records the conflict that exists between the followers of Simon and the other followers of Jesus.  Even to his enemies Simon was esteemed a powerful figure.  There was a recollection that he was able to give the spirit to people in large numbers.  The Acts tries to refute this reputation by saying, “no he did not really have this power but just tried to buy it from Peter.”

The pseudo-Clementine writings preserve a recollection that Simon was a powerful harvester in a curious story:

In short,' says he [Simon Magus], 'once when my mother Rachel ordered me to go to the field to reap, and I saw a sickle lying, I ordered it to go and reap; and it reaped ten times more than the others. Lately, I produced many new sprouts from the earth, and made them bear leaves and produce fruit in a moment; and the nearest mountain I successfully bored through.'

This is a clear reference to the harvest of the resurrection of the soul.  Simon has been sowing and reaping. The new sprouts refer to the reborn spirit.  The boring through of the mountain seems to be a reference to the descent to the underworld.  The reaction of those to whom Simon is speaking is also informative – they say that Simon is lying because these things had been from the days of their fathers and not done recently! This suggests that there were similar stories told about Peter and the other disciples.

Irenaeus gives more detail about Simon and Helena:

Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of heresies derive their origin, formed his sect out of the following materials:--Having redeemed from slavery at Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, a certain woman named Helena, he was in the habit of carrying her about with him, declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom, in the beginning, he conceived in his mind [the thought] of forming angels and archangels. 

Irenaeus describes how this woman was his Ennoea meaning first thought.  She descended to the lower regions of space and was detained there by the powers and angels.  She suffered at their hands and was detained in human body, passing from body to body, and being incarnated among other forms as Helen of Troy.  Eventually she descended to the condition of a common prostitute.  She was then found and redeemed from slavery by Simon.

It is clear from Irenaeus’ description that Helena is a form of Achamoth.  She is Simon’s spirit.  Just as Jesus is the male spirit of a woman so Helena is the female spirit of a man. And just as Jesus was considered by many to be a real man so Helena was considered by many to be a real woman. This belief that Helena had been a real woman was held by three church fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Hyppolitus. As Hyppolitus records:

And after having thus redeemed her, he was in the habit of conducting her about with himself, alleging that this (girl) was the lost sheep, and affirming himself to be the Power above all things. But the filthy fellow, becoming enamoured of this miserable woman called Helen, purchased her (as his slave), and enjoyed her person. He, (however,) was likewise moved with shame towards his disciples, and concocted this figment.

The pseudo Clementine account of the duel between Simon Magus and Peter offers some intriguing information about Simon – most of it ludicrously distorted. It records Simon’s magical powers, many of which are misunderstandings of Gnostic practice. For example he is recorded as being to make himself invisible to those who would lay hold of him – a clear reference to the Gnostic belief that the spirit of the Gnostic is invisible to the evil powers on its ascent to heaven. There is also the power to throw himself off mountains and be borne unhurt to the ground – a reference which echoes the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.  In these stories Helena has become ‘Luna’ who is said to be a form of Wisdom (Achamoth). An intriguing story is told about Luna:

Once, when this Luna of his was in a certain tower, a great multitude had assembled to see her, and were standing around the tower on all sides; but she was seen by all the people to lean forward, and to look out through all the windows of that tower.

Now this story is descended from a saying like this:

“The spirit in the Magdalene is visible to all who stand no matter where they be.”

For the meaning of the Magdalene is the tower, and the Magdalene’s spirit Jesus has been replaced by Simon Magus’s spirit, here called Luna.  And those who stand are those with the spirit but has been literally interpreted as people standing around the tower. But what the saying means is that Jesus is visible to all who have the spirit.

There is another story that may refer to Mary. In the pseudo-Clementine Simon admits that he does magic by means of -

“the soul of a boy, unsullied and violently slain, and invoked by unutterable adjurations, to assist me; and by it all is done that I command.”

He adds why the human soul has such power:

'I would have you know this, that the soul of man holds the next place after God, when once it is set free from the darkness of his body. And immediately it acquires prescience: wherefore it is invoked for necromancy.'

The boy has originally been created by Simon out of air and is a nobler work than that of god the creator. Then

“again I unmade him and restored him to air, but not until I had placed his picture and image in my bed-chamber, as a proof and memorial of my work.”

In this account is preserved a rare recollection that the image of the human soul is in the form of a dead child.  The human soul, represented by the boy, is created more perfect (out of air rather than earth) than Yahweh could make it. Yahweh was believed by Gnostics to be the demiurge or lower god, as opposed to the higher god, ‘the father’.  Once the soul is released from darkness, so that it becomes a spirit, it possesses magical powers including the gift of fore knowledge. After the souls redemption, represented here by it returning to air, the image of the spirit dwells in the bridal chamber. This is represented in corrupted form as a ‘bed-chamber’.  All these elements have been put into a literal story of a magician doing necromancy using the soul of a murdered boy.

In this story the soul image is male.  It does not belong to Simon, a man, because his spirit, Helena is female.  Although it could apply to any female ‘standing one’ there is a strong possibility that it is derived from stories originally told about Mary.  In this case the dead boy is Mary’s soul who is resurrected in the form of the man in white seen at the tomb in the resurrection account who turns out to be Jesus.

Similarly many stories that are told about Simon Magus that relate to Jesus. For example Simon is recorded as having had himself buried in Rome believing that he would be resurrected after three days like Jesus – but in Simon’s case this did not work and he stayed in his grave. Like Jesus he is recorded as having a virgin birth and to be a supernatural being who appeared as a man among men.

What about the tradition that Helena had been redeemed in a brothel in Tyre? If it is believed that Mary was a prostitute then maybe Simon met Mary in that brothel very shortly after the resurrection of Jesus and that meeting was to lead to the initiation of Simon. It is possible that the first disciples may have included ex-clients of a prostitute Mary and that Simon was one of these.

But most likely this is nonsense.  Calling Helena a prostitute recalls the prostitution of Achamoth and the role of Tyre, a seaport and a symbol of prostitution, is to represent the prostitution of the soul in the realm of the flesh.  There is detail which supports this interpretation in Hyppolitus’ account of the finding of Helena: 

But the angels and the powers below--who, he says, created the world--caused the transference from one body to another of (Helen's soul); and subsequently she stood on the roof of a house in Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, and on going down thither (Simon professed to have) found her. For he stated that, principally for the purpose of searching after this (woman), he had arrived (in Tyre), in order that he might rescue her from bondage.

The soul comes down to the roof of the brothel from the air or from heaven suggests that the brothel is not supposed to be taken literally but stands for the world.

The followers of Simon Magus thrived and were to provide competition with Christians for many years before being reabsorbed into the Christian Gnostic movement. The stories we have of Simon Magus date from this era of competition and are attempts to blacken the name of the followers of Simon based upon misreading and distortions of the stores that the followers of Simon themselves told, which in turn are based upon distortions of the stories often originally told about Jesus and Mary.  Thus in Simon we see the truth reflected and refracted through many obscuring layers.

Mary and Peter

As Jesus grew within Mary she commenced her ministry.  It was Jesus who spoke through her.

She began to spread the word to the people.  They laughed at her.  “Is this the woman Mary who is preaching to us?” Others were angry and would drive her out, beat her or try to have her stoned.  “How dare you, a woman, talk to us about God!” 

But a few, a very few listened.  These were the worse type of people, the prostitutes, the beggars, the sinners and idlers. They did not believe her but they listened.  Some of these were to become the disciples. As it says in the ‘long ending’ of Mark:

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. (Mark 16)

In John puts it more succinctly:

Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord  and that he had spoken these things to her.  (John 20)

This point in the gospel story, where Mary gives the disciples the news that Jesus has risen, is in fact the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The end of the gospels is the beginning. When the angel in the tomb talks to Mary and the other women in the Gospel of Mark he tells them that Jesus will appear to his disciples in Galilee. But there is another place in the gospels where Jesus appears to his disciples in Galilee – at the beginning of his ministry. 

The disciples disbelieve Mary until they see him for themselves. It was not enough for Mary to talk to them about Jesus.  He had to appear to them and become manifest. So she showed Jesus to them. She took them down into death with Jesus, down in the darkness of the tomb.  They were given the gift of the resurrection and they saw.

Yet there was something different about their experiences. The women saw Jesus just like Mary.  The men saw him too but more dimly. But they were given something else, something so beautiful, so true that it changed their lives just as Jesus had changed Mary’s. They were given the spirit in the form of a girl bride robed in white. For the realities of men and women are different and opposed: the reality of woman is man, and the reality of man is woman.

And Jesus instructed the disciples through Mary. He told them to go out and preach in his name and do miracles and prophesise so that the people might be amazed. And the disciples did these things, always acting in the name of Jesus.  Thus did the ministry of Jesus commence.

It came to Mary that she should take a male pseudonym so that the disciples would refer to her by this name.  And no one should know that it was her Mary who was the leader, except those who had seen Jesus.  For only in this way could the movement spread without the difficulties and ridicule that would attach to a female leader. Now Magdalene means in Aramaic ‘The tower’.  It symbolises strength and solidity. So Jesus gave her a male name which carried the same qualities. She would be known also by the name “The Rock” – in Aramaic this is Cephas and in Greek Peter. As Jesus told her:

And I say to you, that you are a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Mathew 16)

So Mary had three identities: she was known as the Tower, the Rock and her spirit was  Jesus, which means Saviour. All three names are linked in a passage in 2 Samuel where they are used as expressions to describe god -

The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; (2 Samuel 22)

The portrait of Peter that has merged over time is that of Simon Peter, a bearded middle-aged disciple who is impetuous, boastful and sometimes foolish but basically a loyal and warm-hearted follower of Jesus. Yet a close examination of the earliest sources reveals a very different picture.

The earliest evidence is from the epistles of Paul who confusingly appears to use both the names Cephas and Peter but who never calls either of them Simon. In the epistles of Paul Cephas emerges as a shadowy enigmatic leader of the Jesus movement who has come on the scene long before Paul.    

Turning to the gospels of belief, the earliest source Mark does say that Peter and Simon are the same but he never uses the term Simon Peter. A close examination of Mark’s uses of the names suggests that they were originally separate and that it is the author of Mark himself who has made the connection.

At the beginning of Mark the name Simon is used exclusively. Mark tells us that Simon has a brother called Andrew, that Simon and Andrew are both fishermen and that the two are the first disciples called by Jesus. Simon also has a mother in law who is taken ill and who is cured by Jesus. This all appears to be factual and straightforward information.

But in the gospels of belief things are never what they seem.  First the role of fisherman is highly symbolic.  As Jesus says to them ‘Follow me and I shall make you fishers of men’.  What do the fish stand for?  Fish live under the waters and the waters stand for the underworld that is frequently depicted as being situated under the water as well as, or instead of, being under the ground.  So the fish are denizens of the underworld; they are symbols of the soul. The operation of fishing is symbolic of the raising of the soul out of the underworld and into the air – that is into its spirit form. In this sense it parallels baptism.  A fisherman is one who can help others to the pneumatic resurrection.  According to Mark immediately after his encounter with Simon and Andrew, Jesus converts another two disciples James and John who also, by some strange coincidence, happen to be both brothers and fishermen. These four disciples form the hard core of the twelve in Mark - indeed they are the only ones, apart from Levi and Judas Iscariot, that the author of Mark appears to know anything about other than their names.  It is unlikely that any of them were fishermen in a literal sense and they probably were not biological brothers either.  The depiction as brothers is probably a confusion generated by the early Christian practise of referring to other Christians as brothers and sisters. James is described as ‘James of Zebedee’ and John as his brother.  Most likely this has given rise to the misunderstanding that both James and John were sons of Zebedee.

The curing of Simon’s mother in law should not be taken literally either.  This is the description in Mark -

The mother-in-law of Simon was lying in a fever, and immediately they tell him about her, and having come near, he raised her up, having laid hold of her hand, and the fever left her immediately, and she then ministered to them.  (Mark 1)

Elements of this story suggest the spiritual resurrection. The three are present - Jesus, Simon and Simon’s mother in law as the dark third. The dark third is under the shadow of death – in this case represented by a fever.  Jesus goes to the dark third who is lying down and holding her hand raises her up.  As for the expression mother in law that can be understood in terms of the fact that a man’s female spirit is referred to as his wife, sister, mother or daughter.  If Mark had come across a reference to the ‘mother and wife’ of Simon being raised up by Jesus and then serving Jesus then he would have naturally assumed that ‘mother and wife’ must be a mistake for ‘mother of the wife’.  Simon’s ‘mother in law’ is his female soul/spirit that is raised by Jesus. 

In his list of the disciples Mark refers to James and John in the following terms:  

..James of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, and he gave them the name Boanerges, that is, `Sons of thunder;' (Mark 3)

What does the strange designation ‘Sons of Thunder’ mean?  The title of the enigmatic Gnostic work Thunder: Perfect Mind suggests a meaning. The subject of this poem is Achamoth who is presented in the guise of both Wisdom and Isis.  The title ‘Thunder’ a feminine noun in Greek, is apparently a name assigned to Achamoth.  Moreover thunder as a phenomenon is regarded like Achamoth as being an emanation from god and a way in which god makes his will known on Earth. The term ‘Sons of Thunder’ may be a confused representation of the fact that both James and John were sons of feminine Thunder or Achamoth.  They are pneumatics who, like Simon, experience a female spirit.           

After using the name Simon in the first section of the gospel, the author of Mark switches to using Peter almost exclusively.  Peter appears at key times in the narrative.  It is Peter who is the first one to recognise Jesus as the Christ but then shortly afterwards he is severely rebuked by Jesus. It is Peter, along with James and John, who witnesses the transfiguration of Jesus on the mount.   Climbing the mount is symbolic of the ascent in the spiritual region. Jesus appears to them in spiritual form along with Elijah and Moses.  It is Peter, again with James and John, who keeps watch with Jesus on the night before the crucifixion.  It is Peter who penetrates close to the trial of Jesus but then denies Jesus three times.  All of these indicate the special role that Peter plays.

Simon and Peter are linked on only two occasions.  In Mark’s list of the disciples the first entry is:

Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter) (Mark 3)

The second time that Peter and Simon are mentioned as one person is when Jesus goes apart in the garden of Gethsemane.  He comes back to find Peter/Simon asleep:

Coming back he finds them sleeping, and says to Peter, `Simon, you sleep!  You were not able to watch one hour!’ (Mark 14)

Sleep is a term used for the state of the soul before the pneumatic awakening of the resurrection. Jesus awakens the soul of the disciple into the spirit.  The words spoken by Jesus, ‘Simon you sleep’, is the clue that this was taken from a story about the resurrection experience of a person called Simon who was not necessarily the same as the disciple Simon. Later in the passion narrative there is another Simon, Simon the Cyrenian, who carries the cross for Jesus.   Most likely these two fragments are both borrowings by the gospel of Mark from the resurrection experience of this Simon the Cyrenian. The reference to Peter is made for the purpose of narrative, to blend the story of the Simon who is asleep into the main story by making the connection that this Simon is the same as the disciple Simon and hence the same as Peter.

The gospel of Mark reveals the true status of Peter in the words of the angel who appears to Mary and the other women in the empty tomb says to them about Jesus - ‘Go! Say to his disciples, and Peter, that he does go before you to Galilee’.  Peter is mentioned as being separate to the disciples. The same formula occurs in Paul’s account of the resurrection appearances -  ‘that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve’.  These make it quite clear that Peter is not a disciple at all. He has a special status over and above the disciples – he is the founder of Christianity. But to Mark, writing a literal gospel, he cannot be the founder as this role is taken by Jesus himself.  Therefore Mark must squeeze him in among the Twelve.   

What has happened can be reconstructed.  The author of Mark has available to him a few stories and scant scraps of information about four disciples - Simon, John, James and Andrew.  He has a greater number of prominent traditions about Cephas or Peter, most of them in fact grossly distorted by verbal transmission over a number of years. He also has a list of the twelve that embarrassingly does not include Peter.  He incorporates all this material into his narrative by first setting out the stories about the four disciples.  He then includes his list of the disciples and brings in Peter by giving us the information that Peter was another name for Simon.  He then sets out his stories about Peter adding in the names of John, James and Andrew at various points to give the impression that Peter was one among many. With this arrangement the author of Mark has bridged the chasm between Peter and the disciples with the minimum of alteration to his raw materials.

It is unlikely that the author of Mark completely made up the identification of Peter and Simon. He attempts to be truthful to his materials, although he has little understanding of those materials, and inevitably warps them in trying to incorporate them into a literal framework.  There may have been an early confusion between the mysterious Cephas and the prominent disciple Simon.  Or perhaps it resulted from confusion between Cephas and Simon Magus, who may have been the same as the disciple Simon.  Another possibility is that the later apostle Peter who became hopelessly confused with Cephas may have changed his name from Simon.  Peter as a name was almost unknown before its appearance in Christianity and the apostle Peter has clearly taken his name from the founder.

Once Mark had made the mistaken connection between Simon and Peter the other gospel writers took up its use and Peter becomes Simon Peter. Even the Gospel of Thomas is affected as references to Peter are changed to Simon Peter.

In Mathew the section where Peter tells Jesus he is the Christ continues with the assignment of extraordinary powers to Peter:

He said to them, `And you, who do you say that I am?’  Simon Peter answered saying `You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'  And Jesus answering, said to him, `Happy are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal to you, but my Father who is in the heavens.  And I say to you, that you are a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you may bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose upon the earth shall be loosed in the heavens.'  (Mathew 16)

The designation of Simon, Bar-Jona, means son of the dove, the symbol of the spirit, and is a reference to the fact that Simon is a pneumatic. In Mark it is Peter who makes the ‘confession of faith’ so why does Jesus reply to him as Simon in Mathew? The reason is that this is the point chosen by the author of Mathew for Jesus to name Simon as Peter. Mark only tells us that Jesus has named Simon as Peter whereas Mathew, in a further development of the Simon Peter story, has invented the circumstances in which this naming occurs.

The powers assigned to Peter are remarkable and completely contradict the role of Peter as one disciple among twelve. They show Peter as the founder being granted special powers by the spirit Jesus.  The granting of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven signifies that Peter has the power to induce the pneumatic resurrection in others.  Without this power the Jesus movement would have gone nowhere. Paul’s list of the witnesses to the resurrection is most likely the list of those receiving the resurrection directly from Mary/Peter. Through the pneumatic resurrection the gates of Hades are defeated as the soul is reborn out of Hades as a spirit.

The reference to binding and loosening means determining what is forbidden and what is permitted. To the Jewish rabbis binding was the act of forbidding a thing or behaviour, and loosening was the act of permitting a thing or behaviour.  Jesus is here giving Peter complete power to make the rules. But the author of Mathew has completely misunderstood this power.  He thinks that Jesus is giving Peter the power to make rules for others. In fact Peter and all pneumatics are being given the power to make the rules for themselves based on their own spiritual revelation.

Why does Mathew choose this particular point for the naming of Simon?  To the author of Mathew the name Peter is a name of honour conveyed on Simon, which is given along with his powers as the rewarded for correctly perceiving that Jesus is the Christ.  Mathew is a brilliant propagandist and here uses a passage in Mark both to bring out a meaning not in Mark and to overwrite a very embarrassing reference to Peter.  In response to Jesus’ question ‘Who do men say I am?' the disciples in Mark answer -

`Some John the Baptist, others Elijah, but others one of the prophets.'  And he said to them, `And you - who do you say I am?' and Peter answering said to him, `You are the Christ.' And he strictly charged them that they should tell no one about it, and began to teach them, that it behoves the Son of Man to suffer many things, and to be rejected by the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and to be killed, and after three days to rise again; and he was openly speaking the word.  And Peter having taken him aside, began to rebuke him, and he, having turned, and having looked on his disciples, rebuked Peter, saying, `Get behind me, Satan, because you do not mind the things of God, but the things of men.' (Mark 8)

In this Mark passage Peter is not rewarded for saying that Jesus is the Christ.  Indeed he is very quickly rebuked. The form of the story has been taken from a saying from the gospel of the Twin where Jesus asks the disciples who he is like.  Following the answers he takes one disciple, Thomas, aside and imparts to him special knowledge that consists of three words or three things. The knowledge is apparently blasphemous and would get Thomas stoned if he repeats it.  Now Thomas means ‘twin’ and it is the twin of Jesus to whom Jesus imparts this blasphemous knowledge. The twin of Jesus is Mary so the original saying records that some of the spiritual revelations passed from Jesus to Mary are blasphemous in nature. In the version in Mark’s gospel this special knowledge is taken, wrongly, as being about Jesus’ coming passion. But there is also a hint that Jesus is telling them about his role as the Son of God.

In Mark’s version the elements about Peter have been overlaid on the original saying.  These elements are first that Peter recognises that Jesus is the Christ and second that Jesus says to Peter ‘Get behind me Satan …’. The meaning of these can be understood by the telling phrase in Mark that Jesus ‘did appear first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons’. The same information that is given about Mary is being repeated in a different form and being assigned to Mary’s other identity Peter. First we are told that it is Peter who first recognises Jesus as the Christ – this parallels the fact that Jesus appears first to Mary. Second that Jesus then exorcises devils from Peter for this is the meaning of the phrase ‘Get behind me Satan …’.  It is not a rebuke, as the author of Mark thinks, but an exorcism.  The seven demons do not just dwell in Mary/Peter but are present in all men and women, corrupting them and giving them the mind of man. With the coming of the spirit the devils are cast out by its power and the person assumes the mind of god.

The identity between Peter and Mary is indicated by much more than the similarity of the names.  In Paul’s list of those who had experienced the pneumatic resurrection the first appearance was to Cephas followed by the twelve.  Mary the Magdalene is not mentioned.  The gospels of belief have Jesus appearing first to Mary.  There must have been a very strong tradition behind this story otherwise the gospels would not have assigned this role to a woman who were regarded in Jewish society as being ineligible as witnesses. The two accounts can only be reconciled if Cephas is a codename for Mary or vice versa. It is very easy to see why a woman should adopt a male identity as a codename, very difficult to see why a man would adopt a female identity!

The identity of Peter and Mary is also indicated by the inter-linked roles they play as witnesses to the passion story.  It is Peter who along with others is with Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.  It is Peter alone who penetrates to Jesus’ trial where, according to Mark, he denies Jesus three times. It is Mary (both as the Magdalene and in other identities) who is the witness of the crucifixion. It is Mary who goes to the tomb and witnesses the empty tomb and the angel.  In Mark the angel then tells her that Jesus will appear to Peter but it is to Mary that Jesus actually makes his first appearance.  These are indications that Mary and Peter are one and the same - together they have witnessed the whole crucifixion and resurrection.

The gospels show great confusion between Peter and Mary at key points of the resurrection account. For they are attempting to combine two contradictory traditions – that it was Mary and that it was Peter who first witnessed the resurrection.  For example in Luke it is written -

It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things to the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they did not believed them. But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which had happened.  (Luke 24)

Luke attempts to reconcile the two traditions by saying that although Peter did not actually witness the resurrection first he saw the empty tomb and the grave cloths and marvelled.

In John the confusion is not just between Mary and Peter but also with the disciple ‘whom Jesus loved’.  This mysterious disciple has been cynically co-opted by the author of John who presents his gospel as having been written by this disciple.  This is a brilliant move because John, the last of the gospels, was written a very long time after Jesus’ life and so has a problem of establishing its credibility. By pretending to be written by a disciple who can be assumed to have privileged knowledge from Jesus the Gospel of John sets out its credentials of being the one true gospel that draws on this secret knowledge. John is always very careful to keep the identity of this disciple a mystery.  It is very hard for anyone to attack the pretended authorship if no one knows whom the author is supposed to be!

In truth the disciple who Jesus loved is Mary the Magdalene herself in her role as the bride of Christ.  John has got even the sex of the disciple wrong.  This is not surprising as it would be very damaging for author of a literal gospel to write that the disciple whom Jesus loved was a woman. In his account of the resurrection John grapples with presenting three traditions in the same story – that it was Mary, or perhaps Peter, or perhaps the disciple Jesus loved who first witnessed the resurrection.  The result is a highly confused and artificial account of events -

On the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the tomb, and sees the stone taken away from the tomb. She runs and comes to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and says to them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.  Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the tomb.  So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the tomb. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet he did not go in. Then came Simon Peter following him, and he went into the tomb, and sees the linen clothes where they lie, and the cloth, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but folded up in a place by itself. Then entered also that other disciple, which came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed.  For as yet they did not knew the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.  Then the disciples went away again to their own home. (John 20)

After this pantomime of Peter and the other disciple racing to and then bobbing in and out of the tomb the story reverts right back to where it started with Mary going back into the tomb alone and receiving the revelation of the angel. The confusion is explained if Mary, Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved are all the same person.

The final connection between Mary and Peter is that in many of the non-canonical works Mary and Peter are continually opposed to each other. This holds the clue to another otherwise mystifying problem – why Peter gets such a negative press. If Peter is the founder then he should be revered above all others in early Christian writings.  Yet he is portrayed as something of a buffoon.  For this portrayal to have become prevalent it must go back to Mary herself.  It seems that she contrasted her alter ego Peter with her Mary identity.  She told stories about her two ego-selves with one on each side of the question and Peter always in the wrong.  Peter, as Mary’s lower masculine identity would also have been contrasted with Jesus, the perfect man. In this comparison Peter would bear some of Mary’s own weaknesses.

It seems from this game that Mary had a sense of humour. She may have been obliged to assume a male identity but that did not mean that she had to like it.  She assigned to her Peter identity many of the male chauvinistic attitudes she encountered.  Yet these stories had a serious purpose also.  She was attempting to change the attitudes of her disciples, both male and female, so that they would accept that in things of the spirit men and women are equal.  In this she was only partly successful.  The early Christian church was remarkably open to women but very soon traditional attitudes began to reassert themselves.

One of the negative sayings is in the Gospel of Thomas:

“Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life.”

In the “Gospel according to Mary” Mary receives communications directly form a spiritual Jesus after the resurrection.  Peter seeks to deny Mary’s link to Jesus:

Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.  Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

These words recall her Mary identity’s answer to her Peter identity. Jesus loves me more for I am his bride.

So Mary’s disciples preached the word of Jesus, first just the Twelve, but then in increasing numbers. And under the name of Cephas was Mary known, and many were the ones, both men and woman, whom Mary initiated and gave birth to. 

---

The passing of Mary

When did the body of Mary die and her spirit Jesus pass into the light?  In the gospels the ministry of Jesus starts when he is thirty and lasts only a few years. But Irenaeus records that the ministry of Jesus lasted as long as twenty years – between the ages of thirty and fifty. It is doubtful if he would have given this information unless he had good reason to believe it was true. It is in glaring contradiction to the gospel account of a short ministry leading to the crucifixion. However there is also a suggestion in the Gospel of John that there was a tradition that Jesus was close to fifty by the end of his ministry:

The Jews, said to him, `You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?' (John 8)

These accounts can be reconciled once we realise that the ages refer to Mary and that the crucifixion took place at the start of the ministry and not the end. The gospels understand correctly that both the start of the ministry and crucifixion took place under Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36) and that ‘Jesus’ was around thirty at both these events.  Not understanding they are the same event they are forced to compact the ministry of Jesus into a very short span of time.  That collector of facts, Irenaeus, has another source of information about the length of the ministry which he gives correctly thus contradicting the gospels.

If the ages apply to Mary then she was born 4BC-6AD, had her resurrection experience marking the start of her ministry in 26-36AD and died twenty years later 46-56AD.  Most likely she died in the fourteen years between Paul’s first and second visits to Jerusalem.  She would then be already dead when Paul was writing his epistles.

The death of Mary is the same as the ascension of Jesus. The elaborate description of the apostles watching Jesus fly into the air given in the Acts is fiction. The gospel of Mark puts it simply:

So then after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.  (Mark 16)

There is no information about the place, time and manner of this event.  The forty days between the resurrection and the ascension is symbolic only. Luke does tell us that the ascension took place ‘in the vicinity of Bethany’.  Thus the same name Bethany, meaning “House of affliction” is given as for the resurrection of Lazarus and the descent of the Holy Spirit into Jesus.  Since Bethany signifies the place of the dead this shows that Luke preserves the recollection that the ascension of Jesus was via a death.  In this case the death is not the symbolic death of Jesus but the actual bodily death of Mary.

The death of Mary/Cephas must have been a cataclysmic event for the early Christian church.  Is there no trace of it at all? In one place only is there a hint. At the end of John it is recorded about the disciple whom Jesus loved that it was said among the brethren that he should not die.  The Gospel of John tries to explain that this was what not what Jesus actually said. Why is John so keen to make this point?  By the time that John was written this disciple must have been dead (even though John purports to have been written by the disciple!) and that this had caused confusion among the Christian church because many expected him not to die until Jesus came in glory. The disciple whom Jesus loved is another identity of Mary. As the embodiment of Jesus it is easy to see why many believed that Mary would not die until Jesus came in his spiritual body in glory and why the death of Mary would cause such consternation.

---

PART 4 – THE MYSTERIES

The soul in Hades

And they asked Mary, “Tell us about the soul”. So she spoke to them thus.

“The soul is like a young girl dwelling in a house lost in the land of darkness. Long ago she and you would play as one, as little brother and sister, in the days of your innocence.  But as you entered into manhood the dark ones grew strong within you and it was necessary to build a wall between you and the devils within. She was entombed on the other side of that wall.”

“She, your soul, is that within you which is eternal.  For your mind does not end with what is material but extends into the reality that is god. In that place things are not as they seem and that which is really part of you is perceived as a separate being, for the reality of god is alien to one bound by the fetters of time.  For you men she is the form of a young girl, a child who went asleep long ago.”

“The soul within is dead.  Yet the secret is this, that she is not really dead but sleeping. She is a princess who must sleep for a hundred years under a curse. She is a beautiful girl child lying in a glass coffin apparently dead but really in a deep, deep sleep. She is a grail, the female receptacle of the blood of the spirit, long lost and much sought by men. She will be awakened by the good prince, the son of the most high one.  In that awakening you will be both redeemer and redeemed.”

“That place where she dwells is called many names, but the Greeks call it Hades. It is within you and it is without. It is the opposite of the kingdom of heaven and a dark twin to the Kingdom. It is the abode of devils and the land of the dead.  It is the pit within from which creep up dark forms that will attempt to rule you and destroy you.” 

“That place, the land of the dead is called the middle, for it comes between you and god.  Everything that comes from god must pass through the middle unless you are reborn. And in that middle many of the messages from god are lost and distorted, turned even so that good becomes evil.  But if your soul is reborn then no longer do the messages pass through that place.  Instead you are illuminated by god’s light, which is the spirit, and with that light you will see. Such a one has no need for rules, for the rule of god shines forth from their heart.”

“Yet if you are not reborn then your soul will continue to dwell in Hades for all eternity.  And there it will be tortured by devils. And the torturing devils are these – greed, hatred, jealousy, lust, selfishness, pride, anger; the cruelty and fear that occupy the darkness in the heart of man.  For your soul suffers in the middle place. It knows not the light of the world but is lost among your dark thoughts as in a nightmare.  And being eternal your soul will suffer eternally.”

“But the soul can also be awakened little by little. For the soul that is the light buried deep within will respond to the good deeds that you do.  And she will recognise the teachings or goodness, the parables and outer mysteries and will grow brighter in response to them, and convey to you a sense of their rightness.  And most of all she will respond to the ultimate mystery of the crucifixion and resurrection.  That is why we baptise those who are still dead, as even the dead shall be saved if they believe and act on that belief.”   

Thus the did the Gnostics refer to those who had not been awakened as ‘the dead’ – for their soul dwells in Hades even as they go about their daily business as the puppets of their animal nature.  Paul shared the same belief.  In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul addresses those who say there is no resurrection from the dead.  In his defence he makes a reference to baptism for the dead:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  Why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Corinthians 15)

This passage is inexplicable in terms of the church of belief. How can anyone be baptised for the dead?  However it makes sense once it is understood that ‘the dead’ are the souls of the psychics.  Paul is saying that if the dead are not resurrected at the end of time then it is useless to baptise psychic Christians.  Paul’s whole mission is aimed at redeeming the psychics because he believes that at the end of time, psychics and pneumatics alike will enter into a new ‘spiritual’ body.  How could such a fundamental Christian belief as the resurrection ever have been questioned within the church?  The people questioning must be pneumatic Christians who understand the resurrection as something that happens within life. They are arguing that psychic Christians who never experience the resurrection within life will not experience it after death. Paul is addressing this belief in a passage largely couched in literalist terms for the benefit of psychic Christians but also containing elements that only the pneumatic will understand. He is telling these pneumatics not to disturb the faith and hope of the psychics.  He is also giving his own theology that the pneumatic resurrection is just a forerunner of the real event - the resurrection at the end of time in which both pneumatics and psychics will share.  This is tied in with Paul’s belief that Christ will return in his real, spiritual, body. For just as Christ first appeared as a spirit of a person, Mary, and will come again in a ‘spiritual’ body, so will the spirit of each pneumatic return in a similar way. At this time they will be joined by the psychics.  As he writes:

Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15)

This is Paul’s interpretation but it is not Mary’s.  As it says in the Gospel of the Twin:

His disciples said to him: On what day will the kingdom come?  Jesus said: It comes not with observation. They will not say: Lo, here! or: Lo, there! But the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.

For Mary there is no coming of Jesus in a spiritual body – for time is an illusion.  In god there is no time, and in god all times are one. A person is eternal in their essence.  The resurrection is bringing the eternal inner spirit to rule in the body and to consume in the white fire of the spirit what is mortal.  It is not transforming the mortal body into the eternal realm.

And they said to Mary, “Tell us about the Pearl”.

“The pearl is what you must find.  The pearl is the thing that is most precious to you yet it has been lost in the mud.  The pearl is a bride. The pearl is your soul.”

And she told them a story thus.

“Once a person wished to hide a treasure in the form of a pearl. He wished to hide it well so that only those who were deserving of the pearl should find it.  So he hid that pearl in the last place that anyone would think of looking for it.”

“He hid it inside so that none who knew only the things of this world should find it.  He gave the keys of knowledge to one dwelling in the same house so that none who knew only ‘I’ should find it. He hid it in darkness so that none who would only look in the light should find it.  He hid it among devils so that none who were ruled by devils should find it.  He placed a serpent to guard the pearl, and the name of that serpent was fear, so that none who lacked courage should find it. He placed the pearl in the place which the sons and daughters of man most dread and he gave the pearl that form which they would least wish to look upon.”

“Then that pearl was well hid.”

“Tell us more!” they implored her. “Tell us how to find the pearl!”

But she was quiet. “I have already said more than enough” was all she would add.

---

The crucifixion

Jesus was strong in Mary and he spoke to his followers. 

“In times past you desired to hear these words which I speak to you. The time will come when you will seek me and will not find me.” 

“Sons and daughters of men, you are saved by my cross. It is my cross that is the life. It is my cross that will defeat death, for it is greater than the things of death, the things of this world.  It is only through bearing my cross that you shall live. This is my mystery of mysteries.”

“You, who would be reborn must spread out your arms and accept my cross. With me you shall hang upon the tree.  You shall feel my pain, my sorrow, my grief.  You will taste my blood upon my lips, you will suffer the nails tearing my flesh, the agony of each breath.  You will go down to the tomb with me and lie in the bitter coldness of death.  My way is a dark way and is traced in pain and tears.  Yet I take the pain from you as I take death from you.  And after dark comes the morning, after winter the spring.”

“I am thee and you are mine. For my cross is man. My cross is the accumulated suffering and pain of mankind, my cross is the torture of soul bound to matter, and my cross is the promise of the redemption.”

“It is not enough to believe.  It is not enough to construct arguments and disputations or to interpret the truth through clever metaphors.  It is not enough to think or to talk or to pray or to do good deeds. For you must experience my pain, know my sacrifice.  If you be man then you must be crucified with me in reality, not the reality of this world on a cross of wood, but in my reality. For just as woman must bear the burden of birth through life, so man must bear the burden of birth through death. And if you be woman you must witness my pain at the foot of my cross, and experience my suffering through a woman’s love. And afterwards you must come down with me into the tomb to anoint me and lay your head against my icy breast and sob out your grief.”

“I am the covenant between you and god.  Without that covenant you are nothing.  You mate and gather money to yourself, and take your pleasures and bring up your children and in all these things you are animals.  You are bound to death and that death is your bitter sorrow, for within you is that which is eternal and which will suffer eternally.  But I am your redemption. Drink and you shall live and in living you shall know the joy of being complete, of being what you were created for. You are not of this world, sons and daughters of man.  You must return home and dwell in the kingdom of your parents.”

After that he was silent and spoke to them no more.

Jesus said: There are many standing at the door, but it is the solitary who will enter the bridal chamber.” Gospel of Thomas 75.

..there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest..” Gospel of Thomas 5

Was Christ crucified by fallen angels?

The evidence that Christianity really did emerge from an early form of Gnosticism. How the first Christians believed that Yahweh had appointed seventy fallen angels called ‘Shepherds’ to rule over mankind. And how the Christ was put to death by these angels in a higher heaven and not by the Jews and Romans on earth.

The Book of Mary

The Book of Mary explores a new vision of a spiritual Christianity founded by Mary the Magdalene based on her mystic experiences of her spirit Jesus. The Book of Mary draws on a large body of evidence in the four gospels, the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas and other early Gnostic and mainstream Christian works that support the Mary hypothesis. From the Gospel of Thomas the teachings of Mary are reconstructed in the form in which she may have originally spoken them.  And the greatest mystery of all is explored, ‘the harvest’ that overcomes death and leads to the bridal chamber ...

The full version is available on-line.