Most Helpful Customer Reviews
43 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Steamy Sex with Jesus and Mary"? Hardly, But a Fine Book., October 17, 2004
This review is from: The Gospel of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of Sacred Union (Paperback)
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!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Maybe for the French, May 4, 2008
This review is from: The Gospel of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of Sacred Union (Paperback)
This is an interesting book. It's primary value was that it was the first time that the Gospel of Philip was translated into French, but then the English translation of the French translation doesn't have the same value, especially since there are prior English versions and these translations do not match LeLoup's version. Hence, a more interesting book would have been a comparison of the translations, rather than simply the English version of the French version of the Coptic version of the Greek version which possibly came from an earlier Hebrew.
Another interesting aspect of this book is that LeLoup presents the material in its original form, on 87 pages. This has the benefit of showing how the original authors intended it to be read. It also has the benefit of turning what would be a short book into a longer book.
The book is subtitled "Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of Sacred Union", but before you get too excited, there is very little about Jesus, Mary, or their sacred union. There are a few pages devoted to the topic, but it certainly isn't as well presented as Margaret Starbird does in her various books.
The only real value this book has is to offer LeLoup's own translation, which is interesting. But this value is reduced seriously with no discussion of why he translated it the way he did, and without any comparison to the way in which others have translated it.
Those of you who read LeLoup's earlier book about Mary Magdalene will be disappointed if you expect that the Philip book lives up to the Mary book. It does not. But if you're interested in the Gospel of Philip, LeLoup's translation certainly warrants a look.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Philip, Jesus, and Mary Magdalene answer the million-dollar question: What is God's love?, June 23, 2011
This review is from: The Gospel of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of Sacred Union (Paperback)
"The Gospel of Philip" dares to delve into the issue of how much God really loves us. And, of course, the answer is right before our very eyes, but we refuse to see it. To truly ascertain the magnitude of how deeply God's affection for mankind engulfs him is to compare it to a husband's love for his wife.
The point is this, if you know the love and passion of a woman, and the intensity that prevails then you will truly understand God's passions and why he created man and woman, the earth and the entire universe for that matter.
Jean Yves LeLoup does an excellent job of conveying this message throughout his translation of this Gnostic text. However, you must read his book on "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene," because this gospel and LeLoup's thesis is only part of the equation. Both gospels must be read together to truly appreciate the full scope of what's being said.
This was a very enjoyable, yet cerebral read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
