Analogue 9: The Feminine Spirit & Yeshua's Parentage

 Analogue 9

There are those who say that Mary conceived by means of the Sacred Spirit. They are confused and know not of what they speak. When has it ever occurred that the female has conceived by means of the feminine? Mary, who was honored among the Jewish and other Apostles, was not impregnated by a feminine power. Any power seeking to do that only defiles itself. So the Master would not have said, “My Father in heaven,” unless he had an earthly father. He would simply have called him, “Abba.” Therefore, the Master said to his students, “Come, indeed, into the Abba’s house, but do not take your possessions into it, and do not remove anything from it.”

Intro to Analogue 9 by Lynn Bauman

Synopsis

• This analogue appears to be an aside: An argument that is important but perhaps not part of the central mysteries. It seems to be a theological polemic concerning a debate occurring in the early Christian community of Philip’s time regarding the birth and origins of Yeshua.
• The argument concerns the role and nature of Mary, the mother of Yeshua, and the theological doctrine of the Virgin Birth which was being promulgated in the canonical Gospels. In this analogue Philip takes issue with that doctrine, argues against it, and in addition gives us an aphorism of Yeshua’s that does not appear elsewhere in early Christian literature.
• Philip’s case begins with Yeshua’s use of the phrase "my Father in heaven". Since Yeshua added the phrase "in heaven,” he must have had an earthly father from which he needed to make a distinction. This runs counter to the view that Yeshua had no human father on earth but was instead conceived by the Holy Spirit, which Philip points out is feminine. This is more evidence to Philip that Yeshua was not conceived by a feminine principle but a masculine earthly father.
• This line of argument is followed by a fascinating quote apparently from the wisdom teachings of Yeshua himself concerning the invitation to enter the (heavenly) Father's house or domain: Take nothing you possess into it, and do not attempt to remove anything for yourself from within it. Let it stay as it is. Apparently the Father’s realm is to be entered into empty-handed, with no accompanying items and no attempt to gain possession of anything there. This is perhaps an early teaching of detachment from egoic acquisition.
• All of this: The history, the reflection, the sayings of Yeshua, and the arguments made are fascinating glimpses into the thought processes and discussions occurring in early Christianity, as well as in the mind of the author of this Gospel.
• This analogue shows Philip interjecting his own reflections and teachings. The same phenomenon occurred as well in some canonical Gospels (John, for example) as reflections about the meanings of Yeshua's teachings. Discussions concerning his stream of wisdom occurred among the Apostles and over time in the early Christian communities and this analogue is a prime example.

COMMENTARY

The Argument

Analogue 9 is essentially a polemic against aspects of the early western Christian tradition. It appears that the author’s argument is an aside, following on the previous introduction of the Sacred Spirit as the active agency and the divine Feminine principle at work for the restoration of humanity to its fullness. Early Christianity recognized that agency and spoke of it in terms of the Holy Spirit who, at Yeshua’s inception, affected his birth. What that influence was is the question which Philip addresses here.

Perhaps under the sway of the Pauline corpus, the western tradition adopted a doctrine known today as the Virgin Birth which held that Yeshua was born without the ordinary processes of conception involving a natural father. Instead The Holy Spirit was said to be the exclusive means through which his mother Mary was impregnated. She was understood to have conceived without the normal means of sexual intercourse. This became established doctrine, and was considered essential to the Christology of the West, being without sin from birth. Among Yeshua’s early Jewish followers and the later devotees of the tradition in the eastern traditions of Oriental Christianity, however, this doctrine was a minority viewpoint or was outright rejected. For them, Yeshua was born of a natural father in the normal way but was influenced from his inception by the Sacred Spirit through her wisdom, guidance and teaching.

The Gospel of Philip falls clearly into the latter tradition, serving as a strong counter-point by denying in no uncertain terms what became the Occidental teaching concerning the Virgin Birth. Philip’s argument begins with the Sacred Spirit who was the feminine principle of the divine manifestation. Because this Spirit is feminine, it could not induce pregnancy in a woman. Only a male or the masculine principle could do that. Philip’s argument was, therefore, a logical case of the same principle applied to natural causes in an interesting way. Since the Sacred Spirit was feminine, there could be no such thing as a “virgin birth.” This is a very important point contrasting the Gospel of Philip with other early Gospels in the West, and it also definitively illustrates that this text is the product of the Christian East, more particularly from early Jewish tradition. The Gospel of Philip is essentially a Jewish text with beliefs fundamentally different from Occidental Christian doctrines.

Mary and the Sacred Spirit

In addition, this Gospel also introduces the case for Mary’s honored status in Oriental Christianity. We will see in later analogues that Philip describes her role as that of the agent for divine Wisdom operative in Yeshua’s life from its beginning. In her mothering role, Mary was guided by the Sacred Spirit. She was that Spirit’s manifestation, embodying it in this world and using it to guide and influence young Yeshua’s life. This was Sacred Spirit’s fundamental relationship to Mary the Mother of Yeshua. Contrary to western tradition, it was not one of physical impregnation. For Philip, the Virgin Birth was not the central issue, but the primordial relationship of Sacred Spirit as the feminine principle working through women (and men) was, for it was the carrier and agency of the sacred in his life.

To strengthen his point, Philip also points out how Yeshua uses the term father (Abba). Yeshua speaks about knowing the Father who is in the heavens. This is in obvious contrast to his own father that he knows on earth. Philip’s argument is that Yeshua would not have added the phrase “in heaven” if there was not a distinction to be made with his father on earth. This is a logical argument based on linguistic usage. It is overall, then, both a rational and linguistic argument that seems logically consistent to this author and perhaps to many, particularly in the Jewish and Oriental communities of Yeshua’s followers.

The Father's House

A further statement is made concerning what we might think of as some form of celestial or heavenly protocol to be understood before entering into the Father’s domain. This statement, the Gospel says, comes from Yeshua’s own personal instruction to his students about visiting his Father’s house. This comes to us as a new saying of Yeshua’s, one we have not encountered before. It seems that Yeshua is taking issue with (and giving instruction about) the human proclivity to acquire, own, and even to hoard—a form of spiritual materialism, perhaps. No possessions are to be carried into the Father’s realm: they have no place there. And there is nothing to take away from it that one can call one’s own.

In our common experience, when someone else sees something and wants it, often we will suddenly want it too. This is part of the consumerist mentality that is used in business and advertising. It has been called “mimetic desire” by Rene Girard (see the notes for Analogue 8). The undeveloped soul is naturally acquisitive, but this propensity does not belong in the realms of the Father. Yeshua may be teaching us to refine our inner state and reduce our egoic desires before we enter heaven’s Realm. This has resonances perhaps with the canonical story of the wealthy young man who asked Yeshua what he must do to obtain eternal life, and his response contained the observation about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the heavenly realm (Matthew 19:16-21, Luke 18:18-23, Mark 10:17-22).

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

1. How do you understand the teaching concerning the Virgin Birth and its influence upon the doctrines of Christology in the West? 
2. Is that doctrine important for you? 
3. Do you follow the logic of Philip’s argument? How would you argue either for or against his position in your own terms? Journal your arguments or the case you would make. 
4. Do you think that the use of the word defiles suggests a kind of homophobia in Philip’s attitude? 
5. Mary, the mother of Yeshua, has an important role in the early period of Christianity and understandings of her role have evolved through the centuries. She appears to have a strong relationship with the Sacred Spirit. How do you understand that relationship and do you see it as unique? 
6. How would you explain to someone else what Yeshua is saying about visiting the Father’s house? What, in your view, is Yeshua forbidding? Speculate on what those things might be that humans would want to carry with them, and why Yeshua is disallowing that behavior. Or perhaps what they might want to take away from such a visitation.

Notes for Reference and Study

1. The phrase, “Those who say...” is an indication that he is speaking of those who are under the sway of another set of teachings. It is easy to speculate that these are part of the Pauline tradition in Occidental Christianity, since the Epistles of Paul were influential in spreading much of this perspective concerning the Virgin Birth. Though Paul is unnamed, due perhaps to a kind of cultural restraint in the East, nonetheless this doctrine is clearly a focus of this text. 
2. Doctrines of the Virgin Birth are the foundations for other Christological formulations such as the sinlessness and perfection of Yeshua. These raise him above the normal human level and set him apart from other human beings. In western theology his divinity appears to be elevated above his humanity in the Christological formulations (though he is said to be undivided and yet unique). The man Yeshua, called Jesus Christ, is clearly turned into a God, uniquely One with the Father and secure in the Godhead. His virgin birth and his sinless character are said, then, to be proofs of his divinity. These arguments are somewhat circular and self-fulfilling in nature. Other Christological formulations proceed from these early doctrines and later become orthodox (or sometime heterodox) theologies. You might want to study these doctrines and their terms online (see for example: List of Heresies in the Catholic Church in Wikipedia). 
3. It is important to notice the role that language plays in speaking about Spirit. Spirit is non-gendered (neither male nor female) in the Greek language, whereas in the Aramaic language and in Hebrew it has a feminine gender. In Latin, which later influenced the theological developments in the West, Spiritus is masculine in gender and therefore thought of typically in this way. Gendered language comes to play a large role in the way that human beings think about and formulate the theological meaning of these terms. 
4. Although this analogue comes down on the side of the argument that Yeshua had an earthly father, it says nothing about who that individual was. Later in the Gospel, Joseph and his vocation as a carpenter is mentioned, but nothing is said about him in this analogue. A second century Greek philosopher by the name of Celsus makes the remark that Yeshua’s earthly father was a Roman soldier. If this is true, it would mean perhaps that Yeshua was technically born out of wedlock to Mary who had been violated by the soldier. To keep this secret, and her out of harm’s way, Mary was taken as a wife by Joseph who shielded and protected her. Yeshua’s father is actually named Panthera by Celsus, but all of this is contradicted by Origin from whom we have the reference itself. Whether or not this has any validity is difficult to assess at this late date in history, but it is all suggestive of a more hidden history which lies in back of these rather strange events and the narratives that are used to explain them, including in this analogue.

Notes on the Translation

• This is a difficult passage to interpret given the particularities of the Coptic text. We have tried to make it clearer and approach it in one particular way that seems to be hermeneutically consistent with the argument the Gospel is actually making. 
• On the one hand this passage appears to indicate that Mary was not impregnated by (feminine) Spirit, but perhaps by (a masculine) Father. On the other hand, the last section seems to contradict a well known saying of Yeshua in the “Lord’s Prayer.” For some in the early community Mary seems to have been lifted out of history as not defiled by normal human relationships in any way and thus remains “virgin” to the Apostles. The Coptic appears somewhat ambiguous and so some (in line with the western view about Yeshua’s parentage) have translated it in the following way to say: “The Master would not have said, ‘My Father in heaven,” if he had an earthly Father. He would have simply said, “My Father.” Translating it this way, however, seems to contradict the force of the first part of this section. 
• In Jean-Yves Leloup’s translation, he links the two possibilities by saying, “The Teacher would not have said: ‘My Father who is in heaven,’ if he had not been engendered by another Paternity than the one he had from his earthly father.”