Forbidden Faith: The Secret History of Gnosticism

by Richard Smoley, Bob Souer (Narrator)

The success of books such as Elaine Pagels's Gnostic Gospels and Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code proves beyond a doubt that there is a tremendous thirst today for finding the hidden truths of Christianity - truths that may have been lost or buried by institutional religion over the last two millennia.

In Forbidden Faith, Richard Smoley narrates a popular history of one such truth, the ancient esoteric religion of gnosticism, which flourished between the first and fourth centuries AD, but whose legacy remains even today, having survived secretly throughout the ages.

Genres: History, Religion, Gnosticism, Nonfiction, Christianity, Spirituality, Esoterica

Audible Audio

First published April 1, 2006

Reviews

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is designed to be popular. If you've liked what you've read about "gnostic religion", are intrigued by claims of vast masonic conspiracies, read C.G. Jung or William Blake, or think either The Matrix or The DaVinci Code profound films, then there's a lure here to catch your attention and it will likely be found to deliver at least a foretaste of what you're really interested in. As an introduction to what has traditionally been associated with gnosticizing tendencies in religion, this isn't all that bad although, with marketing in mind, it does pay more attention than it ought to very recent cultural phenomena, a disproportionate emphasis which will date it pretty quickly. While there are some errors of fact, all trivial, the overall approach is within the playing field of contemporary debate. While vastly oversimplified, the text and appended bibliography do point toward some worthy books for those wishing further information.

Most noteworthy in my opinion are the occasions in which the author presents what may amount to real insights into ancient gnostic texts and the worldview(s) they may represent. Like G.R.S. Mead a century ago, the author appropriates these traditions with constructive intent, without sacrificing caution to credulity.

[Tim Pendry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I cannot think of a better popular introduction to the gnostic turn of mind although the book is mistitled and the author admits as much. The Gnostic turn of mind is a way of seeing for many human beings whereas Gnosticism was a belief system of a particular time and place.

Gnosticism, the very particular set of beliefs, emerged out of the creative struggles for meaning in antiquity. It died out with the triumph of an authoritarian, nay, totalitarian catholicism in alliance with secular tyranny. This is the story of the first half of the book.

In a series of lucid chapters, Smoley looks into Gnosticism proper and its fall, including its longest survival - the forgotten Manichaeanism, the lost fourth universal religion of the old world, which lasted (strangely) through to the secret society culture of seventeenth century Fukien (China).

It is hard to believe that there is much continuity between these ancient beliefs and modern re-emergences of the Gnostic that emphasise the flawed nature of creation and looks to an occult relationship with what is behind it, what Heideggerians would call Being - only divinised.

There may be some Manichaean influence in the Cathars via the Bogomils although Smoley does not go deeply into this aspect of the case. There may be some mystical survivals of ancient thinking through many kabbalistic and Christian filters but the claim of continuity is unproven and unlikely.

What is more likely is that (to be blunt) the way some people's brains are wired up gives them a way of seeing the universe that recurs in every age. Some are so struck by it all that they construct a model to share with others, enraging the totalitarian guardians of religion.

I am persuaded that the original Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas may well have been one of these but subsequently contained and turned into a universalist power play by the likes of Paul and Augustine. But there are others - Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, perhaps William Blake.

One is struck time and again by the trigger of light, a reflection off a plate or the beam from a piece of jewellery (Philip K. Dick), and by the constant references to light and darkness. One speculates that some brains are triggered into ecstatic mechanism by their reception of photons.

Ye even the direct experience of the gnostic mind cannot avoid some form of systematisation - for once experienced, it may not be easily repeated and so it becomes a belief about a past experience, truly real to the percipient but hard not only to convey but to turn into a regular practice.

The gnostic mind then tends to create elaborate systems and mythopoeic fantasies to try both to continue the experience and entrain followers or initiates, above all to persuade that the experience has some basis in fact. The kabbala may be one such system. Others just need to keep writing.

The book switches tone at the Renaissance because it is at this point that it is mostly a matter of intellectuals and individuals rediscovering the textual past or experiencing something personally rather than of some initiatory or quasi-religious tradition.

This second half of the book is no more than an intelligent commentary on a succession of disconnected gnostically-minded individuals (with varying credibility as to their credentials) that is just a more measured version of the hidden history narratives of our own counter culture.

There is a hidden and lightly worn polemic embedded in the Book. Smoley was, for many years, Editor of Gnosis . He has a mission here to re-establish gnostic experience as equally valid alongside 'religion' and scientific positivism on the basis that all three have their uses.

It is a polemic directed more at evangelical and liberal Christians than at scientists. You either accept the premises or you do not although (much as Hutton has shown for modern neo-paganism) it is clear that modern Gnosticism is only another invented reconstructionism.

My own view on all this might be called cynical existentialist quasi-gnostic. The experiences are valid because they are part of the tool kit of being human. Similarly, gnostic ways of thinking relate directly to our perceptual and cognitive 'flaws' (though in fact these served us well as a species).

On the other hand, without this necessarily resulting in any form of nihilism (quite the contrary), the idea of some occult divine hand behind the flawed materiality of evolution and materiality is delusion and, worse, wishful thinking. It is whistling in the dark.

This does not make occult gnosticism less important than science and religion but actually places all three on the same level as aspects of our own weak relationship to an ultimate reality that we can never ultimately know or understand. All three are a form of whistling in the dark.

The virtue of gnostic ways of thinking lies not in divining the divine but in challenging the claims of religio, specifically religion's propensity to push us around against our own personal natures, and as a reminder that science is useful but actually tells us nothing about ultimate things.

In this context, Smoley's polemic partially works for me - the gnostic view of the world may be no more true of the world than its rivals but it is no less true either. All are equally flawed but gnostic thinking has the virtue of reasserting individual choice and autonomy in making sense of it all.

The treatment of gnostic thinkers is a bellwether of human freedom since too much religion enslaves into conformity under special interests and too much science crushes the dreaming spirit of humanity. The dark ages may be defined by the repression of gnostic free thought.

And what of too much gnosticism? I am not sure we have ever seen that by the nature of things though there is an argument that we are in danger of coming into such an age of dreamy negativity about material reality and lack of any awareness of the need for some order in society.

Be all that as it may, the book is recommended as a general and thought-provoking introduction to the general subject. It is also well written and likely to trigger a desire to read more elsewhere. One also finds oneself soon liking the author for his essential kindness and thoughtfulness.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book once before a few years ago, before I had joined Good Reads. It is a good introduction to gnosis and the Gnostic legacy. This is a very difficult subject to write authoritatively on as the Gnostics were systematically wiped out and their ideas suppressed for hundreds of years by the Roman Catholic church. Mr. Smoley acknowledges these limitations and does an admirable job of siting sources which give a glimpse of what their beliefs were. He does find it necessary to postulate or hypothesis at times.

When I first read this book I was not well prepared to understand its historic or spiritual relevance. I now find myself better prepared though not considering myself as a master of the subject in any sense.

I would now be willing to say that I am a believer in gnosis and I think I would go so far as to say I was a Gnostic although I subscribe to only part of what is portrayed in this book as its basic tenets.

The first is that the only path to spiritual enlightenment is by self discovery and all people are endowed with a splinter of God which makes them part of the Godhead. This is the gnosis or knowing. There is not any intermediary required to spiritual enlightenment and indeed, anyone who claims to be a necessary intermediary is either blocking your path or providing your crutch against the personal responsibility of self determination. This is the part of Gnosticism which I agree with. I believe that when Jesus was saying that the way to heaven was through him he was referring to the way he had found through enlightenment, not through himself personally. Jesus never advocated for a church or religion to built around his legacy. In fact he fought against those who were institutionalizing religion in his time.

The second tenet is the one I don't agree with. This is that the world as we know it was built by a false god who intends to deceive us and trap us in a world that enslaves us. This is analogous to the world portrayed in the movie "The Matrix" where most of human society is sleeping and being used as an energy source to supply the life of another society. In another word, we are all slaves.

While I don't dismiss some of the validity of this concept it led early Gnostics to either think that it didn't matter what behavior they manifested and therefore were disrespectful of other peoples rights or they thought that they hadn't any right to interact with the world and essentially abstained from all but the most basic needs to eat and drink.

I believe that I have a shard of God in me just like Jesus did. I believe that God put that in me so as to gain knowledge through my journey in this world. I believe that is what all other people are doing as well although they are not all willing to accept that they could possibly be on par with Jesus much less God.

Gnosis means "knowing" and this is what I continue to strive for. This book is a good catalyst for those looking to direct their thoughts and a good source of information for those prepared to challenge the beliefs that they have been led to.

[R.W. Erskine · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting read
lots of information here.

[jcg · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book fails to live up to its promise of tracing the Gnostic legacy from the Gospels to the Da Vinci Code. In spite of being the editor of the magazine Gnosis for many years, it is unclear if author Smoley understands what the main threads of Gnosticism are. His chapter "Who Were the Gnostics?" is muddy and fails to clearly define the main tenets of the Gnostic faith (there were many Gnostic groups who were not all in agreement).

The rambling history he traces is more one of esoteric hermeticism and occultism than Christian Gnosticism - and, while there may be Gnostic similarities in occultism, alchemy and other philosophies, Smoley fails to show how they carry on the Gnostic tradition. Repeating much studied history of the Templars and Masons may be interesting, but Smoley is unable to demonstrate that they were in any way Gnostic.

The fault really is not the research Smoley has done, but his inability to organize and structure the information into a cogent and coherent argument that proves his point. Smoley seems to think that presenting the facts is proof enough. It's not; he needs to link the threads together for us to show how all these different groups and philosophies are, in fact, Gnostic.

Smoley ends the book by trying to find Gnostic trends in contemporay literature and popular culture - this part of the book can be skipped as there is nothing to be learned in it. In passing, Smoley dismisses the popular work of Elaine Pagels as some sort of New Age feminism - while attempting to write a popular book himself! In the end, I would trust Pagels' scholarship over Smoley's rambling and vague musings.

[Simon B · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick look into the history of the world that surrounds the monotheistic religions that are organized and not organized

[Denise · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were many different schools of thought in early Christianity. The New Testament, as most people know it, was "selected" by church leaders out of many gospels. The Gospel of Thomas was not included because it taught that divinity resides within each person instead of in the place known as "heaven". The church wanted to consolidate power in the hands of church leaders rather than allowing individuals to "find their own way" so such beliefs were condemned and its advocates persecuted. This book is a bit drier than what it could have been but I imagine the author was trying to keep it factual and not push any hidden agendas.

[Pa Xing · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most interesting Gnostic books I've read, very easy to read for the novice and has a lot of details for the starter to grasp and ponder and explore much, much further. Though this book meanders constantly with occultism and esoteric knowledge of other kinds, like Manichaeism, it is sort of like a wide coverage of many important hermetic and secret knowledge and overall, for anyone interested, a good book to check out at least.

[Orion · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a chronology of gnostic thought, from its beginnings to the present day. The book is reasonably easy to read despite the fact it has some difficult concepts. A more thorough discussion of the basic tenets of gnosticism would have been useful but the author seems to pre-suppose the reader has acquaintance with these and does not do much to describe them. In places the author seems to be reaching rather than basing conclusions on solid fact, but it is overall a good, interesting book.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good, easily accessible overview of gnosticism and what is often referred to as gnosticism today. If you are looking for an in depth analysis, you will be slightly disappointed, but for those beginning their research, this is an excellent place to begin.

[chase Adams · Rating 3 out of 5]

awful title and cover. actual content ranging from extremely competent to enlightening.

[Frobisher Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great introduction to Gnosticism and its influence in thought down through the ages!

[Christopher Selmek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite an interesting tour though early Christianity, how the intellectually curious were purged, and how their legacy has survived to the present day.

[no.stache.nietzsche · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing too deep, or critical, but a nice general survey of classical Gnosticism and its influence throughout the medieval period, the renaissance and down to contemporary postmodern times. Nothing revolutionary in this information or analysis, but seems like it would be a fine place to start with this topic. I do enjoy the retention of Gnosticism as a coherent, literary and philosophical category, as some have aimed to undermine this and eject the catagory recently for lack of coherence. This is definitely a mistake, despite the fact that yes, of course- there is no dogmatically identifiable "group" that can be taken as "the" Gnostic "church"; that's fine. To reject Gnosticism as an identifiable category for that reason- or simply because there is no stable or "archetypal" gnostic belief set (though I doubt this is true, people do make this argument), simply asserts the precedence of established or "organized" religion, Christianity specifically, and ignores the long standing and diverse opposition to Christianity from pagan/spiritualist and liberationist/Promethean positions that do in fact share a common position of articulation for their opposition. Smoley does not go this route!

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb overview of the history of Gnosticism.

[Bob Couchenour · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thuis is one of the best books I have read on the subject. And it provided plenty of reference links for my future reading. Very comprehensive without being overburdening. A good book to consider if you are searching out the alternatives to conventional religion, but not so disenchanted to write-off all ancient ideas as simply arcaic and antiquated.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Smoley begins the book by examining various disperate schools of Gnostic thought from antiquity. Smoley then moves to a brief overview of Western Civilization, highlight various groups and movements, that while not fully Gnostic, maintained or professed ideas consistent with Gnosticism

[Kylie Briggs · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book assumes the reader has a greater knowledge of Catholic Church history than I do. But I really enjoyed it.

[Christopher Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://cdsmiller17.wordpress.com/201...

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a book to be read kightly, but ine to be taken in small doses which require much mentak "chewing". A definite must for history buffs.

[Richard Worden · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best book on the subject.

[Joseph Trella · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was looking more for what Gnosticism was in context to the early Church. The book touches a bit on the teachings and beliefs but then ties in other esoteric organizations to Gnosticism.

[Brian W. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. Very clear, addressing the history and enduring legacy of Gnosticism even today. This is all done in a crisp and punchy fashion with some great analysis and perspective.

If Gnosticism is something that interests you, this might be a good place to start. There are some other good books out there on the topic (see Elaine Pagels' work for example), but this was very informative.

Areas covered include the basics (what is Gnosticism), dualism, the history of Gnosticism from its early beginnings, the suppression/persecution of the Gnostics by the church, the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade against them, and the legacy and impact of Gnostic thought in our current age.

Perhaps, not for the faint of heart, as it may/will challenge some of your fundamental beliefs. Depends on if you are a "red pill" person, or a "blue pill" person. Read this and find out which one you are. Or re-watch The Matrix

[Jim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hard to read. Author ties the history of Gnosticism together with the thinest of threads. One example is that a lityyle known ancient egyptian text mentions that a tube come out of the sun spreading spiritual powers. Jung had a client who was not well read that had a vision of a phallic symbol coming out of the sun. The conclusion was that the only way the client could know that was through the knowledge provided by Gnosticism. Another example was a famous author once said that he didn't believe in God but knew God. Therefore he was a Gnostic because he had knowledge even though he never professed anything about Gnosticism.

[Sherif Gerges · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Forgotten Faith: The Gnostic Legacy of the Gospel of Thomas" by Richard Smoley is a scholarly yet accessible examination of an early Christian text that emphasizes direct, personal spiritual experiences over formal religious structures. Smoley meticulously interprets the 114 sayings of Jesus found in the Gospel of Thomas, situating them within the broader context of Gnostic thought. He adeptly links these ancient insights to contemporary spiritual practices, underscoring their enduring relevance. Although Smoley's analysis leans toward a Gnostic interpretation and romanticizes esoteric elements of faith this book is an excellent introduction to early Gnosticism.

[Brendan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a broad, generalized view of gnosticism in both ancient and modern times, and it was definitely written with a mainstream audience in mind- specifically, it seems, readers of The DaVinci Code looking for further information. Don’t let those points detract from the fact that this is a well-written, informative study that does a fantastic job of tracing the thread of gnostic activity from the dawn of Christianity through to our present day. A great entryway into one of the most fascinating schools of thought.

[Karl Swanson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting!

Smoley does a fantastic job of narrating the history of Gnosticism while including his own insights. Every Christian regardless of bias should read this book to better understand stand their own faith as well as the challenges and changes presented to the Christian faith over the past 2000 years!

[Vic Luther · Rating 5 out of 5]

So interesting! I usually mark stuff so I can reference interesting bits later, but I listened to audiobook so now all I have to say is, "Cool! Interesting!" Oh, well.
The voice of the narrator was really really nice so I don't mind any of that.

[JonJon Hock · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introduction to Gnostic thought. The center of the book dabbled in topics I found distantly related to my personal interests in the subject, but the beginning and end synthesize a near perfect introduction to Gnosticism.

[Stuart · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good introduction. I was surprised at the breadth of the topic. It’s funny that I also started to recognise quotes, not from the original ancient authors but from modern speakers using the old ideas almost verbatim.

I might listen to this again in the near future.