What Is the Gospel of Truth?

The Gospel of Truth was one of the manuscripts found in Nag Hammadi in 1945. The manuscript gets its name from its opening words: the Gospel of Truth. The Church polemicist Irenaeus of Lyon mentions that Valentinus penned a work titled The Gospel of Truth, leading some scholars to believe that Valentinus could have written this text. However, no explicit mention of Valentinus exists, and a later disciple could have written the document. Like the texts at Oxyrhynchus, many texts from the Nag Hammadi library, including The Gospel of Truth, are written in Coptic. The Gospel of Truth is believed to have been written in the late second century of the common era.

In the first and second centuries CE, there were many Christian sects. As a disclaimer, it should be said that for many scholars, using the word “Christianity” is anachronistic when discussing the first couple of centuries of the common era. This article will use the word to maintain a certain level of clarity and consistency.

These divisions in early Christianity led to the development of apologetics — or the practice of defending one’s faith. The first three centuries of the early Church are full of apologists, such as Tertullian, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Origin of Alexandria.

There was no canonical Bible, and thus no set of four Gospels, until the Council of Carthage in 397 CE. As a result, there were many Christian and pseudo-Christian writings in circulation. Due to limited resources, one could imagine a community of Christians with just one gospel at their disposal, such as The Gospel of John. Gospels were limited because these writings were expensive to produce and later reproduce, as was any written document in antiquity. One would have to pay for the expensive materials like papyrus and for the services of a scribe to write things down. In addition, most people were illiterate.

Thus, the effort and time taken to produce The Gospel of Truth should not be undervalued and should be treated as a serious document that opens a small window into an ancient Christian community.

Is The Gospel of Truth a Gospel?

What exactly is a gospel? In the traditional sense, a gospel is the recorded life of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospel of Truth is not a traditional gospel in that sense; rather, the text is about a cosmic battle of sorts. The fight takes place between two sides, the Divine Realm and those of “Error.” However, despite this battle, there is no one consistent motif at play. Instead, the author of The Gospel of Truth introduces a few different characters throughout the text. Though different concerns are raised in different sections of the piece, the main underlying point—the battle—remains the same.

Using the translation by scholar Marvin Meyer from his 2007 The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, The Gospel of Truth starts: “The gospel of truth is joy for people who have received grace from the Father of truth, that they might know him through the power of the Word.” From the opening passage, the first few words are self-descriptive — it calls itself a gospel. This opening line is telling because it is possibly alluding to (and therefore in competition with) the other gospels that were also in circulation at the time of its composition.

The Gospel of Truth’s opening line reveals its two main characters: the Father of Truth and the Father of the Word — both of whom are in the Divine Realm. One can see a parallel with The Gospel of John’s opening line: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1 NRSV). Both are assuming that the intended audience has an idea of what “the Word” means. However, it is unclear whether The Gospel of Truth’s “Father of Truth” is God.

Unlike the other gospels, the introduction of The Gospel of Truth does not explicitly link the Word to Jesus of Nazareth. However, if the intended audience had read the Gospel of John, they would have understood the identity of the Word.

The writer of The Gospel of Truth dissociates the Father of Truth from “the Word,” creating two separate entities. Instead, its author introduces the Word as a creation of the Father’s mind and thoughts. Because of this it arguably links the divine realm to the intellect. Linking God to the intellect was not uncommon at the time due to Platonic and Neoplatonic influences.

Given the Father’s connection to the Word, the Word has Divine substance and is called a savior. Toward the end of the opening, The Gospel of Truth reveals its purpose as an aid for those who wish to become closer to the Father. It describes itself as a “means of discovery for those who seek him.” Through this, one can deduce this piece is for spiritual-self-improvement. It opens as an invitation to readers, and presumably members of the community, to begin a journey to cultivate their intellect and to know the Father through “the Word.” With these features, the name “gospel” is a bit of a misnomer, as it does not align with features one would expect of a gospel.

So, how does The Gospel of Truth present a cosmic battle? For starters, following the introduction, there is a juxtaposition between “ignorance” and the Word. The Word is an intellectual creation of the Father. In the same way that the Word brings joy, “ignorance of the Father brought terror and fear.” Ignorance of the Father created the personification of Error, which is gendered feminine, and created a material realm, depicted when the text says: “She worked on her material substance.”

Moreover, the Father is forgotten, not unknown, due to Error’s creation acting as a substitute for Truth. Thus, The Gospel of Truth invites one to transcend within themselves and to remember the Father. Engaging in this inner exercise of remembering the Father is like a battle, and its impact reaches far beyond oneself, influencing the cosmos.

In The Gospel of Truth (18, 11-19, 17), Jesus Christ is introduced, and he is depicted as the threshold that can guide one from ignorance to enlightenment. Once again, one can hear the echoes of The Gospel of John 1:4-5: “In him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” Both The Gospel of Truth and The Gospel of John present narratives of a cosmic battle between ignorance and enlightenment or darkness and light, respectively.

References to The Gospel of John?

The language used in The Gospel of Truth seems to be drawing upon the reader’s familiarity with the portrayal of God in The Gospel of John. This parallelism between the two texts can be seen as a deliberate rhetorical strategy, especially considering the historical context in which not all communities had access to all four canonical gospels. It is plausible that The Gospel of Truth was specifically crafted for a community familiar with The Gospel of John.

For instance, if this community only had The Gospel of John, The Gospel of Truth could have served as an additional resource for spiritual growth, strengthening their relationship with the Divine while also offering supplementary insights into the teachings found in The Gospel of John.

If we accept the idea that The Gospel of Truth complements The Gospel of John, then we can interpret the narrative of Jesus presented in it as having cosmological significance. Like the theme of ignorance versus the Divine, there appears to be a cosmic struggle depicted between Jesus and Error in The Gospel of Truth. It describes the conflict between Jesus and Error as follows: “For this reason, Error was angry with him and persecuted him.” Thus, we have a theology for Jesus’s trials — namely, the crucifixion.

These theological statements about the crucifixion do not suggest that The Gospel of Truth is an attempt to compete with The Gospel of John. In addition, since it reads as an addendum, it offers theological explanations for the crucifixion, depicted when it says: “He was nailed to a tree, and he became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father.” This language is another example of the writer of The Gospel of Truth producing theology that situates Jesus in a cosmic battle against Error and ignorance and it is an early example of an attempt to explain the atonement problem in Christian thought.

The tree parallel could be alluding to the tree in Genesis following the creation narrative that says: “Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9 NRSV).

Echoing Genesis conjures up thoughts of a universal fall, a cosmic catastrophe. However, The Gospel of Truth links the tree with the book of the living, saying: “Jesus appeared, put on that book, was nailed to a tree.” The writer does not explicitly disclose if the book mentioned is The Gospel of Truth, but presumably, they are the same. Moreover, by contrasting the book with Jesus and the tree/cross, one gets a feel of what is at stake. By awarding the book such a high status, one can retrospect to the time of its composition and argue that issues of canon formation were at play.

Following the theology of the cross and book, the text—once again—reinforces the notion of ascending to the Father by “going up to him.” Likewise, elements of fighting Error are interspersed throughout the following pages. The text then returns to the language of the Father’s love and invites the reader to him, revealing that the text is not esoteric but rather available for all to embrace.

The Father “supports all and chooses all. It also takes the expression of all and purifies it.”  This celestial paternal embrace is likewise a rhetorical device leveraged to bring followers to this school of Christianity. Up to this point, there were many characters mentioned on the side of the celestial realm: the Father, Jesus, and the Word.

Interestingly, however, the Holy Spirit is introduced much later in the passage when it says: “The Father opens his bosom, and his bosom is the Holy Spirit.” Despite the many verses that are dedicated (and are frankly quite repetitive) to the Father’s role in this cosmic battle, it is noteworthy that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned often. All one can know, as the text suggests, is that the Holy Spirit seems to be a feature that emanates from the Father alone. The lack of mention of the Holy Spirit could prove that its theological prevalence was not of concern for communities using this text.

Ethical Guidelines 

The text then gives a guideline of ethical characteristics one must follow when one comes to the Father. The commandments (for lack of a better word) begin with standard ethical practices: “Extend your hands to the sick. Feed the hungry.” However, what is remarkable is the section that comes after these standard practices. Instead of continuing to write what one ought to do to another, the writer advises the practitioner to focus on themself. Nevertheless, this reads as a warning; that is to say, the reader is advised to avoid returning to old habits.

Just because one is with the Father, the previous version of themselves can always return, and it all has to do with ethical practices, depicted when it says: “Do not return to eat what you have vomited.” Returning to the previous version of oneself is returning to the time before knowing the Father, a time of confusion. Moreover, one’s old behavioral practice is linked with Error and defeating it, as seen when it says: “Do not be a place for the devil, for you have already destroyed him.” Therefore, the body and lived experience is likewise part of the larger dualistic battle.

The text does not explicitly reveal who is writing, but the writer is on the side of the celestial authority from beginning to end. The intended audience could be a challenge to discuss because, on the one hand, this reads as a spiritual aid for those seeking the Father. On the other hand, one could argue that the cautionary language of fleeing Error could be used as a rhetorical device to lure in new followers reading it for the first time. However, there is an assumption that the reader would be familiar with Genesis and The Gospel of John due to its frequent intertextual use of metaphor, imagery, and biblical allusion. Moreover, as mentioned above, there is arguably an interpretation of the crucifixion in terms of these two books.

Furthermore, there is the consistent background noise of a celestial dualistic battle happening, whether the author is writing about theology or ethical guidelines. Whether one wants to or not, everyone is a participant in this celestial tension.

The text leaves its intended reader with a few potential issues to deal with, like the issues of gender. Up to what point is Error allegorically feminine, if at all? Are women allowed in this community? And how about the Holy Spirit? Why is it mentioned so little? If the underlying concern is a metaphysical tension, then would it not be wise to develop something including the Holy Spirit?