I began reading the Nag Hammadi scriptures in the early 80's when the James Robinson The Nag Hammadi Library: A Translation of the Gnostic Scriptures was first published. It was a hard read, mostly because there was so much missing (lacunae). This version makes it much more understandable but not without a price (see the excellent review by John Aaron regarding a little too much translation). Oh well, nobody is/was perfect except one. When I began reading this version, I imagined a round table of scholars who picked apart the essense of these ms's with the metaphorical microscope as a team and debated each and every translation problem. For how could only a few decide what the texts were saying with so many missing fragments and even whole pages/chapters? They used correlations with all available manuscripts to extract the essence of each manuscript and "fill in the blanks" to make it readable to the average person like me. Yes, it must have been like that. In some cases like The Gospel of Mary (of Magdala), we may not know all of what the High Priest said after he returned from death with just this manuscript because the first three chapters are missing. Maybe they wound up as fire-starter material for some poor people in Egypt? I don't blame them; we all need light/heat/food to dispel the darkness. A perfect solution. There are other works that are said to be the teaching of The Christ after he returned like Pistis Sophia: The Gnostic Tradition of Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and His Disciples. Yet, even the remnants of the Gospel of Mary are so profoundly beautiful; it is the single most beautiful thing I've read in my life. I need to find an older version to see where they deviate but, again, the essence must be there and only made clearer in this version. For anyone unfamiliar with the Gospel of Mary, imagine the scene given in Luke 24:10-11... "10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense." Why did their words seem like nonsense? Perhaps because they were so profound as to be not believable? Or perhaps for a more "practical" reason; the editors of the Bible did not want these more in depth details to be known. Teachings like this... "Peter Asks Mary to Teach: Peter said to Mary, “Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than all other women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, the things you know that we don’t because we haven’t heard them.” Mary responded, “I will teach you about what is hidden from you.” And she began to speak these words to them. ... "Mary Discusses Vision and Mind: She said, “I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, ‘Lord, I saw you today in a vision.’ “He answered me, ‘Blessed are you for not wavering at seeing me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.’ ~ The Nag Hammadi Scriptures (p. 743) I'd like to say more about the Gospel of Mary but it's hard without giving examples and Amazon would probably say it's copyright infringement and not put up my review. For another good example of how the NH not only clarifies but expands and elucidates, see Mark 8:27-30 - Jesus asked them, "who do people say I am?" In the Bible, Peter (and others) respond "You are the Messiah" "one of the prophets" etc. But is that all of it? There were some other replies like that of Thomas... "Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to something and tell me what I am like.” Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a just messenger.” Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.” Thomas said to him, “Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.” Jesus said, “I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.” And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?” Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and consume you." ~ The Gospel of Thomas, 13 So did Jesus say "who do the people say I am?" He already knew what people said before they said or thought it. Isn't it more plausible that Jesus asked his desciples, who were closest to him, who they thought he was? There is so much more in the NHS especially regarding the Old Testament. That the word "Elohim" is both singular and plural is a clue. El is really the singular of Elohim. The names of God in the OT have been reduced to meaningless interchangable words. Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim; do these names all mean the same thing? Are they interchangable like a car, a vehicle, an automobile? I think not. The belief of early Christian Gnostics was that the "God" of the OT was not the one true God. The one that Jesus called "Father." This is the key to understanding the OT. The "demigurge" or archon(s) are themselves temporary and subordinate to God the Father and Christ. If only Christians would put aside what they were TOLD by their Mystery Babylon occult rulers and read/research for themselves. "For what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it is what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.” ~ The Gospel of Thomas 14, Matthew 15:11 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." ~ John 21:25 I suppose He said many other things as well.