VALENTINIAN GNOSIS and the APOCRYPHON of JOHN* I Gnosticism Is the “Acute,” Catholicism the “Chronic” Christianization O
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE VALENTINIAN GNOSIS AND THE APOCRYPHON OF JOHN* I Gnosticism is the “acute,” catholicism the “chronic” christianization of Greek philosophy and Oriental mysticism on the basis of the Gospel. There is a way which leads from the Apocryphon of John to Valentinus, and from Valentinus to Heracleon, and from Heracleon to Origen. This is the basic view which underlies the edition and commentary of the writings of the Jung Codex: 1) the Apocryphon of James refl ects a shade of Egyptian Christianity in which Valentinian Gnosis was grafted on a Jewish Christian tree; 2) the Gospel of Truth refl ects the christocentric docetism of the Oriental school of Valentinianism and of Valentinus himself; 3) according to the letter to Rheginos On Resurrection only the pneumatic body of Christ (and so of the Gnostics) is saved—this in accordance with the Oriental school and the Founding Father himself; 4) the stress on the importance of the “psychic” element, the sympathy for the Demiurge and the personal features of God in the Tripartite Tractate are characteristic of the Western school, more specifi cally of Heracleon, and prelude the theology of Origen; 5) all these writings presuppose an already existing Oriental Gnosis evidenced by Irenaeus, Haer. 1.29.1, and the four different versions of the Apocryphon of John found in recent times. Moreover, in this perspective the great heretics of the second century, Basilides, Marcion, and Valentinus, are discerned in their true and authentic originality: 1) Basilides was the fi rst Christian to express the concept of creatio ex nihilo; 2) Marcion, though certainly infl uenced by Cerdo or another Gnostic, was so impressed by John’s and Paul’s con- cept of God’s unmotivated, free love of man that he even eliminated the underlying idea of man’s spiritual affi nity with the Godhead; 3) for Valentinus the Christ-event had a central meaning, which is completely absent from the Apocryphon of John. * Previously published in: B. Layton (ed.), The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. I, Leiden 1980, 118–132. 366 chapter twenty-three All this could have been discovered before Nag Hammadi, because the text of the Apocryphon of John was already known in its outline, as well as Irenaeus, Haer. 1.29.1. But scholarship was so much dominated by the view that “vulgar Gnosis” was an offshoot of “learned Gnosis” that even those scholars who defended the primacy of myth did not dare to say more than that the system of Irenaeus, Haer. 1.29.1, came near to Valentinianism: they did not even mention that the Apocryphon of John had been discovered long before their time. I am not aware that there is anybody involved in the growth industry of Gnostic studies who contests the validity of the outline sketched above. There is only a quarrel about “fi rstmanship.” There are, how- ever, details which are still uncertain. In the fi rst place they relate to the problem of the name of the sect from which the Apocryphon of John stems and to the original context of this writing. Tertullian on several occasions mentions the “Gnostics” and the Valentinians together. The “Gnostics” are a specifi c sect, allied with the Valentinians but not identical with them. When writing his Scorpiace (± 213), he says that in the times of persecutions the Gnostics and the Valentinians dissuade people from martyrdom. He describes them as being present in Carthage: “tunc Gnostici erumpunt, tunc Valentiniani proserpunt” (1). One of their leaders is obviously a certain Prodicus (15). He is also mentioned in Adversus Praxean (3); together with Valentinus he introduces “more than one god.” Clement of Alexandria also says that the followers of Prodicus call themselves “Gnostics” (Str. 3.4.30; Stählin 2. 209.29–31). It would seem that Prodicus was a teacher of Alexandrian sectarians who styled themselves “Gnostics” and had spread from one seaport to another; we need not suppose that they came to Carthage from Rome in the wake of the catholic church. They could have been there long before the arrival of orthodoxy, because Tertullian was, after all, the fi rst known Catholic of Africa. Irenaeus says in so many words, “The fi rst of them, who took his start from the principles of the so-called ‘Gnostic’ heresy and adapted them to his own brand of teaching, was Valentinus” (Haer. 1.11.1). Further on he tells us that according to Valentinus the Mother Sophia brought forth the demiurge, “and that a left-hand ruler was also brought forth together with him in the same way as the falsely-so-called ‘Gnostics’ whom we are going to discuss in the following.” This can only mean that according to Valentinus, just as to his pupils, Sophia suffered passions which were transformed into substance from which the Demiurge and the devil arose. “And fi rst of all, they say, from the psychic substance .