Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (Or to the Apostles' Creed) Author(S): James M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (Or to the Apostles' Creed) Author(s): James M. Robinson Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 5-37 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3260438 . Accessed: 06/04/2012 11:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature. http://www.jstor.org JBL 101/1 (1982) 5-37 JESUS FROM EASTER TO VALENTINUS (OR TO THE APOSTLES' CREED)* JAMESM. ROBINSON CLAREMONT GRADUATE SCHOOL, CLAREMONT, CA 91711 I HE first hundred years of Christianity-A.D. 30 to 130, more or less-is the period from Easter to Valentinus, or if you prefer, until the Apostles' Creed. That hundred years is also the time in which the NT was written. It is also the time in which oral traditions about Jesus were in circu- lation. It is this period, largely for these reasons, that occupies us here. The present paper will not seek to argue for or presuppose a solution to the perennial debate between the traditional (and still largely British) view of Gnosticism as a second-century inner-Christian heresy and the religions- geschichtlich (and Continental) view of Gnosticism as a broad syncretistic phenomenon surfacing at least as early as Christianity in various religions of the day, of which Christianity was only one. While the Nag Hammadi texts seem to have come out on the side of the latter alternative, in that several texts document non-Christian Gnosticism of various traditions (Jewish, Hermetic, Neo-Platonic), pre-Christian Gnosticism as such is hardly attested in a way to settle the debate once and for all. As a matter of fact the dating of the composition of most Nag Hammadi tractates, much less of their sources, has hardly begun, and so can claim nothing like the degree of rela- tive certainty characteristic of the dating of NT books. Yet the main reason for not approaching the issue of this paper in terms of that perennial debate is that such an approach tends to obscure rather than clarify the situation. For such a clear-cut polarized choice as that debate tends to call upon us to make could blunt our sensitivity to the actual shade of development a text may represent somewhere in the no-person's- land between those crisp options: If Gnosticism could be safely kept out of the first century A.D., then it could be ignored in interpreting Paul's opponents in Corinth, the world of Colossians and Ephesians, the Prologue of John, and the like, with the result that a traditional and misleading *The Presidential Address delivered 21 December 1981, at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, held at the San Francisco Hilton, San Francisco, CA. 6 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE exegesis would result. Conversely, the presupposition of pre-Christian Gnosticism invites the anachronism of reading into the situation behind such texts concepts of the second century, from which our knowledge of Gnosticism primarily comes. To assume a mediating position may thus not be the weakness of indecision and vacillation, but rather an approximation of the historical reality more useful than is either horn of the dilemma: One may assume that second-century Gnosticism did not first emerge then in the full-blown form of the Valentinian and Basilidean systems. For such historical develop- ments call for lead-time, just as, at the next stage, Clement and Origen of Alexandria on the one hand and Irenaeus and Tertullian on the other are inconceivable apart from the century leading up to their systems. Thus even if it were true that Gnosticism as known in the second-century systems did not exist in the Pauline and Johannine schools going back to the first century, the left-wing trajectory out of which second-century Gnosticism emerged must have been contemporary with the Pauline and Johannine schools and could well be a major factor in influencing them. To erect a periodizing barrier between pre-Gnostic apostolic Christianity and second- century Gnosticism would be to falsify history by denying the existence of that trajectory until it reached its outcome in second-century Gnosticism. This would produce the exegetical error of failing to interpret those NT texts in terms of their time as the lead-time for second-century Gnosticism. The methodological situation is similar when one envisages moving forward from A.D. 30. The apocalyptic radicalism that lead John the Baptist to lose his head, Jesus to be hung up, and Paul to become a habitue of forty lashes lest one (2 Cor 11:24) could hardly have failed to have left-wing successors down through the first hundred years, as main-line Christianity, in part following the lead of Judaism at Jamnia, standardized, solidified, domesticated itself and moved, as sects are wont to do in the second and third generations, toward the mainstream of the cultural environment. Thus the lead-time for Gnosticism coincides with the follow-up time for primitive Christian radicalism. Sometimes that radicalism would have expressed itself in sufficient continuity with the original forms it had taken for the radical fringe (charismatics, martyrs, prophets) to have had the support of the more conventional mainstream. But even within such acceptable limits there occur texts such as Colossians, Ephesians and Ignatius where new thought patterns and language worlds become unmistakably audible. Ultimately at least some of apocalyptic radicalism modulated into gnostic radicalism. The bulk of the NT, written in the second half of the first century A.D., the middle segment of the first hundred years of Christianity, is thus strung on trajectories that lead not only from the pre-Pauline confession of 1 Cor 15:3-5 to the Apostles' Creed of the second century, but also from Easter "enthusiasm"to second-century Gnosticism. It is on currents such as these, rather than on the traditional assumption of a straight-line development ROBINSON:JESUS-FROM EASTER TO VALENTINUS 7 through the "apostolic age" with its unwavering faith once for all delivered to the saints, that we are to discuss the topic before us. It is indeed in terms of such currents that the polarization of early Christianity into orthodoxy and heresy is to be understood. Heresy is so tenacious and unbending not because of the hardening of its heart, but because of its relatively valid claim to be rooted in an original Christian point. Thus the outcome of the first hundred years of Christianity in orthodoxy vs. heresy does not imply the divine protection of an original revelation from the wiles of the devil, but rather two alternative adjustments of the original position made necessary by the changing circumstances with the passage of time. Hence the theological assessment of such diverging trajectories,though it begins with the historical given that the winner in this competition has been known as orthodox, the loser heretical, has as its first task to acknowledge the historical process leading to this outcome and then to rethink critically what theological validity was gained and lost along each of the diverging trajectories, perhaps with the outcome that values from both trajectories should in fact be affirmed in some formulation for today, which would hence depart from both formulations of yesteryear. II The conceptualization or, more literally, the visualization of the appear- ances of the resurrected Christ are themselves such an instance of a bifurcat- ing morphology. The earliest accessible documentation as a point of departure is Paul. He conceives of the resurrection as bodily, but emphasizes change within the continuity of corporeality (1 Cor 15:40, 43, 48, 54): There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immor- tality, . When he comes, the Lord "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:21). Thus it is clear that Paul visualized the resurrected Christ as a heavenly body, luminous. Though the letters of Paul do not narrate the Damascus road experience with its blinding light, this visualization repeatedly narrated in Acts (9:1-19; 22:4-16; 26:9-18) does seem to reflect accurately Paul's own visualization of his experience. Yet with regard to the significance of Paul's experience, Luke does not reflect Paul's position. Luke demotes the Damascus road experience into Paul's conversion, as the church, following Luke rather than Paul, tends to refer to what Paul himself would have us refer to as the resurrected Christ's appearance to him. In Luke's hands this event falls outside the period of 8 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE forty days to which Luke restricts the normative resurrection appearances (Acts 1:3). Paul himself alluded to the appearance of the resurrected Christ to him in order to validate his claim to be an apostle "not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead" (Gal 1:1).