Harvard Divinity School

"The Demiurge and His Archons": A Gnostic View of the Bishop and Presbyters?
Author(s): Elaine H. Pagels
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 69, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1976), pp. 301-324
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509037 .
Accessed: 02/02/2012 01:24

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].

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 "THE DEMIURGE AND HIS ARCHONS"-
A GNOSTIC VIEW OF THE BISHOP AND PRESBYTERS?*
ELAINEH. PAGELS
BARNARDCOLLEGE,COLUMBIAUNIVERSITY
NEWYORK,N.Y. 10027

Much scholarly research has been devoted to the question:

What issues divide gnostic Christians from the "ecclesiastical"
Christians who are their contemporaries? Irenaeus, bishop of
Lyons (c. 160 A.D.),whose writings constitute a major source for
the investigation of gnosticism, defines the issues in terms of
differences in doctrine. Irenaeus admits that the question is a
difficult one, since the gnostic doctrines he intends to "expose and
refute" are so similar to orthodox teaching that, he says, most
Christians cannot differentiate between the two.1 Irenaeusinsists,
nevertheless, that the differences are crucial, since gnostic
doctrines are false, spurious forms of genuine Christianteaching.
Therefore he writes five volumes--The Exposure and Overthrow
of Falsely-So- Called Gnosis-to help his fellow churchmen make
this discrimination.2
Irenaeus states as his major complaint against the gnostics that
they teach the insidious doctrine that "there is another god
besides the creator."3Hans Jonas is hardly original, then, when he
declares that what characterizes orthodox teaching is its
insistence upon monotheism, upon the monarchy of God-the
claim that God is one, creator and lord. What characterizes
gnostic doctrines, however diverse these are, is the denial of this
claim: Ghostics either teach dualistic ontology, or they modify
monotheism to distinguish between God as creator, on the one
hand, and God as father, or as spirit, on the other.4
Historians of religion, following Irenaeus' lead, traditionally
have defined the controversy between orthodoxy and gnosticism

*The author gratefully acknowledges the criticism and suggestions of

Professors Helmut Koester, Cyril Richardson, Wayne Meeks, and Morton
Smith and their help in preparing this manuscript.
'Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (ed. W. W. Harvey; Cambridge: Typis
Academicis, 1857) Praefatio 1-3 (hereafter cited as AH).
2AH, Praef. 3.
3AH, ibid.
4The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1958) 42 and passim.
302 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
in terms of a conflict in the history of ideas or the history of
dogma. From Harnack's classic definition (gnosticism is "the
acute Hellenizing of Christianity") to Nock's assessment
(gnosticism is "Platonism gone wild!") historians generally have
agreed in defining gnosticism in terms of the differences between
its philosophic and theological views and those of "orthodox"
Christians. Specifically, gnostics are those who "denythe oneness
of God"-the opponents of monotheism. To say that this
negative characterization fits the evidence, at least as long as our
major sources for research remained the anti-gnostic treatises, is
virtually tautological, since it coincides with (and, indeed, derives
from) the viewpoint of the anti-gnostic writers themselves.
What happens when we begin to investigate the recently
discovered gnostic writings from Nag Hammadi-that
remarkable find of some fifty-one original gnostic writings
discovered in Egypt in 1946-47?5The characterization still seems
correct, but considerably less significant: These discoveries reveal
other extraordinary disparities between orthodox and gnostic
Christians. The new evidence enables us to recognize two
distinctly different types of second-century Christian literature.
Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Barnabas, Irenaeus, and Tertullian,
for all their differences, share certain common concerns: to
strengthen the believers' moral conscience and encourage good
works; to support developing structures of church organization;
to define "orthodox"doctrine and to exclude what is "heretical."
The writings of Valentinus, Basilides, Ptolemy, Heracleon, and
many anonymous or pseudonymous writings from Nag
Hammadi, on the other hand, seldom mention ethical issues; they
express no concern for proper administration of church order.
Nothing, it seems, could be further from the practical minds of
Irenaeus and Tertullian than the myths these gnostic teachers
elaborate, the poems they record, and the imaginative theological
speculations that seem to fascinate them.
This observation makes the traditional question more
complex. What divides gnostics from the "ecclesiastical"
Christians in the second century?Is it the question of the "oneness
of God"? If so, what could denial of that doctrine mean? Is it
really obvious (as most historians of Christianityapparentlyhave
assumed) why the question of monotheism became such a
decisive issue in the formation of early Christianity?After all, the

5For a brief description, see G. MacRae, "Nag Hammadi," IDBSup (1976)

613-19; for bibliography, David M. Scholer, ed., Nag Hammadi Bibliography
1948-1968 (Leiden: Brill, 1971).
 ELAINE H. PAGELS 303
gnostics against whom Irenaeus directs his five volumes of
theological polemics are not dualists. They are, for the most part,
Valentinian gnostics who confess one God, in common with other
Christians;nevertheless, they insist on discriminating between the
popular image of God as creator, master,judge, and lord (which,
they say, most Christians naively accept) and God as father of
truth, God understood as spirit. Why was such a modification of
monotheistic doctrine considered so crucial-in fact, so utterly
reprehensible--that persons whom Harnack called "the first
Christian theologians" actually were expelled from the church
community as heretics? We know that this question distressed
and perplexed the gnostics themselves: as Irenaeus says, "they
ask, when they confess the same things and participate in the same
worship . . how it is that we, without cause, remain aloof from
them; and how it is that when they confess the same things, and
hold the same doctrine, we call them heretics!"6
I suggest that we cannot find the answer to this question as long
as we remain within the framework of the traditional definitions
of the controversy between orthodoxy and gnosticism as a
chapter in the history of ideas (or the history of dogma) alone.
When we investigate the writings of the "fathers of the church"
and of their gnostic contemporaries to see how the doctrine of
God actually functions in each type of literature, we may see that
this theological issue indeed involves social and political issues as
well. Specifically, we may see that both the orthodox Christians
and their gnostic opponents recognize that, in the controversy
over "monotheism,"they are debating an issue crucial to those on
both sides: namely, the issue of spiritual authority.
Certainly this issue is central to one of the earliest documents
we have from Roman tradition, the letter that Clement, writing
on behalf of the Roman church, sends to the Christian
community in Corinth. Clement addresses a specific crisis:certain
leaders of that community have been divested of their authority.
Clement says that they have been deposed from power by
upstarts.7Using political language, he calls this a "rebellion"8and
insists that the deposed leaders must be restored to their proper
authority; they must be feared, respected, and obeyed. On what
grounds?Clement argues that God, the God of Israel, alone is the

6AH 3. 15. 2.
71 Clem. 1.1; 39.1.
8aor•oLq:1 Clem. 1.1; 46.5-7; 47.5f.; see discussion in Karlmann Beyschlag,
Clemens Romanus und der Frithkatholizismus (Ttibingen: Mohr, 1966) 166ff.
304 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
creator (6•7ptovpy6's)9 and lord (K6ptors),10he is the master
who must be
(6carr6r79)i" of the church, the king (f3auLtX69)12
obeyed, the lawgiver (vopo0grr79)who establishes the "law of
commandments,"the judge (KPL7ur-9)who enacts punishment and
acquits the repentant. How, he asks then, is God's rule actually
enacted? Clement goes back to the example of Israel. God set
kings to rule "the people"; he established judges to preside over
them, and generals to command them as an army of subordinates.
In the "new Israel," Clement continues, God again has entrusted
his "authorityof reign"'3to "rulersand leaders on earth."14Those
who accept the "position of obedience"and "fear"their rulersand
leaders demonstrate their obedience to God. 15Clementsets forth
a striking theory of church office. He theorizes that the structure
of authority in Israel, and specifically the priestly orders-high
priest, priests, Levites, and people-furnish the types that find
their fulfillment in the authority structure of the Christian
community. Clement extends the typology suggested in Hebrews
and 1 Peter: as the high priest prefigures Christ,16 Israel's priests
prefigure the Christian bishops, and the Levites prefigure the
Christian deacons.17 He even misquotes Isa 40:17 ("I will make
thine rulers peace, and thine overseers righteousness" to read "I
will appoint thy bishops in righteousness, and thy deacons in
faith")'8to prove that the prophets foretold the appointment of
bishops and deacons. The bishop, in particular,fulfills the type of
Moses as judge, as ruler, and as "faithful steward in the house of
God."19

91 Clem. 33.2; 35.3.

101Clem. 34 (passim); 39.4; 47.7.
'1 Clem. 36.4; 40.1,4; 48.1; 49.6; 52.1; 33.1.
121 Clem. 31.4; 32.2; 43.1-6; 41.2.
131 Clem. 41.1.
141 Clem. 40.4.
151 Clem. 63.1.
161 Clem. 36.1; 61.3.
171 Clem. 40.5; 32.2.
818Clem. 42.5; cf. Adolf von Harnack, 7he Constitution and Law of the
Church in the First Two Centuries (New York: Putnam, 1910) 72f.: "By
misquoting the words of Isaiah . ..6JOUow rob &apxovprSoov v ip77lv,7Ka
O
uov v in the form . . . KaTraoUTr/trob9
0ro ~7rTLK67rrovL aLK&LOUVf~
iv 6LtKaLOaUV? Kai 6taYKVOvU he (1
7TLUK6rrov7T9vaTr
maintains that the • arTvlv rV roTEL
Clement) appointment of bishops and deacons under these
very titles is foretold in the Old Testament."
191 Clem. 43.1-6; 51.1. See Beyschlag, Clemens Romanus, 146-48 for
discussion and reference.
 ELAINEH. PAGELS 305
As Jerusalem alone served Israel as the proper place for
sacrificial worship, so, Clement contends, Jerusalem prefigures
the place of proper worship in the new Israel-the eucharist
offered by properly ordained officials.20 He proposes the
following schema:
high priest = Christ;
Moses (in his roles as ruler, administrator, and judge) and
Israel's priests = bishops;
Levites = deacons;
worship offered in Jerusalem = eucharist offered by the proper
Christian officials.
The author sets forth this theory in the strongest possible
language: Christiansin Corinth who refuse to "bow the neck"and
"obey"the bishops and deacons are guilty of insubordination to
their divine master.21 As in Israel, he warns, whoever disobeys the
divinely ordained authorities "receives the death penalty!"22
This letter represents a dramatic moment in Christian history,
whether or not it is the author himself (as Harnackassumes) who
takes this "firstfateful step"in interpretingChristian office on the
basis of Jewish precedent.23In arguing for the validity-even for
the sacred inviolability-of Christian offices, the author
represents the church as a "supernatural society" not only in
terms of its origin and purpose, but even in the very structureof its
institutional organization.24 Fundamental to his conception is a
strict order of superiority and subordination: the clergy are
"generals"who command an "army"of subordinates: kings who
rule "the people"; "judges"who stand over those judged.25This

201 Clem. 41.2.

211 Clem. 63.1.
221 Clem. 41.3.
23Harnack,Constitution and Law, 72.
24MauriceGoguel, The Birth of Christianity (trans. H. C. Snape; London:
Allen and Unwin, 1953) 387-91: "The Christian life is only conceived to be
possible within the framework of a supernatural society synonymous with a
divine institution in which the laity are strictly subordinated to the clergy.
The church as being a supernaturalsociety, both in its principle and in its ends, is
also one in its organization and its manifestation: in actual fact the forms of
worship and priesthood as laid down in the Mosaic legislation are applied to it."
251 Clem. 37.2f.: "Let us consider those who serve our generals, with what
good order, habitual readiness, and submissiveness they perform their
commands. Not all are prefects, nor tribunes, nor centurions, nor in charge of
fifty men, or the like, but each carries out in his own rank the commands of the
emperor and of the generals" (trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL). Cf. also 45.1-47.2.
306 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
theory not only divides the community between clergy and laity,
but also ranks each member of the clergy "in his own order,"and
requires that each observe "the rules and commandments" of his
position at all times.26
Hans von Campenhausen expresses the bewilderment of many
scholars when he observes that "dogmatic issues are nowhere
mentioned" in 1 Clement. He therefore assumes that "we can no
longer discern the real basis of the quarrel . . our epistle leaves
us completely in the dark concerning the real situation and the
crucial points of conflict in the Corinthian church."27 It is true
that the epistle offers little hint of the viewpoint of the deposed
presbyters. Yet does not the author make his own point--indeed,
his theological point -entirely clear? His concern, as he expresses
it, is to reestablish the Corinthian church on the model of the
divine authority. He insists upon the complete correlation
between theological and ecclesiological convictions. The
authorities in the local church community are divinely ordained
delegates, whose rule mirrors the divine reign of its creator,
master and lord.
Beyschlag argues that Clement, rather than inventing a new
theory, only articulates the basic elements of common Roman
tradition.28 The evidence of Ignatius' letters tends to confirm
Beyschlag's view. With single-minded passion Ignatius devotes
himself to articulate and defend the essential identity of the actual
local church hierarchy with the divine order. "As above, so
below": Ignatius sees the "spiritualreality of the church members
only in the particular form of an episcopal church system with
presbyterate and deacons."29

26Goguel, Birth of Christianity, 387; Harnack, Constitution and Law, 72;

Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the
Church of the First Three Centuries (trans. J. A. Baker; London: Adams and
Charles Plack, 1961) 88-93: ". . order within the community can now be
realized only by an analysis of rights and duties and therefore also by allotting to
individuals superior and subordinate positions which they must maintain at all
times. . . . The Christian . . . cult now requires that a clear distinction be
drawn between 'priests' and 'laymen.' The line of demarcation between the
'multitude'and the 'presbyters'is in this way made a very positive and 'official'
one."
27EcclesiasticalAuthority, 86-87.
28Beyschlag,Clemens Romanus, 339-53; cf. 352: "Unsere Untersuchung hat
nun durchweg zu dem Ergebnis gefiihrt, dass die von Clemens bentitzte
r6mische Oberlieferung theologisch auf dieApologetik des Judentums mit
synoptischen Einschligen fuhrt."
29VonCampenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 98-99.
 ELAINEH. PAGELS 307
For Ignatius this means that the bishop "is a type of the
Father";30"he presides in the place of God."3' Christians are to
express reverence"to the bishop as to God," to honor him as they
honor God, to respect his power "as the power of God the
Father."32 As the divine council is subject to God, so the
presbytersare subjectto the bishop, the deacons to the presbyters,
and "the laity" to all three.33 Wherever the bishop is present,
God's presence is assured: the worship he celebrates alone is true
worship of God.34
Goguel concludes from such statements that "Ignatius is much
more a churchman than a theologian. The heretics annoyed him
because they had rebelled against an authority of which, as
bishop, he felt himself to be the depository."35 Yet Ignatius
himself certainly would reject the dichotomy Goguel assumes
between his roles as a churchman and as a theologian. The
inseparable unity of theology and ecclesiology forms the very
center of his religious vision. When he defends the authority of the
bishop and his subordinates, Ignatius is expressing his primary
theological conviction. That the divine power of the Father and
his son Jesus Christ is accessible to mankind by means of the
hierarchy of divinely ordained authorities who administer his
churches-this, for Ignatius, is the message of salvation. Clement
and Ignatius offer different models of the divine hierarchy;
nevertheless, both bishops understand the divine hierarchy as a
paradigm for the emerging structure of church authority.
Certainly their theology is extremely practical in its implications;
yet simultaneously the practice they urge is theologically based.
Hans von Campenhausen warns, however, against overesti-
mating the prestige and power of church officials in second-cen-
tury Rome. He suggests that the Shepherd of Hermas offers evi-
dence that their authority has definite limits, and that members of
the Christian community could speak independently of the
church officials. "The author is a prophet who, by virtue of his
visions and spiritual illuminations, has received authority to
speak to the saints." Noting that Hermas expresses the wish to
give his book "to the presbyters,"and to have Clement send it to
instruct cities abroad, von Campenhausen concludes that "the

30Trall. 3.1.
31Magn.6.1.
32Magn. 13.1-2; Eph. 5.3.
33Trall.3.1; Magn. 6.1-7.2.
34Smyrn.8.1-2; Magn. 7.1-2.
35Birthof Christianity, 413.
308 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
most harmonious relations exist between the men of the spirit and
the officials."36
Von Campenhausen reads correctly the explicit message that
the author of Hermas intends to convey. But is this an accurate
assessment of the actual situation-or even of the evidence?If we
examine how Hermas describes the structure of authority in the
church, we may suspect that his writing contains another, quite
different, implicit message-namely, the superiority of the church
officers and the subordination of all members of the laity-inclu-
ding Hermas-to their authority.
Hermas first envisions the church as a matriarchwho mediates
divine admonitions. When she commands Hermas to sit down, he
refuses, and defers to the presbyters:"Lady, let the presbyters sit
first."37Thus Hermas indicates that he, as a member of the laity,
does not presume to consider himself the equal of the clergy.
When he does consent to take his place, he intends to sit on her
right, but is at first distressed and offended that she refuses him
this place of honor, and places him instead in an inferiorposition
on her left. "The church" rebukes him; he is, she declares,
unworthy of the place of honor she reserves for the confessors.
Previously he voluntarily submitted to the superior status of the
presbyters;now he learns that the confessors also rank as a second
group above him in honor and "glory."38
Hermas goes on to explain the primarymessage that the church
reveals to him: the believer is to accept his relationship to God as a
servant or slave (6o)DXos)to his master. Discussing Hermas'
ecclesiology, Pernveden states that:
Baptism establishes the master/servant relationship between the Lord of
the church and man. . . . Life in the church is characterized as a
subordination to God's commandments. The relationship between God
and the believer is compared to a relationship between a heathen master
with unlimited power and his subject. . .. Thus man can belong to the
church only if he lives as a servant. . . . To be ... in the church is to be
called to service in obedience.39

To whom does the Christian owe such obedience? Clearly, to the

Son of God, here characterized as the lawgiver40(or, even, "the

36EcclesiasticalAuthority, 95.
37Herm. Vis. 3.1.8.
38Vis.3.1.9-2.4.
39L. Pernveden, The Concept of the Church in the Shepherd of Hermas
(Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 179; see 177-206 ("The subservient position of the
believer"). Italics in the quotation are mine.
40Herm.Sim. 5.5.3; 5.6.3.
 ELAINEH. PAGELS 309
law"),41 lord,42and judge;43yet he, in turn, is the servant of God
the creator (Sr7Ltovpy6s) who is the ultimate lord, lawgiver, and
final judge.
Who represents this divine authority-for this is the crucial
question-in an immediate sense, for Hermas?Certainly, it is the
shepherd who appears in his vision; but what authority does the
shepherd represent? Von Campenhausen apparently takes the
shepherd as a symbol for the individual conscience. Thus he
declares that "even where the struggle against sin and sinners
begins . . . there is at first no thought of having officials to
control and direct the process of penance. This is most clearly
apparent in the Shepherd of Hermas ... repentance itself is left
to the individual."44Nevertheless, von Campenhausen elsewhere
observes that, in Hermas, "the leaders appear as shepherds to the
congregation."45The shepherd warns Hermas that if the "Lordof
the sheep" finds that some have fallen away,
. . it will be woe to the shepherds. But if the shepherds themselves are
found fallenaway, what shall they answerto the Masterof the flocks?
That they have fallen away because of the sheep?They will not be
believed,for it is incrediblethat a shepherdshallbe luredawayby the
sheep . . and I am the shepherd,and am very much boundto give
account for you.46

Finally, the angel explains to Hermas: "Ihave handed you over to

the shepherd, that you may be protected by him." Hermas is told
to obey the shepherd, and finally to "say to all that he is in great
honor and dignity with the Lord, and that he is set in great power,
and is powerful in his office."47
Our reading of the text suggests that the author does not have
in mind the "individual conscience" when he describes the
shepherd. Instead (as the Latin recension of the text clarifies and
stresses) he has in mind the leading members of the Roman

41Herm.Sim. 8.3.2.
42Herm.Sim. 9.30.2; 9.10.4; 9.28.7.
43Herm.Sim. 9.31.5-33.1; see Pernveden, Concept of the Church, 106: "The
Son of God is the Lord and Judge of the Church."
44EcclesiasticalAuthority, 141.
45EcclesiasticalAuthority, 96.
46Herm.Sim. 9.31.6.
47Herm.Sim. 10.1.2f. This Similitude is extant only in Latin manuscripts. For
a discussion of manuscripts and authorship, see especially S. Giet, Hermas et
Les Pasteurs (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1963) 47-107; 247-310; also W.
Coleborne, The Shepherd of Hermas (Studia Patristica 10.1; Berlin: 1970) 65-
70.
310 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

episcopacy who consider themselves responsible to protect,

admonish, teach, and judge the "laity."If this reading is accurate,
the message of, at least, the redacted Hermas is, indeed, that the
visionary and the church official may coexist in Rome in perfect
harmony-so long as the visionary fully acknowledges his
subordination to the clerical authorities.
The implicit message of Hermas, then, may be to depict the
"good" visionary-the visionary whom the church endorses and
approves. First, he defers voluntarily to the presbyters;second, he
defers to the martyrs (when reprimanded by the church); and
finally, and, perhaps, most important, he relates visions that
confirm and validate the dignity and the power of the episcopal
authority! What would happen if a visionary challenged this
doctrine of God-as the one who stands alone at the pinnacle of
the divine hierarchyand sanctions the whole structure?We do not
have to guess: we can see what happens when Valentinus, a
member of a Christian group in Egypt, probably educated in
Alexandria, comes to Rome (c. A.D. 140) as a highly respected
poet and teacher.48 Like Hermas, Valentinus claims to have
received a vision; unlike Hermas, however, he also claims to have
been initiated into secret wisdom tradition by Theudas, a disciple
of Paul.49On the basis of these revelations, Valentinus offers to
teach "to the mature"his "hiddenwisdom" which reveals that the
one whom most Christians worship as creator, god, and father is
only the "image" of the true God.50Consequently, the epithets
that such Christians as Clement and Hermas attribute to God
actually apply, he claims, only to the demiurge, his copy and
likeness. It is not the true God, but the demiurge who reigns as
"king"over his subjects,5'who rules as lord,52who figures as the
"military commander" of Matt 8, declaring that he is "set in
authority" over many subordinates.53 Above all, he is the
lawgiver, disciplinarian, and judge who rewards those who obey

48Forreferences,cf. ErwinPreuschen,"Valentinus,Gnostiker,"RE 20, 396-

417; TertullianAdversusValentinianos 4.
49Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata(GCSed. O. Stihlin;Leipzig:1906)VII.7.
50Stromata IV 89.6-90.1.
51OrigenCommentarium in Johan.(GCS ed. E. Preuschen;Leipzig:1903)
'aotYLXLKb' 6 'HpaKXCWU ?'YEtV
XIII.60: EOLKE6c TV' 677.tLOvpyOb',
dW7rE Kat
a3irb1 aoaXEvE air6 6'a & r' /.tLKpv aCroi Ka'LrIp6uKpOtEi/at
riov'r7r'
"'v i rrb
r7l7' rlt', 3aoLtXLtKbO q rtq
IoYflXortcY', oSPoftkEVq
oo01EE't LKPOt (hereafter cited as
KaOoXLKOD 7P 'CO-dO•aOr,
aoULtXos 7TETy/.7e'OS JPaUtXELaqS
Comm.Jo.). i.TtKpaD

52AH 4.1-5.
53AH1.7.4.
 ELAINEH. PAGELS 311
his commandments, and punishes those who violate them;54in
short, he is the "God of the Jews."55Valentinus'followers explain
that the creator's arrogant claim to exclusive power ("I am God,
and there is no other") reveals his ignorance of the true source of
that power, namely, the "Father of truth," the Source and the
Depth of all things.56 Hans Jonas, recognizing this as the
fundamental theme of gnostic theology, interprets the gnostic
indictment of the creator as expressing a sense of "alienation"
from cosmic existence.57 One may, however, read this theme as
expressing alienation in a social sense as well--specifically,
alienation from the church that represents the majority of the
Christian community. Certainly churchmen and bishops ground-
ed in Roman tradition recognize the devastating implications of
Valentinus' doctrine of God. Tertullian, an apologist for Roman
tradition, directly accuses Valentinus of refusing to submit to the
superior authority of the bishop. For what reason? Tertullian
explains that Valentinus coveted that superior position himself,
and initially expected to attain it. When another man was made
bishop instead, Valentinus, filled with envy and frustrated
ambition, cut himself off from the church to found a rival group
of his own.58
Tertullian's story is a rather unlikely one. In the first place, it
reads like a typical morality tale of the origin of heresy from "envy
and ambition." Secondly, Irenaeus reports that the followers of
Valentinus consider themselves to be fully members of the
church, who indignantly resist "orthodox" attempts to expel
them.59This suggests that the zealous "orthodox," rather than
those they called heretics, actually necessitated the break.
Nevertheless, his account does show that many Christians,
including Tertullian himself, see the controversy Valentinus
engendered as a conflict over the question of spiritual authority.
Tertullian depicts Valentinus, then, as one whose attitude
toward authority contrasts sharply with Hermas'. If Hermas
personifies the "good" visionary (from the standpoint of
ecclesiastical authority), his contemporary, Valentinus,

54Comm. Jo. XX,38: . . 6 Kp KPL'a iaGKoX&?(v or7' Motwa, TOV7UrTrt

aroq0 6
r H 3.12.6-12.
vo~oOC-r7.
55A
56AH 1.5.3-4.
57"Delimitation of the Gnostic Phenomenon," in: Le Origini dello
Gnosticismo (ed. U. Bianchi; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 91f.
58Adversus Valentinianos 4.
59AH 3.15.2.
312 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
personifies the "bad" visionary. Hermas endorses both the
theological and ecclesiastical authority of the church leaders;
Valentinus calls both into question. Above all, he refuses to
submit himself to the duly appointed bishop as to his spiritual
superior. Tertullian's account, even (and perhaps especially) if
unhistorical, illustrates what church leaders find reprehensible
about Valentinus and his teaching: Tertullian suspects, appar-
ently, that his theological doctrine bears clear implications for
practice. Tertullian's suspicions find some confirmation in the
writings of Ptolemy and Heracleon, the two Valentinianteachers
most prominent in the west (A.D. 160-80). These gnostic teachers,
like their orthodox opponents, take for granted the correlation
between theology and practice. Further,they share the same theo-
logical vocabulary as Clement, Justin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus.
They, too, describe the church as the "newIsrael"60that worships
God "in Jerusalem."61Those who enter into the "new covenant"
receive baptism "for repentance and forgiveness of sins" through
the sacrifice of Jesus, the "slain lamb," and.offer the eucharist in
remembrance of him.62
Yet, while ecclesiastical Christians use this typological pattern
to describe the whole Christian church, Heracleon and Ptolemy
interpretit in a different-and indeed, in a polemical-way. What
most Christians call the new Israel, the Valentinians call the
psychic church. "Jerusalem"symbolizes only the psychic level of
worship,63where the "priests and Levites" who "symbolize the
psychics found in salvation"64offer the "baptism of the visible
Jesus" and the eucharist as a sign of Jesus' sacrifice for sins.65
Above all they fear and serve the demiurge as "God of the Jews."
Heracleon goes on to say that the psychics are restricted to
worship only in the "outer court" of the temple.66 For they
worship "in error and ignorance" the one who "is not really
God,"67and so remain merely slaves to their master and lord,
sheep needing a shepherd, subjects to the lawgiver and judge.68In
all this they remain "blind"--and to what? Precisely to the

60Comm. Jo. XIII.60.

61Comm. Jo. XIII.16.
62Comm. Jo. VI.60; X. 19.
63Comm.Jo. XIII.16.
64Comm. Jo. X.33.
65AH 1.21.1-4.
66Comm.Jo. X.33.
67Comm.Jo. XIII.19.
68Hippolytos, Refutatio 6.34.
 ELAINE H. PAGELS 313
recognition that the power they ignorantly serve, fear, and obey is
not really what it claims to be-the power of God!
Irenaeus, like Tertullian, realizes that this Valentinian
reinterpretation of Jewish typology undermines ecclesiastical
authority. He declares that the heretics malign the church by
"deprecatingthe type," that is, Israel.69 Furthermore,their claim
to offer secret teaching and secret sacraments causes believers to
"blaspheme" both the sacraments and the ministers of the
church.70
Irenaeus' accounts of the "redemption"(&rroXhrpwsoop ) ritual
indicate the accuracy of his contention. Clearly the Valentinians
are disobedient to ecclesiastical authority; they "assemble in
unauthorized meetings"71-that is, in meetings not authorized by
the bishop and presbyters. At these secret services they attempt to
raise doubts in the minds of their audience. Is the teaching they
have received in the church actually satisfying and complete, or
not?72Have the sacraments they received offered them complete
initiation into the mysteries of the Christian faith, or only a first
step?73Members of the inner circle suggest that the doctrines
communicated publicly in the "psychic"church-the doctrines of
sin, repentance, forgiveness, and faith in "the visible Jesus"-are
actually only the "elementary doctrines." They point out that
even Christ himself and the apostles who founded the church
taught one doctrine to "those outside" and another to "those
within" to whom "is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom
of God."74Through such practices they undermine the authority
of church leaders who resist gnosis, claiming that such persons are
"ignorant of God." Instead of representing God, as they claim,
they remain blind servants of the demiurge!
The candidate learns through gnostic initiation to reject that
demiurgic authority and all its demands as "foolishness." What
gnostics "know"is that the demiurge himself makes false claims
to power ("I am God, and there is none other") that derive from
his own ignorance. Gnosis consists in recognizing the powers
beyond the demiurge: whoever attains it is released from the
demiurge's rule.75 Receiving the redemption sacrament, the

69AH 4.30.3.
70AH 1.21.1; 1.6.4.
71AH 3.3.2.
72AH 3.15.2.
73AH 1.21.1-2.
74A H 3.5-11.
75AH 1.21.4-5.
314 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
candidate ritually declares his independence from the demiurge.76
He informs the demiurge that he no longer belongs to his sphere
of authority: "they claim that they have attained to a height
beyond every power, and that therefore they are free to act as they
please, having no one to fear in anything; for they claim that
because of the redemption, they cannot be apprehended, or even
perceived, by the judge."77
As the ritual dramatically changes the initiate's relationship to
the demiurge, so it changes simultaneously his relationship to the
bishop. Previously, he was taught to submit to the bishop "as to
God," since, he was told, the bishop rules, commands, andjudges
"in God's place." Now he sees that such restrictions apply only to
the psychic Christians who still fear and serve the demiurge.
Gnosis offers nothing less than a theological justification for
refusing to obey the episcopal authorities who are now seen as the
"rulersand powers" who rule on earth in the demiurge's name.
The Valentinian gnostic admits that the bishop, like the demiurge
himself, exercises legitimate authority over the psychic church.78
But the bishop's demands, warnings, and threats, like those of the
demiurge himself, can no longer touch the one who has been
"redeemed."79
The candidate receives from his "initiation into gnosis" an
entirely new conception of spiritual authority. He now "knows"
that the structure of the "psychic church" derives from the
structure of demiurgic authority rather than from the Father.
Now he can read orthodox theological and ecclesiological
statements in an entirely new-and negative-light. The whole
paradigm of superiority and subordination that, in Roman
tradition, characterizes God's relation to his people (and is the
basis for the "clergy's"relation to the "laity") now appears as
typical of demiurgic rule. When Clement enjoins the believer to
"fear God," or Hermas demands, "confess that you have a Lord,"
or Tertullian and Irenaeus warn that "God will judge" the sinner,
the gnostic may hear all of these as attempts to reassert the false
claims of the demiurge's power-and specifically of his earthly
representatives-over the believer. Even in the demiurge's
"foolish"assertion that "I am God, and there is none other," the
gnostic could hear the bishop's claim to exercise exclusive power
over the community. In his warning "I am a jealous God," the

76AH 1.13.6.
77Ibid.
78AH 1.7.4.
79AH 1.13.6; 1.21.5.
 ELAINE H. PAGELS 315

gnostic might recognize as well the bishop's "jealousy"of those

who are beyond his authority.
Now we recall that this controversy occurs during the very
time--c. A.D. 110-200-when the earlier, more diversified forms
of church leadership are giving way to a more unified,
systematized hierarchy of church office. The "ranks"of bishop,
priests, deacons, and laity are being arranged in clear order of
superiority and subordination, on the Roman model. In the
process, the office of bishop is becoming centralized. The second
century witnesses the emergence of the monarchical bishop as the
dominant form of church authority. Finally, as von
Campenhausen has shown, the bishop's power as disciplinarian
and judge is, during this time, increasingly consolidated. Could
certain gnostic movements represent, then, resistance to this
process? Could they be among the critics who oppose the
formalization of church hierarchy?
Several of the newly discovered texts from Nag Hammadi
appear to confirm this hypothesis. They offer what may be a
gnostic critique of "ecclesiastical" church order, based on the
contrast between two different principles of spiritual power.
These texts suggest that, although their attack on the demiurge
involves a negative view of the "psychic"structure of authority,
the Valentinians concern themselves far more with the positive
view of spiritualauthority expressed in the Father'srelation to the
pneumatic elect. The motivating energy of this authority differs
from psychic authority as the Father's love differs from the
demiurge'senvy and wrath. As the author of The Gospel of Truth
declares, "The Father was not envious. For what envy is there
between Him and his members?"80"For they did not think of the
Father as small, nor as bitter, nor wrathful; but He is wholly
good, unperturbable,and sweet."81Therefore his children are not
envious (as, the text implies, are the offspring of the demiurge);
instead, like the Father and his Son, they express boundless love
to one another.82The writer of The Tripartite Tractateexplicitly
contrasts the structure of relationships between the "children of
the Father,"on the one hand, and the "offspringof the demiurge"
on the other. The Father's children are "full and perfect,"
honoring their Father "in a perfect way from the community"
The
(KOLt&(V'aE).83 Fatherwills "thatthey should know him in
80Gos. Truth 18.38-40.
81Gos. Truth 42.3-8.
82Gos. Truth 42.19-30: "They have neither envy nor sighing, ... but they
rest in him who is at rest. ... The Father is in them, and they are in the Father."
83Tri.Trac. 69.7-10.
316 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

unity, and help one another through the spirit which has been
sown in them."84In their harmony they mirrorthe divine pleroma
itself, being begotten "from the thought of brotherly love."85
Others, who come into being from "the thought of pride,"86
"wished to command one another, lording it over them in their
empty ambition"; they are "lifted up to a love of authority .
each of them imagines that he is greaterthan his fellows."87Above
all they are as jealous, envious, wrathful, and ignorant as the
power who brought them into existence. Yet the writer envisions
the time when the "deficient one" shall himself receive
illumination, and strip from himself "that thought of pride."
When he does, his offspring themselves shall turn from their
ignorance, and their arrogance shall be "shaken";then they will
consent to learn from "their brothers"-presumably, the
elect-who secretly exercise spiritual care (the text reads
over them!88
7rLUKOKr?')
Another Valentinian tractate discovered at Nag Hammadi,
The Interpretationof Knowledge, presents a similar ecclesiologi-
cal theory. The author first distinguishes between two different
principles of spiritual authority: the "arrogant master"89who,
being "ignorant of God," is characterized by jealousy, and the
"trueFather"who exemplifies the fullness of love. Those persons
who serve the master, being "ignorant of God," consequently
envy the spiritual gifts of others.90But those who know and love
the Father express love freely to one another: they suffer to-
gether, work together, and rejoice in each other's spiritual gifts.91
As in The Tripartite Tractate, the pleromic aions serve as a
paradigmof the relationship of the pneumatic elect; these dwell in
"harmonious unity" with each other and with the Father.92The
author takes as his theme the Pauline image of the "body of
Christ" in which all the members dwell in perfect equality and
mutual love.
If such gnostics criticize the development of hierarchical
church order-on Scriptural grounds-how could they them-
selves form a social organization? If they reject the principle of

84Tri.Trac. 72.16-19; 70.22-29.

85Tri.Trac. 85.30-32.
86Tri. Trac. 78.15f., 28-31.
87Tri.Trac. 79.20-32.
88Tri.Trac. 90.14-25.
891nterp.Know. 9.20.
901nterp.Know. 9.37; 15.16-23.
91lnterp. Know. 15.26-16.33; 17.27f.
921nterp.Know. 17.35-18.26.
 ELAINEH. PAGELS 317
rank, of hierarchy, and of specific role, how could they even hold
a meeting?The question is a difficult one, since evidence of gnos-
tic practice remainsextremely scarce. Nevertheless, Irenaeushim-
self describes the actual procedure of one gnostic group, Marcus'
group of Valentinian gnostics; his account may give us a clue to
gnostic practice.
First, every member of the group meeting together has received
"initiation into gnosis," which means that every one has been
"released"from the demiurge's sphere of authority. It may be for
this reason that the group can meet without authorization from
the church authorities. Second, every initiate is presumed to have
received the holy spirit. Thus, as the "redemption" ritual
concludes, the candidate is invited to prophesy. The candidate
ritually responds, "I have never prophesied, and I do not know
how to prophesy." This is intended to indicate, apparently, that
prophetic utterance does not come from the person's own will or
power. The celebrant then "engages ... in certain invocations,"
presumably invoking the holy spirit to descend upon the
candidate. Then he again enjoins the candidate to "speak
whatever occurs to thee," to show that it is the spirit who
motivates the forthcoming utterance. Every member of the elect
circle, having received this initiation, is assumed to have received
the charismatic gift of prophecy through the spirit.93
How do members of this circle of pneumatics conduct their
meetings? Irenaeus says that "they are accustomed at their feasts
to draw the lot, and to bid each other to prophesy,"according to
the lot.94What does this mean? The term (KX~pog)applies to the
lot whereby something is won; secondly, to that which is won (a
share, a lot, an office); finally, in second-century ecclesiastical
writings, it denotes a group of those who have received a share
(i.e., an office). Harnack notes that "the Roman community was
the first to use KXhipog as roundly equivalent to 'clergy."'95
Tertullian and Hippolytus use the term in the technical sense to
discriminate between clergy and laity. The Valentinian use of
kleros, by contrast, contradicts this connotation in the same way
that Valentinian practice contradicts the Roman tradition of
establishing fixed "orders"of clergy and laity.
The drawing of lots demonstrates, in the first place, that no
distinctions of fixed orders divide the participants. The
Valentinians refuseto rank their membersin superior and inferior

931renaeusAH 1.13.3.
94AH 1.13.4.
95Constitutionand Law, 115.
318 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
"orders"within a hierarchy of spiritual authority. Instead, they
follow the principle of strict equality: all initiates participate
equally in the drawing; anyone, men and women alike, may be
called upon to prophesy. Furthermore, the members cast the lot
"continually." This means that the distinctions between the
prophetic speaker and the listeners which are established by lot
can never become fixed into permanent "ranks," as they are
among the ecclesiastical community. Finally, and most
important, the practice of drawing lots is intended to ensure that
the spirit alone directs the process of worship. Whether or not the
Valentinians explicitly refer their practice to Acts 1:17, they may
well have noted the purpose indicated in Acts 1:20:"let another
take his episcopacy They might conclude from this
(rl-LUKOrrj-))."
that their own practice of drawing lots to invoke the spirit's
direction in selecting leaders for worship reflects the practice of
the earliest church more accurately than does the practice of their
"orthodox" contemporaries, who insist on delineating fixed
orders of "clergy."
Such practices may have motivated Tertullian's attack on the
"behavior of the heretics":
How frivolous, how worldly, how merely human it is, without
seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as fits their faith. To
begin with, it is uncertain who is a catechumen, and who a believer:they
all have access equally, they listen equally, they pray equally--even
pagans, if they happen to come. .... They also mingle the kiss of peace
with all who come, for they do not care how differently they treat topics,
if they meet together to storm the citadel of truth, which is one and
single. . . . All of them are arrogant; all offer you knowledge. .. .96

The principle of equal access, equal participation, and equal

claims to gnosis certainly impresses Tertullian. He takes this,
however, as evidence that the heretics "overthrowdiscipline." He
assumes that proper authority and discipline require certain
degrees of inequality between members of the community.
Tertullian protests especially the participation of "these women
among the heretics" in positions of authority: "they teach, they
engage in disputation; they exorcise, they cure"-he suspects that
they may even baptize, which would mean that they too exercise
episcopal authority. Tertullian also objects that
Their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious, and
changeable. At one time they put novices in office; at another, persons
bound by secular employment. ... So today one man is bishop and

96TertullianDe praescriptione haereticorum 41.

 ELAINEH. PAGELS 319
tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a
reader;the one who is a presbytertodayis a laymantomorrow;for even
on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood!97

This remarkable passage reveals what distinctions Tertullian

considers essential to disciplined church order: The distinction
between newcomers and experienced Christians; between a
"professional" clergy and persons occupied with ordinary
employment; between women and men; between readers,
deacons, priests, and bishops, that is, the distinct "orders"among
"the clergy";and above all, between laymen and priests. Among
the Valentinians, on the other hand, these distinctions are
meaningless-or, more accurately, they are taken as evidence that
the spirit of ambition, lust for power, and envy prevail in the
"psychic church." The process of continuous selection by lot,
which ensures the equality of all believers and the participation of
all as the spirit directs, then, apparentlyis one of the practices that
implements Valentinian ecclesiological theory. Under this
system, hierarchiescannot form, nor can fixed "orders"of clergy
and laity. Since each member's role changes every day, occasions
for favoritism or for envy against prominent persons are
minimized. Such a community, so long as it could sustain itself,
might indeed realize "equality in community."
How is the bishop who defines his role in traditional Roman
terms, as shepherd, ruler, teacher, and judge of the church, to
respond to this Valentinian critique? Irenaeus sees that he, as
bishop, has been placed in a kind of double-bind situation.
Certain members of his flock have been meeting without his
authority in private discussion; they have been initiated into
secret sacraments by unauthorized, self-appointed mystagogues;
they have been encouraged to violate the bishop's moral teachings
and to flout his warnings of judgment. Contrary to his orders,
they do eat meat sacrificed to idols; they freely attend pagan
festivals, and transgress his strict warnings concerning sexual
continence and monogamy.98What Irenaeusfinds most galling of
all is that instead of repenting, or even openly defying the bishop,
they respond to his protests with diabolically clever theologigal
arguments. Whenever anyone demands explanation of them, or
objects to their teaching, "they claim that he is not a person
capable of receiving the truth. . . . They really give no answer,

971bid.
98AH1.6.2-3.
320 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
but simply declare that he belongs among the psychics."99
Irenaeus complains that "because we do not accept their
monstrous allegations they call us psychic, common, or ecclesi-
astic. They say that we are not capable of raising our minds to the
things on high, and that we cannot udderstandthe 'thingsthat are
above.""'00Irenaeus is outraged at their claim that they, being
pneumatic, are released from the ethical restraints that he, as a
mere servant of the demiurge, ignorantly seeks to foist upon
them.
To defend the church against these self-styled Biblical
theologians, Irenaeus realizes that he must forge theological
weapons. Irenaeus believes that if he can demolish the heretical
doctrine of "another god besides the creator" he can destroy
simultaneously the possibility of ignoring or defying-on
allegedly theological grounds-the authority of the "one
universal church," and of its bishops. Like his opponents,
Irenaeus takes for granted the correlation between the structure
of divine authority and the human authority in the church. If God
is one, then there can be only one true church, and one authorized
representative of that God in the community-the bishop.
Irenaeus takes, therefore, as his primary and constant
theological theme the oneness of God, creator, father, and judge.
Having established this principle, he goes on to warn that it is this
one God who has established the church; He is the one who
"presides with those who exercise moral discipline" in the
churches.'0' Irenaeus realizes the difficulty of arguing theology
with those who claim to agree with him on every point, but who
secretly negate all that he says on the grounds that his own
understanding is merely psychic. Therefore he feels impelled, in
the name of the one God he worships, to conclude his treatise with
a solemn call to church discipline and judgment:
Let those persons who blaspheme the creator, whether openly, as the
Marcionites do, or by distorting the reading of the Scriptures, as do the
Valentinians and all the falsely so-called gnostics, be recognized as agents
of Satan by all who worship God. Through their agency Satan even now
is speaking against the God who has preparedeternal fire for every kind
of apostasy. 02

99AH 3.15.2.
'OAH 2. 16.4.
o'1AH 3.25.1.
'02AH 5.26. 1.
 ELAINEH. PAGELS 321
He warns that "some who are considered to be among the
orthodox"'03have much to fear in the coming judgment unless
(and this, I believe, is his main practical point) they now repent,
submit themselves in humility to the church leaders, and accept
the "advancediscipline" the bishop shall administer to spare the
repentant eternal damnation.'04
Nevertheless to characterize this debate in terms popular
among 19th-century historians-as if members of the laity,
claiming charismatic inspiration, are contending against an
organized, spiritless hierarchy of presbyters and bishops-would
be a mistake. Irenaeus clearly indicates the opposite: Many
persons whom he censures as teachers of false, gnostic doctrine
are themselves prominent members of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. In one case he writes to Victor, bishop of Rome, to
warn him that certain gnostic writings were circulating in the
Roman community. He considers these writings especially
pernicious because they claim the prestige of coming from a
presbyter,a man named Florinus who, like Irenaeushimself, had
been a pupil of Polycarp. Nevertheless, as Irenaeus warns Victor,
this presbyter is also secretly a gnostic initiate.'05 In Adversus
haereses, Irenaeus complains that "those whom many believe to
be presbyters, who are full of pride at their prominence in the
community, actually do not fear God"'-their creator and judge!
Such persons, he declares, are secretly gnostics, men "who work
evil deeds in secret, saying, 'no one sees us.'""06He explains that
though "the followers of Valentinus . . do indeed confess with
the tongue one God the Father," they do so with private mental
reservations, maintaining that "he who created all things is the
fruit of an apostasy."'07Irenaeus intends to expose those who
outwardly are orthodox members of the episcopal community,
but who are privately members of the gnostic circle.
How, then, is one to distinguish between true and false
presbyters?Irenaeus argues that since there are not "two gods,"
there cannot be two distinct sources of revelation, one
"ecclesiastical,"derived from common church tradition, the other
"gnostic,"derived through esoteric tradition. This, then, becomes
the criterion for judgment:

'03AH 5.31.1.
'04AH 5.35.2.
'051renaeusAd Florinum, in: Eusebius Historia ecclesiae 5.20.4-8; idem Ad
Victorem (ed. W. W. Harvey 2, 457; frg. 51).
'06AH 4.26.3.
'07AH4.33.3.
322 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
One must obey the presbyters who are in the church-that is, as I have
shown, those who possess the succession from the apostles. For they
receive simultaneously with the episcopal succession the sure gift of
truth.

Irenaeus continues,
One must hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive
succession, and assemble themselves in any place whatsoever. These one
must recognizeas heretics . . . or as schismatics . . . or as hypocrites. All
of these have fallen from the truth.108

Irenaeus intends this indictment not as a mere rhetorical

flourish but as a solemn theological judgment. If God is indeed
one, Creator and Lord, any claim to spiritual authority which
does not derive from him can derive from only one source-from
Satan. Irenaeus ironically agrees with the gnostics that there are
two traditions of revelation, each with its distinct line of
succession and transmission;but, he insists, only one derives from
God-that is the one the church receives through Christ and his
chosen apostles, especially Peter, its founder. The other allegedly
"apostolic" tradition derives directly from Satan, and traces its
succession from Peter's archenemy, Simon Magus. Irenaeus
considers that Simon's desire to exercise spiritual authority
independent of the proper, apostolic channels epitomizes the
whole heretical endeavor. In this sense he depicts Simon as the
one "from whom all heresies originate":'09
All those who corrupt the truth, and denigratethe teaching of the church,
are the disciples and successors of Simon Magus of Samaria. . . . They
set forth, indeed, the name of Christ Jesus as a sort of lure, but in many
ways they introduce the impieties of Simon . . . spreading to their
hearers the bitter and malignant poison of the great serpent, the great
author of heresy."I0

Like Tertullian after him, Irenaeus prescribes only one remedy

for the "scorpion's sting": to repudiate the teaching of "another
God";to confess the one God, to returnto the one church, and to
submit oneself to the authority of its designated representatives.
This does not mean that Irenaeus'theological argumentsare to
be read simply as disguised church politics. If the evidence
indicates that theological debate over the structure of divine
authority involves debate over ecclesiastical authority, this does

IosAH 4.26.2.
109A
H 1.23.2.
IIA H 1.27.4.
 ELAINEH. PAGELS 323
not reduce theological issues to political ones. Rather, it helps to
show how these issues are interconnected in the actual life of
second-century communities. The controversy between those
who assert the oneness of God and those who rejectit involves the
critical issues of the development of socio-political structures
within the church. One can see, then, that here, as throughout
Christian history, theologians on all sides of the debate assume
that theological convictions serve as the conceptual basis for
ecclesiastical organization.
Our sources show how this process changes from the first
century through the second. The author of 1 Clement gives no
indication that he opposes a theology that appeals to a higher
authority than the creator. Apparently he intends simply to
develop a theological rationale for the authority of those he
considers the properly ordained church leaders. But as second-
century ecclesiastical writers increasingly followed his example,
using the Pentateuch to justify the ecclesiastical order against a
variety of opposing groups, those groups would have a strong
motive for attributing that order (as the Valentinians do) to the
one Paul calls the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4)."'
On the other hand, if the evidence suggests that certain gnostics
opposed the development of institutional church hierarchy, one
need not assume that gnosticism arose simply in reaction to the
formation of such hierarchy.112 Gnostic writings indicate instead
that such groups as the Valentinians shared a religious vision of
God as spirit, as source, as love, and of the church as the "body of
Christ,"a vision that proved incompatible with the development
of church hierarchy;hence they resisted it. One might recall such
examples from the history of Christianity as Martin Luther,
whose religious experience and consequent conflict with his
ecclesiastical superiors finally impelled him to repudiate the
whole structure of papal authority, or George Fox, whose
intuition of the "innerlight" led him to reject the whole structure
of Puritan authority, political and ecclesiastical.
Finally, if the doctrine of God (and particularly of the
demiurge) propounded by Valentinian gnostics correlates with
their view of actual church authorities, further investigation of
the figure of the demiurge as he appears in different types of
gnostic literature may indicate how members of such gnostic
groups perceivetheir relation to non-gnostic religious authorities.

I"'AH 3.7.1.
1121 am grateful to Professor Morton Smith for contributing these points to
the discussion, and for his helpful criticism throughout its formulation.
324 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
We might expect that those who characterize the demiurge as
implacably hostile, arrogant, and envious of the higher powers"3
place themselves in a position of unremitting opposition to the
authorities that bear "the demiurge's"name and claim to exercise
his power. On the other hand, such groups as the Valentinians
who characterize the demiurge as the instrument of the higher
powers, one who serves a valid function in supervising the
"psychic church," thereby indicate that they are willing to accept
the structure of the orthodox church as a provisional one (for
psychics, if not for themselves). When bishop Irenaeusand others
reject such theology and ecclesiology, they, in turn, serve notice
that they refuse to accept the presence of persons within the
church who claim exemption from the doctrinal and disciplinary
order that (Irenaeus insists) are binding "catholically" on all
Christians alike.

I
13See, e.g., The Hypostasis of the Archons.